B. The Monroe Doctrine expressed the idea that new countries should be allowed to develop without interference from stronger nations. In your opinion, does the United States still follow this policy? Do you think that such a policy should be followed in the modern world? Cite news events and recent historical incidents to support your opinion.

(This would have to be in your own opinion, "develop without interference from stronger nations" or a conclusion/ reasoning from the stronger nations to develop.) (Do you think that they still follow this in the United States? Treaties signed during and after the World war 2 reflecting a policy of greater cooperation between North and south America colonies. The United states continued to use Monroe Doctrine to justify its interference in the affairs of its southern neighbors.)(do you think such a policy should be followed in the modern world? This is also your opinion so it's up to you but the policy was made to warn Europe that the United states would not tolerate further colonization. The latian American countries already won their independence from Spain and Portugal but they were worried that the powers of continental Europe would make future attempts to restore colonial regimes in the region.) And depending on your opinion you can find cities and evidence for it. I'm sorry if this is confusing but I hope it helps you understand a little more

The Monroe Doctrine expressed the idea that new countries should be allowed to develop without interference from stronger nations . In my opinion, no, the United States does not still follow this policy . I personally don't think that such a policy should be or could be followed in the modern world. I believe this for a few reasons. One being that all these countries  now are being much more independent, so they wouldn't need to have any higher power or nation to tell them when and how to develop a country.  Second reason being that there are barely any more new developing countries, once again no need for higher countries or nations. And lastly, 'the United States has been involved in different acts around the world that would suggest that the Monroe doctrine should only be applied when the country was a new or weak country, now that it is a strong country, it does not consider that doctrine applicable .' We don't have any current events that proves that the Monroe Doctrine is still in effect because our old enemies are Allies or chill with the US.                                                                                                                      

     I don't think that the Monroe Doctrine policy should be or could be followed in the modern world, because of the independence and strength that the countries have accommodated. It wouldn't be able to be followed, because since the Monroe Doctrine policy would only really target weaker or newer countries it still wouldn't really even apply to the pre existing countries that we already have . The United States still likes to intervene though regardless of its position. Some  examples of the United States intervening would be 'the coup d'etat of Pinochet in Chile under the government of President Nixon in 1973, the coup against Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1984. and suppressing protests in foreign countries as happened in Panama in 1964 under the mandate of President Johnson in 2016 .'

   Another reason why the Monroe Doctrine Policy shouldn't or couldn't be followed in the modern world is because there are barely any new or developing countries popping up on Earth . The Monroe Doctrine policy couldn't apply to a newer or weaker country if it doesn't exist . And if it isn't there that's another reason why the United States couldn't intervene . An example of the United States intervening with an existing country would be the constant invasion of Middle Eastern countries in the search for nuclear weapons or terrorist groups that could threaten US sovereignty, as well as the recent friction with Iran.                                                                                                                                        

  And the last reason being that the Monroe Doctrine Policy only applies to newer and Weaker countries. Since the United States isn't one of those., it being one of the bigger and more stronger countries , they are definitely not going to follow that and just d o whatever they want to do as a country because they wouldn't see it as applicable to them, deeming the Monroe Doctrine Policy useless.                                                                      

    'Therefore, the inclusion of the United States of America as a powerful country by alternative countries is simple and demonstrates that the Monroe Doctrine, dispensed by President James Monroe, is not any longer applied by the country, at a time once more than ever countries ought to exercise their own government and be architects of its future.' So no, the United States does not still follow this policy, and it shouldn't be used in the Modern World periodt.                                

from the religious point of view, the conflicts began because of the enmity between catholic and protestants. in 1649, at the insistence of baltimore, the colonial assembly approved the act of religious tolerance, the first law in the colonies granting freedom of worship, though only for christians. in 1654, however, with the protestants of maryland in the majority, the act was revoked. the almost civil war broke out and order was not restored until 1658, when lord baltimore was returned to power.

on the issue of class conflict, the chesapeake region offered few economic opportunities to contract employees who had served their term of obligation. even with the small amount of capital needed to grow tobacco, former hired servants at best became subsistence farmers, a mature class for those called to rebellion, such as those proposed by nathaniel bacon. as the number of new hired workers declined because of limited chances of progress and reports of severe treatment, they were replaced by african slaves.

from the racial point of view, after 1660, the chesapeake colonies imposed laws that defined slavery as a lifelong and hereditary condition based on race. this made slaves profitable because planters could rely not only on their work but also on their children. the slave population, which numbered four thousand in virginia and maryland in 1675, grew significantly by the end of the century.