What are the major imports and exports of Asia and Austrilia?
I am looking for reliable websites that show the major imports and exports of both Asia and Australia. Best answer get the 10 points!!
Economics - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
This website only has individual countries, but is very reliable: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ For example: China: Exports - commodities: machinery and equipment, plastics, optical and medical equipment, iron and steel Imports - commodities: machinery and equipment, oil and mineral fuels, plastics, optical and medical equipment, organic chemicals, iron and steel Australia: Exports - commodities: coal, gold, meat, wool, alumina, iron ore, wheat, machinery and transport equipment Imports - commodities: machinery and transport equipment, computers and office machines, telecommunication equipment and parts; crude oil and petroleum products
Read more discussions:
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Is there a significant Afrikaans speaking population in Asia?
Is there a significant Afrikaans speaking population in Asia?
I am aware that it is predominantly spoken in S. Africa but are there a lot of Afrikaaners living abroad in Asia?
Languages - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Maybe. It means "African" in Dutch, and is related to Dutch. Maybe you could google a map of the Afrikaans-speaking world. I just looked on Wikipedia (not always a very reliable source), and it said there are small Afrikaaner communities in Taiwan.
Read more discussions:
I am aware that it is predominantly spoken in S. Africa but are there a lot of Afrikaaners living abroad in Asia?
Languages - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Maybe. It means "African" in Dutch, and is related to Dutch. Maybe you could google a map of the Afrikaans-speaking world. I just looked on Wikipedia (not always a very reliable source), and it said there are small Afrikaaner communities in Taiwan.
Read more discussions:
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Europe a separate continent when they are attached entirely.?
Why is Asia a continent and Europe a separate continent when they are attached entirely.?
Isn't the division between Asia and Europe only political, and not geographical?
Geography - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I don't know why they would do that. I just think that they didn't Asia and Europe to be too big. So they split it. That's my theory. I'm probably wrong.
2 :
the Ural mountains separate them
3 :
The two contents are divided by the Ural Mountains, which is the boundary between Asia & Europe, it extends from kazakstan to the arctic ocean.
4 :
The Asian people is totally different from European people, the appearance, the culture, the clothes, the History, etc.
5 :
All geologists and a lot of (most? all?) geographers don't recognize Europe as a separate continent, but a cultural region of the Eurasian continent. Having the Urals as a boundary is meaningless and arbitrary. Let's call California a separate continent. The Sierra Nevada separates the continent of California from North America. Mountains don't separate continents, tectonic plates do. Europe and Asia are on one plate, the Eurasian Plate.
6 :
Continents are not necessarily physically separated. For example North America and South America.
7 :
Continents, on the other hand, are fairly concrete, and we can turn once again to Mr. Webster, where we find that a continent is "one of the usually seven great divisions of land on the globe." The seven referred to are North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and Antarctica, and the "usually" is thrown in for those that prefer to think of Europe and Asia as "Eurasia," dropping the number to six. If you'd like to join the upstart cartographers, you can throw in "The Middle East" and bring the number back up to seven, or include them all for a grand total of eight. Just don't expect most people to consider you a wealth of geographic knowledge. First of all, geography in years past was never the exact science we know today. The western boundary of "The East", that is, the dividing line between east and west, until as late as the 19th century, was often considered to be the Nile River (although other boundaries, such as Russia's Don River, had their adherents), lumping Egyptian culture and history in with what they were coming to define as "Asian" traits. It was ultimately these traits that really formed the notion of the separation between Europe and Asia (and eventually Africa was considered separate from Europe), with the three known continents defined not by geographical boundaries, but as the domains of the white, black, and yellow people. That's only part of the article. Go to the source for more. Hope that helps ^_^
Read more discussions:
Isn't the division between Asia and Europe only political, and not geographical?
Geography - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I don't know why they would do that. I just think that they didn't Asia and Europe to be too big. So they split it. That's my theory. I'm probably wrong.
2 :
the Ural mountains separate them
3 :
The two contents are divided by the Ural Mountains, which is the boundary between Asia & Europe, it extends from kazakstan to the arctic ocean.
4 :
The Asian people is totally different from European people, the appearance, the culture, the clothes, the History, etc.
5 :
All geologists and a lot of (most? all?) geographers don't recognize Europe as a separate continent, but a cultural region of the Eurasian continent. Having the Urals as a boundary is meaningless and arbitrary. Let's call California a separate continent. The Sierra Nevada separates the continent of California from North America. Mountains don't separate continents, tectonic plates do. Europe and Asia are on one plate, the Eurasian Plate.
6 :
Continents are not necessarily physically separated. For example North America and South America.
7 :
Continents, on the other hand, are fairly concrete, and we can turn once again to Mr. Webster, where we find that a continent is "one of the usually seven great divisions of land on the globe." The seven referred to are North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and Antarctica, and the "usually" is thrown in for those that prefer to think of Europe and Asia as "Eurasia," dropping the number to six. If you'd like to join the upstart cartographers, you can throw in "The Middle East" and bring the number back up to seven, or include them all for a grand total of eight. Just don't expect most people to consider you a wealth of geographic knowledge. First of all, geography in years past was never the exact science we know today. The western boundary of "The East", that is, the dividing line between east and west, until as late as the 19th century, was often considered to be the Nile River (although other boundaries, such as Russia's Don River, had their adherents), lumping Egyptian culture and history in with what they were coming to define as "Asian" traits. It was ultimately these traits that really formed the notion of the separation between Europe and Asia (and eventually Africa was considered separate from Europe), with the three known continents defined not by geographical boundaries, but as the domains of the white, black, and yellow people. That's only part of the article. Go to the source for more. Hope that helps ^_^
Read more discussions:
Friday, January 1, 2010
East Asia and Western
A major difference between Western influence in East Asia and Western colonization in Africa is that?
A. in East Asia many Japanese and Chinese people prospered under European rule. B. most Africans were glad to accept Europe’s civilizing influences. C. Europeans were careful to preserve the traditions of the African people they ruled. D. millions of Africans died as a result of European policies and force.
History - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
D . Not many Chinese prospered when the west tried to pry into the nation and acquire spheres of influences (a); most Africans were aghast at the European invasion, hence the independence movements in the 20th centuries (b); and C could not be further from the truth. Look at the Boers in south africa who really did not respect the Zulu peoples.
2 :
A. True. In China and Japan, there were more individuals who prospered from colonial-related trade. Nobody in Africa prospered from colonialism. This is definitely a difference, so this is the correct answer. B. Not true, except for the obvious education and health care benefits, it was still a different culture. It is unlikely they preferred a different culture. This statement would be impossible to prove, anyway. C. Not true, Europeans always lived thier own way, with their own culture, rather than adapting to the cultures of the lands that they ruled. D. Somewhat true, somewhat false... but depends on what you mean. If you mean slavery, then true. But, that isn't colonialism. If you mean the boneheaded way they divided lands between enemy groups when they cut out and left Africa in the 1950s, and the resulting wars that happened after they left, then true. However, it is not true that Europeans killed millions of Africans specifically due to the colonization. So....I'd have to say A is the best answer.
3 :
Suck at history much? I take it u go to Caliva
4 :
I suggest that you read your text. You won't learn anything by having others do your homework for you.
5 :
C.Europeans were careful to preserve the traditions of the African people they ruled.
Read more discussions:
A. in East Asia many Japanese and Chinese people prospered under European rule. B. most Africans were glad to accept Europe’s civilizing influences. C. Europeans were careful to preserve the traditions of the African people they ruled. D. millions of Africans died as a result of European policies and force.
History - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
D . Not many Chinese prospered when the west tried to pry into the nation and acquire spheres of influences (a); most Africans were aghast at the European invasion, hence the independence movements in the 20th centuries (b); and C could not be further from the truth. Look at the Boers in south africa who really did not respect the Zulu peoples.
2 :
A. True. In China and Japan, there were more individuals who prospered from colonial-related trade. Nobody in Africa prospered from colonialism. This is definitely a difference, so this is the correct answer. B. Not true, except for the obvious education and health care benefits, it was still a different culture. It is unlikely they preferred a different culture. This statement would be impossible to prove, anyway. C. Not true, Europeans always lived thier own way, with their own culture, rather than adapting to the cultures of the lands that they ruled. D. Somewhat true, somewhat false... but depends on what you mean. If you mean slavery, then true. But, that isn't colonialism. If you mean the boneheaded way they divided lands between enemy groups when they cut out and left Africa in the 1950s, and the resulting wars that happened after they left, then true. However, it is not true that Europeans killed millions of Africans specifically due to the colonization. So....I'd have to say A is the best answer.
3 :
Suck at history much? I take it u go to Caliva
4 :
I suggest that you read your text. You won't learn anything by having others do your homework for you.
5 :
C.Europeans were careful to preserve the traditions of the African people they ruled.
Read more discussions:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)