Which statements are true about reactions to dr. king's assassination?
select all that apply

a. some leaders from around the world wept as they came to pay tribute to dr. king.

b. americans from all over the united states participated in a peaceful sit-in in washington, d. c.

c. civil rights leaders tried to persuade african americans to leave the country for their safety.

d. rioters killed people, looted, and destroyed homes and businesses.

e. millions of people all over the world watched his funeral on television.

B. Americans from all over the United States participated in a peaceful sit-in in Washington, D.C.

E. Millions of people all over the world watched his funeral on television.

D. Rioters killed people, looted, and destroyed homes and businesses.

Explanation:

Martin Luther King, Jr. born as Michael King Jr (Atlanta, Georgia, January 15, 1929 - Memphis, Tennessee, April 4, 1968) was an American pastor of the Baptist Church and an activist who developed crucial work in the United States. United in front of the movement for civil rights for African Americans and also participated as an activist in numerous protests against the war in Vietnam and poverty in general. For this activity aimed at ending US segregation and racial discrimination through non-violent means, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. Four years later, at a time when his work had been geared especially towards opposing the war and the fight against poverty, he was assassinated in Memphis, as he prepared to attend an informal dinner of friends.

The murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. is considered one of the magnicides of the 20th century. King is remembered as one of the greatest leaders and heroes in the history of the United States, and in the modern history of nonviolence. He was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter in 1977 and the Gold Medal of the United States Congress in 2004. Since 1986, Martin Luther King Jr. Day is a holiday in the United States.

food chain i would say only because there is competition on getting food and survival

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.