In what ways did Nazi actions during World War II violate each of the “four freedoms” described by President Roosevelt?

Freedom of speech and expression. Everywhere the Germans went during World War II they suppressed basic human rights. Free speech and expression had been banned by the Nazis not long after they took power and they showed a similar contempt for this freedom in the territories they conquered and occupied. Subject peoples were not allowed to speak out against their new masters on pain of death. They were expected to do as they were told and keep quiet.
The freedom of everyone to worship God in their own way. For the most part, the Nazis allowed people to worship as they pleased so long as they didn't use faith as a vehicle for defying their rule. However, this didn't apply to Jews, who were systematically rounded up by the Nazis and deported to concentration and extermination camps were they were murdered in their millions.
Freedom from want. Once the Germans had conquered a particular territory, they immediately set about exploiting it for their own gain. The Nazis regarded the people they conquered as racially inferior, and so had no moral qualms about depriving them of basic needs. All that mattered were the needs of the so-called master race. Systematic exploitation led to widespread shortages, with what little food there was available doled out in ever diminishing rations.
Freedom from fear. Nazi rule, both in Germany and in the occupied territories, was based on fear. Entire populations were deliberately kept in a state of permanent fear to make it hard for them to resist. Most people were too frightened to challenge the regime and its atrocities, knowing full well that if they did, they could end up being sent to concentration camps or even summarily executed. To be sure, there were isolated acts of brave resistance, but the vast majority of people kept their heads down, too frightened as they were to challenge the Nazis' brutal, repressive rule.

How did Americans interpret the causes of the economic crisis in the 1930s, and how did the government respond to it? How were these government responses received by the American people? How did the New Deal welfare state shape the meanings and realities of freedom in the United States? To what extent did the New Deal shape modern America?

The Great Depression (1929–1939) was the worst economic crisis in the history of the United States. It was also the greatest threat to the nation since the Civil War (1861–1865). During the Depression, America's unemployment rate surpassed 20 percent, and suffering was widespread.
One response to the Depression which was popular with many segments of American society was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. The onset of the Depression during the previous year made many Americans believe that higher tariffs were needed to protect American agricultural and industrial products from foreign competition. However, this tariff exacerbated the effects of the economic downturn, and president Franklin D. Roosevelt reversed it in 1934.
The presidential election of 1932 was the first major opportunity for Americans to voice their displeasure with the economy. The electorate handed Franklin D. Roosevelt an overwhelming victory. Most voters blamed the incumbent, Herbert Hoover, for the Depression's disastrous effects. Hoover's Republican party had suffered losses in the 1930 Congressional elections, but the 1932 vote gave FDR an opportunity to implement his far-reaching New Deal program.
The New Deal, which began in 1933, gave hope to millions of Americans. The banking system was shored up. Many Americans were put back to work through such programs as the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC). Major construction projects, such as the Golden Gate Bridge, were completed during the New Deal. Although the New Deal did not end the Depression, it mitigated the public's suffering, and FDR was reelected three times.

In what tone is the poem "To India My Native Land" written? Give two examples (from the beginning and the end of the poem) to prove your point.

Henry Louis Vivian Derozio's "To India My Native Land" starts out in a laudatory tone as the speaker glorifies the India of old before it became colonized. This tone is first indicated by the irrepressibly enthusiastic exclamation in the first line to initiate the speaker's address to his homeland (i.e., "My country!"); this tone is further cemented by the metaphor whereby India is depicted as a grand deity of worship, complete with "a beauteous halo," in the second line.
However, when the focus shifts onto India in her present state by line five, the metaphor used to represent the country brings a sorrowful tone of lamentation. Instead of a proud, haloed deity, India becomes: "Thy eagle pinion is chained down at last." An eagle carries noble connotations of freedom; however, an eagle left unable to freely take flight (chained down) suggests the unnatural subjugation of an India which would otherwise be noble and free.
This imagery thus evokes a tone of lament for India's current subjugation that necessarily pines for the inherent glories which flourished in her past. This is aurally reinforced by the sound painting since the many long "o" vowels mimic lamentation: such as in the words "rolled," "story," "no," "more," and "behold." The end of the poem, in the last two lines, modulates yet again to a tone of wistful reflection, coupled with one of wishing the country well in its future:

And let the guerdon of my labour be,My fallen country! One kind wish for thee!

The speaker has not given up hope for the future of his country entirely or else he would not bother to give it a "kind wish" as he does. The sweetness of this well-wishing for his native land is further enforced by the increased euphony afforded by the rhyming couplet of the concluding two lines. The couplet rhymes (with be and thee) fall on the heels of each other to afford stronger euphony or harmony than the previous alternating rhymes had.

How does Chaucer find humor in the difference between the ideal and the real in the characters that populate The Canterbury Tales?

The Canterbury Tales, most likely composed between 1387–1400 CE, are centered on the journey of 31 pilgrims (including the poet) to visit Canterbury Cathedral to pay homage Thomas a Becket, the archbishop murdered by Henry II. Each pilgrim represents a different occupation, rank, and personality type—in the aggregate, Chaucer presents us with a picture and analysis of English society in the Middle Ages, and his method, as the question implies, is to use both biting and gentle humor to point out the sometimes wide gap between what a pilgrim should be, given his or her occupation or rank, and what he or she actually is.
One of Chaucer's gently satiric portraits in the Prologue is of the Prioress Madame Eglantine , a rank just below that of Abbess in a convent, who is introduced as

There was also a Nun, a Prioresse,/Her way of smiling very simple and coy,/Her greatest oath was only "By St. Loy!" (ll. 122-24)

Chaucer's choice of Madame Eglantine's oath to St. Loy is not random. St. Loy, the English rendering of St. Eligius, is a Bishop of Noyon who was known for having been the goldsmith for several of the Merovingian kings in France and was a courtier with particularly fine manners and clothes. Only later in life did he become concerned with the poor. Madame Eglantine's choice of patron saint is consistent with her behavior, described as "a courtly kind of grace,/a stately bearing fitting to her place" (ll. 144-45). Later, we learn that she has a brooch, which is inscribed with the phrase "Amor vincit omnia," or love defeats all—a concept common in the doctrine of courtly love, not in the Church that the Prioress represents.
The gap between the ideal and the real is much wider when Chaucer exercises his humor on the Monk, who should be quietly contemplating salvation in a monastery or ministering to the sick in his parish, but instead is

... a good man to horse;/Greyhounds he had, as swift as birds, to course [to hunt with him]. (ll. 193-94)

Chaucer describes a monk who has the trappings and behavior of a wealthy landowner—a horse, greyhounds to hunt with—that are antithetical to his position in the Church, which calls for good works rather than good hunting.
The Monk not only engages in unseemly behavior, but he also wears clothes to which he is not entitled as part of the religious establishment, going so far as to close his hood with a "wrought-gold cunningly fashioned pin;/Into a lover's knot it seemed to pass" (ll. 200-01), an ornament that would be strictly forbidden by his order and made worse by its "lover's knot." Another telling sign that the Monk has abandoned his calling is in Chaucer's description of his head, which "was bald and shone like a looking- glass" (l. 203), another violation of his order which would have required a tonsure.
With few exceptions among the pilgrims—the Knight, the Clerk of Oxford, the Knight's Squire (son), the Franklin—Chaucer finds significant gaps between the ideal and real in the personalities of the pilgrims, gaps that he explores with both gentle humor and biting satire, and in this, Chaucer's portraits create a montage of England in the Middle Ages.

The characters who journey together to Canterbury are an irreverent bunch, despite many of them being in religious orders.
Like all good humorists, Chaucer uses hyperbole or exaggeration to make us laugh. His evil clergy are not simply a little bit evil: they can be jaw-droppingly bad. One example is the Pardoner. This man has no shame whatsoever in his unrepentant bid to rake in as much money as he possibly can selling indulgences (pardons for sins) and pocketing as much of the money he can rather than giving it to the church. He openly tells of how he has weighted a brass cross with stones so he can pass it off as made of gold and says that his supposed saints' relics are merely pig bones. He even tries to sell indulgences to his fellow travelers, breaking the rules of the journey. There seems to be no depth too low for him to sink, and we laugh both at his audacity and at the slippage between what he is supposed to represent (a holy church) and his greedy, lying, cheating, low-life behavior.
Likewise, there is a certain ideal of a wife (as loving, submissive, and obedient) that the Wife of Bath not only violates but violates to such a degree that we again can't help laughing. She openly expresses that she married older men for money, not love, and quickly got control of the relationships during her first four marriages. Rather than being submissive and kind, she is feisty, manipulative, and difficult, psychologically tormenting her husbands into doing her bidding until she gets her comeuppance with the fifth and final one.
Such characters are so outrageously over-the-top that we can't help but laugh.

Chaucer juxtaposes the idealized public masks and true inner identities of these characters to a humorous effect. Generally, the more "noble" a pilgrim is, the more corrupt they are, though this is not always so.
For example, the Pardoner is an employee of the Church, selling indulgences to people so their sins can be forgiven and their time in purgatory allegedly lessened. However, he is a shady figure, pocketing the donations he receives which are supposed to go to the Church and making money by presenting peasants with fake relics. His behavior hints that he may also be homosexual, which the Church views as sinful, so it is clear that the Pardoner is not devout.
The Friar is supposed to live as a beggar and serve the poor. However, he is presented as lecherous, often having to find a way to marry off the young girls he seduces and impregnates. Even though he is supposed to gather alms for the poor, he is a man who prefers to take bribes.

All of the pilgrims in The Canterbury Tales have a public identity that defines them in the eyes of society. The Knight, for example, is a brave, noble warrior; the Prioress, head of a religious order of nuns; and so on. But as part of his satirical portrait of medieval society, Chaucer shows us a different side to these pilgrims, revealing the real personalities beneath their public identities. Therein lies much of the poem's humor.
The Prioress, for example, is supposed to be religiously devout; a meek, mild woman who'd cry over a mouse caught in a mousetrap. Yet her whole demeanor would suggest otherwise. Far from being a self-denying ascetic, this is a woman who clearly enjoys her food. And that's not all she enjoys, either; she loves to wear expensive clothes and jewelry, showing off her wealth and high social status to all and sundry.
Then there's the Monk. When we hear the word "monk," we tend to think of a devout man of God, living a quiet life of prayer and contemplation in a cloistered environment. But not this monk. For Chaucer's monk would much rather be out hunting and riding than being cooped-up in a monastery all day, praying, studying, and peeling potatoes. The rules of his monastery clearly state that monks are not allowed to stray outside the confines of the institution. But Chaucer's monk is an inveterate rule-breaker; he lives his life the way he wants and to hell with the consequences.

The book of Job deals with the central problem of theodicy. Theodicy (literally God's justice) is the problem presented when good people suffer or have bad things happen to them. For a good God who is all powerful, such innocent suffering should not happen—but it does, as we all know. Job presents the extreme case of a good man who suffers despite (or because of) a good and powerful GodJob asserts his goodness and innocence throughout. His friends surmise that there must be some hidden sin in Job's life, but there is not. This is the major issue and problem that runs through much of Job.The resolution to this problem occurs with God's "whirlwind speech." But what does God's speech resolve? What do you think the book of Job is trying to say about this fundamental problem in Judaism and Christianity? What is the "solution" to theodicy? Equally importantly, how do you react to the way Job presents the problem and the "resolution"?

The Book of Job has inspired much commentary about its presentation of the problem of evil, which is the question of how a God that is allegedly 1) all-powerful, 2) all-good, and 3) all-knowing allow suffering and evil to exist. Job does nothing to deserve divine punishment, yet a series of tragedies befall him as a test.
Ultimately, God replies, but God's answer does not directly reconcile the problem of evil. God speaks of the wonder of creation and God's power, but never as to why job must suffer or why evil is allowed to exist. Essentially, God answers with a non-answer, suggesting it is futile to ask why evil is allowed to exist or why good people are made to suffer and evil people sometimes triumph.
You ask what the Jewish and Christian interpretations of the work's treatment of these themes and ideas, but truth be told, several answers exist among the followers of both faiths. Some of the Jewish faith, like Rabbi Harold Kushner (who has studied and written commentary on the Book of Job), believes God is all-good and all-knowing, but not powerful enough to intervene with humanity's free will.
A common Christian interpretation is that it is unknowable why God allows bad things to happen to good people, but that humans must have faith in God and believe they will be rewarded for their perseverance. As shown in the whirlwind speech, God does not need to justify his ways before mankind, so people should just have faith that goodness will be triumphant in the end.
On the website My Jewish Learning, Robert Seltzer gives another interpretation of the speech, even adding in the idea that reincarnation might solve the problems addressed in the book:

The book reaffirms Job’s trust in God—and God’s trust in Job. In teaching that piety must be unselfish and that the righteous sufferer is assured not of tangible reward but of fellowship with God, biblical thought about justice, retribution, and providence reaches a climax—and a limit.
One alternative that the author of Job did not consider was that the sufferings of the innocent might be compensated in a future life. The problem of theodicy is resolved through just this means in post-biblical Judaism.

In the end, whether or not the book "solves" the problem of theodicy or not is going to depend heavily on one's personal views.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-book-of-job-a-whirlwind-of-confusion/

In what ways did John Marshall’s nationalistic vision contribute to growth and development of the Supreme Court as well as the economic and political growth and expansion of the new nation?

John Marshall (1755–1835) was the fourth chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. He served from 1801 to 1835. He was instrumental in shaping the Court into an equal branch of government.
Marshall made the Supreme Court the interpreter of the Constitution by using judicial review. His decisions were not always popular. Thomas Jefferson, who served as president from 1801 to 1809, was not happy with Marshall.
Politically, Marshall was a Federalist. Federalists opposed the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson. Specifically, Federalists wanted a vigorous national government. Jefferson's party, on the other hand, favored more decentralization of governmental power.
Marshall's enhancement of the Supreme Court's powers coincided with national expansion and economic development: the country's population grew and spread out, and canals were built to connect distant parts of the nation.
In summary, Marshall was the most important chief justice in the history of the Supreme Court.

What is the narrator's motivation and/or the author's purpose in writing American Chica?

American Chica: Two Worlds, One Childhood is a 2001 memoir written by Peruvian-American author and journalist Marie Arana. In it, Arana writes of her childhood and the time she spent on a sugar plantation in Peru. Arana's motivation for writing the book came from her experiences growing up as a child to a Peruvian father and an American mother; hence the title.
The main massage and purpose of the memoir is to show the readers how culture, ethnicity, and tradition can affect one's identity and how these notions can define and even limit a person. Arana explains how she could choose which cultural identity she could have depending on the situation and how it was simultaneously an easy and a hard thing to do. She also focuses on gender roles and the position of women in both Latinx and white culture.