What do the letters of Trajan and Pliny tell us about Roman attitudes towards the Christians?

It should be noted that the Christian letters form part of a much larger correspondence between Trajan and Pliny, and this correspondence is primarily about administration and governance. Running throughout the letters is a sense of pragmatism and a sense through which the Romans appear to be highly results-motivated: they're mainly interested in upholding law and order and maintaining proper governance. The letters about the Christians should be understood within this larger context.
The first thing to note is that Christianity was treated as criminal: this is quite clearly stated by both authors. At the same time, there are clear protocols and a sense by which the crackdown on Christians is bounded in Roman legal precedence. It is beyond dispute that the Roman State was hostile to Christianity and was closely aligned with traditional Paganism.
It's clear that the presence of Christianity has created a lot of instability, and this is very worrisome to Roman authorities. Pliny writes about the spread of accusations throughout the province, and sometimes it reads as if this potential instability concerns him even more than the presence of the Christians themselves. At the same time, it should be noted that, when dealing with suspected Christians, he gives the accuser every opportunity to deny the charges, after which the alleged Christian would be released. Then there is Trajan's response to Pliny afterwards, instructing him not to go out of his way in hunting Christians. A complicated picture is beginning to form.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/pliny-trajan1.asp

What are some symbols in The Call of the Wild?

Jack London's fiction typically establishes a dichotomy between civilized and non-civilized worlds. The subtext is generally the question: is one realm "better" than or preferable to the other? In The Call of the Wild, Buck is taken from his home in California and thrust into a new, harsh environment which is a kind of hell on earth for him. Ironically, however, it leads him to fulfill his inner nature that could never have occurred if he had continued his peaceful life as a domesticated dog.
The "Northland," the harsh, forbidding Yukon territory into which Buck is taken and where he is to live out the rest of his life, is a symbol of the wild, uncivilized external world as well as the primitive inner world from which we—both humans and domesticated animals—have presumably escaped.
But it is also a symbol of liberation. Buck is transformed into a new being when he is forced to become a working dog who pulls a sled. When he's rescued by John Thornton, he bonds with him and becomes devoted to a human who has an intensity and a completeness: the kind of person who he would not have found had he remained in the Southland, in California.
Finally, when he does in fact return to "the wild," he is a leader, paradoxically reverting to his ancestral roots but also becoming a "greater" being (both physically and, in some sense, spiritually) as well as the head of a wolf pack. The trajectory of Buck's story is a symbol of this process of liberation.
London's point may not be that the wild world is "superior," but that—just as we humans must progress beyond our initial state of childlike innocence and become adults—Buck, through the suffering he endures (including the loss of John Thornton), has progressed beyond the cocoon of innocence and become a more complete being.
The story of The Call of the Wild is therefore itself a symbol of maturation and of the expulsion from the Garden of Eden into the "real" world—a place where both pain and triumph are possible, as they would not have been in the ignorance of paradise.

Stereotypes are often addressed in Butler’s novels, including Kindred. In Kindred, how does the author, with her various characterizations, reveal the origins of stereotypes? How does she deflate them?

Octavia Butler's Kindred features a protagonist, Dana, who is a black woman in the 1970s in California. Dana gets mysteriously, and without much warning, pulled back into the antebellum South to learn about her family origins.
As she is transported to the South, Dana is assumed to be a slave. She must learn to adjust to life on the plantation despite always having been free in her "real life" in the 1970s. During this time, she of course learns about racism and comes face-to-face with the brutal treatment of her ancestors, including a foremother named Alice. Over the course of the novel, Dana learns that the plantation master, Rufus, a boy she once saved as a child in one of her trips to the past, is also her ancestor. Dana learns the dark truth about sexual politics on the plantation when Rufus tries to rape her near the end of the novel, after repeatedly taking advantage of Alice as well. The antebellum South chapters demonstrate to Dana the extent to which black women were abused under the plantation system.
Meanwhile, in modern-day America, Dana is married to a white man named Kevin. Their relationship is based on love, respect, and mutual interests. While they have freely chosen to be together, Dana's trips to the past complicate the way she views her relationship with Kevin. When Kevin eventually travels with her to the plantation, their vast differences in the antebellum South are thrown into stark relief: Kevin is assumed to be a powerful master. In their modern-day lives, Kevin and Dana see themselves as equals. This contrast in their roles could be said to "deflate" the stereotypes, or at least to show the way race relations and sexual politics have evolved in the 100+ years since abolition.

How does The Handmaid's Tale transform the notion of "utopia"?

The Handmaid’s Tale transforms the notion of a “utopia” by vividly depicting a dystopia. The ruling class has attempted to create a utopia in which family is paramount, at the expense of women’s rights.
The ruling class, made up of the commanders and their obedient wives, blame Gilead’s plummeting birth rates on women. The issue of fertility is placed squarely on women’s lives outside their homes: on their jobs, on having multiple partners and other “sins.” Their idea of a utopia includes women who don’t read, don’t work and have no interests outside their home. Gilead solves the fertility issues of high ranking couples by having the commander impregnate an unwilling handmaid and then ripping her child from her in the name of family.
Gilead is, of course, a dystopia. Most of the women in the novel are miserable; they’ve lost their jobs, their families, their interests and their lives as they knew it. The definition of a utopia is a world where everything is perfect. While Gilead appears perfect from the outside, it is a facade. The veneer of perfection barely covers the simmering backlash and rebellion forming beneath the surface. By creating a dystopia masquerading as a utopia, Atwell transforms the notion of utopia.

Most readers refer to this novel as an example of dystopia: this is usually a fictional example of a society that, by design, is oppressive, cruel, or destructive. The nation of Gilead came to power because those in charge killed or ousted the people who were running the previous form of government. The new leaders of Gilead (which was previously the United States) have achieved what they wanted (a society where women are subservient to men and made to be reproductive slaves). Because this "new world" represents the goals and desires of those who seized power, to them it is a utopia, or an ideal society.
But most readers' notions of what makes a society function in a heathy way would be at odds with how Gilead is run. Some subtle signs point to difficulty with this new, oppressive system, like food shortages and an apparent reconfiguration of basic commerce. The constant presence of armed guards and surveillance point to a tyrannical situation.
The only way this new leadership can maintain their "utopia" is by using force, violence, torture, and punishment. For those living under this rulership, the world is a dystopia. This calls into question the very notion of how one defines a utopia versus a dystopia: it seems that the definition is in the eyes of the beholder and depends on who is being oppressed and who is in charge.

How different were the thirteen colonies from each other?

The thirteen colonies differed with respect to when, how, and why they were founded as well as their natural resources. The Middle Colonies were some of the most productive of crops like grain, which earned them the nickname of the "breadbasket" of the colonies, and they were also home to many Quakers. The natural resources in these Middle Colonies included lumber, wheat, and corn.
The New England Colonies, which were the northernmost colonies, were founded by Puritan separatists known as Pilgrims. Their natural resources included fish and rum. The New England colonies produced few cash crops, as the growing season was very short in the comparatively cold climate, and the soil was rocky for farming.
The Southern Colonies (Maryland, the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia) comprised many Anglicans and Catholics as well as Protestants. As a group, they were diverse, owing to the size of their land (which is why North and South Carolina were eventually divided). Farming was essential to this region, which had many plantations equipped with indentured servants and eventually slaves, and cotton was the major crop.

What are the three most important characteristics and personality traits that a president should have, and why? Consider what the president's job is, and be sure to explain how the characteristics you choose relate to that job.

In a country within which the presidential system is in practice, the president is usually both head of state as well as head of government and in addition to the already enormous responsibility he carries on his shoulders ( even more pertinent with a country like the United States), there are some absolutely crucial characteristics, attributes and aptitudes he/she must have in order to succeed. Here are three of those:
Communication: The president must be an excellent communicator. He/she must be able to listen and properly glean the crux of what whomever is speaking is trying to communicate. They should be able to properly convey the depths of their ideas, emotions, opinions and experience through speech and gestures and must never sound vague or ambiguous. They should also have some form of oratory competence and rhetoric skill.
Leadership: This is said more times than it has to but it is because it is true. Leadership is about more than charisma; it involves sacrifice, the ability to delegate, humility, decisiveness, composure etc.
Patience: This trait is usually understated but patience is an absolutely crucial trait a good president should have in the bag if they are to succeed in office. Passing the simplest bill or policy, however beneficial it is, is always encumbered by heaps of red tape and due process. He has to (especially in the case of a country like the United States) unify people that politically, have views that are fundamentally different from theirs and slowly make them believe in a shared common goal. He/she must be slow to react, calculating and an expert in playing the long game.
These are just three among many. Being a president is hard and perhaps that's why only a few people ever get the job.

What you ultimately choose as the president's most important qualities is up to you, but you should consider the vital role that the president plays in international politics. He or she is faced with situations in which it's necessary to sift through intelligence reports and assess risks to the United States. It's the president's job to decide how to protect the U.S. and how to intervene in world affairs. Not getting involved might result in growing dangers to the U.S., but intervening through military strikes or economic sanctions might also result in dangerous repercussions. To assess these types of threats, a president must be thorough, cautious, and detail oriented.
In addition, when making decisions about domestic situations, a president must consider not only the current-day reality and his or her standing in the nation but also must consider the effect of his or her decision on the future. What qualities do you think a president must have to make these types of decisions? Clearly, a good president is thoughtful and respectful not only of the past and present but also about the future of the country. A president must be appreciative of the different constituents not only in his or her party but also in the nation as a whole and must rise above partisanship to represent the entire country. Therefore, a president should be fair and respectful of the diversity of the citizens of the United States.

How many Native Americans were killed between 1600 and 1900?

It is hard to determine the actual number of Native Americans killed during this period. Diseases ravaged entire tribes through contact with European explorers and trade. Smallpox had arrived on the Western plains long before the first American settlers ever made contact with the Lakota nation. Squanto, the famous Native American who befriended the Pilgrims, lost his entire tribe to disease. Entire Eastern tribes succumbed to disease and starvation.
Many more lost their lives as slaves, though Europeans would soon prefer to use Africans, as they survived better and more easily took on European-style agricultural techniques. North America lost entire tribes, along with their languages and cultures.
While it is easier to count Native American deaths from battles, it was disease that killed the majority of them. Life on reservations was hard as well, indirectly causing the death of many Native Americans and lowering the overall life expectancy on the reservations. Currently, reservations are still some of the poorest areas of the United States.