1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Anna007 [38]
3 years ago
11

Was new england land good or bad

History
1 answer:
Kay [80]3 years ago
8 0
✡ Answer: Yes <span>✡

- - Reason:
New England has always been a good ally and all around a good land.

</span>
✡Hope this helps<span>✡</span>
You might be interested in
What did Britain and France plan for the Middle East after they won World War I
Blizzard [7]

Answer:

The aftermath of World War I saw drastic political, cultural, economic, and social change across Eurasia, Africa, and even in areas outside those that were directly involved. Four empires collapsed due to the war, old countries were abolished, new ones were formed, boundaries were redrawn, international organizations were established, and many new and old ideologies took a firm hold in people's minds. World War I also had the effect of bringing political transformation to most of the principal parties involved in the conflict, transforming them into electoral democracies by bringing near-universal suffrage for the first time in history, as in Germany (1919 German federal election), Great Britain (1918 United Kingdom general election), and Turkey (1923 Turkish general election).[citation needed]

Explanation:

plsssss mark brainlist!!!

4 0
2 years ago
Which statement is false?
Colt1911 [192]
Nixon was the third president to resign from office is FALSE !
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
In the myth of the "Self-Made Man", what did business tycoons claim their success was simply the result of? What was the actual
True [87]

Answer:

The Self-Made Myth exposes the false claim that business success is the result of heroic individual effort with little or no outside help. Brian Miller and Mike Lapham bust the myth and present profiles of business leaders who recognize the public investments and supports that made their success possible—including Warren Buffett, Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s, New Belgium Brewing CEO Kim Jordan, and others. The book also thoroughly demolishes the claims of supposedly self-made individuals such as Donald Trump and Ross Perot. How we view the creation of wealth and individual success is critical because it shapes our choices on taxes, regulation, public investments in schools and infrastructure, CEO pay, and more. It takes a village to raise a business—it’s time to recognize that fact.

This book challenges a central myth that underlies today’s antigovernment rhetoric: that an individual’s success is the result of gumption and hard work alone. Miller and Lapham clearly show that personal success is closely tied to the supports society provides.

Explanation:

it’s worth mentioning briefly an additional impact that the self-made myth has on our public debates—that of people voting their aspirations. Because the rags-to-riches myth persists, many Americans hold on to the belief, however unlikely, that they too may one day become wealthy. This has at times led to people’s voting their aspirations rather than their reality. As Michael Moore noted in 2003:

After fleecing the American public and destroying the American Dream for most working people, how is it that, instead of being drawn and quartered and hung at dawn at the city gates, the rich got a big wet kiss from Congress in the form of a record tax break, and no one says a word? How can that be? I think it’s because we’re still addicted to the Horatio Alger fantasy drug. Despite all the damage and all the evidence to the contrary, the average American still wants to hang on to this belief that maybe, just maybe, he or she (mostly he) just might make it big after all.35

It is essential that we find a more honest and complete narrative of wealth creation. In chapter 2, we expose the fallacy of the self-made myth by examining the stories of individuals often lifted up as successes in our public dialogues. In examining their stories, we come to better understand that even their business success includes contributions from society, from government, from other individuals, and even luck.

Beyond the moralizing ridiculed by Twain, this individual success myth overlooked a number of key social and environmental factors. The emergence of a clear geography of opportunity showed that there was something about the place where one lived that contributed to one’s success. No matter what personal qualities someone had, if you lived in Appalachia or the South, your chances of ascending the ladder to great wealth were slim. Those who achieved great wealth were almost invariably from the bustling industrial cities of the Northeast. By one estimate, three out of four millionaires in the nineteenth century were from New England, New York, or Pennsylvania.7

Another unique external factor was the opportunity that existed at that time, thanks to expanding frontiers and seemingly unlimited natural resources. The United States was conquering and expropriating land from native people and distributing it to railroads, White homesteaders, and land barons. Most of the major Gilded Age fortunes were tied to cornering a market and exploiting natural resources such as minerals, oil, and timber. Even P. T. Barnum, the celebrated purveyor of individual success aphorisms, had to admit in Art of Money Getting that “in the United States, where we have more land than people, it is not at all difficult for persons in good health to make money.”8

He might have added that it also helped to be male, to be free rather than a slave, and to be White. While free Blacks had some rights in the North, they had little opportunity to achieve the rags-to-riches dream because of both informal and legal discrimination. Even after the Civil War, Blacks, Asians, and others were largely excluded from governmental programs like the Homestead Act that distributed an astounding 10 percent of all US lands—270 million acres—to 1.6 million primarily White homesteaders.9

5 0
2 years ago
How did the industrial revolution contribute to imperialism?
Marina CMI [18]
Industrial revolution  contributed  i imperialism in a number ways. 
7 0
3 years ago
Which of the following conclusions is supported by the ideas F. W. Evans outlined in his description of the Shakers?
IgorC [24]

The correct answer is A. According to the passage, F.W. Evans stated that the Society now had "a very different attitude", and implied that - as a consequence of the previous opposition and persecution of groups with different beliefs carried out by the Society - the ignorant or willful misconceptions of the Society were being corrected, this is evidenced by the fact that he accepted that they had misjudged Ann Lee as a witch, and that they Shakers did not necessarily think of her as a superior entity nor did they worship her.


3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which royal family ruled over Russia from 1613 until the Russian Revolution in 1917?
    10·2 answers
  • The first Five-Year Plan was considered a success in what way?
    9·2 answers
  • What was one reason for president mckinleys re election in 1900?
    8·2 answers
  • Why is america labeled the last refuge of democracy
    9·2 answers
  • Which group was most interested in using the government to make human
    13·1 answer
  • When was influenza discovered
    11·2 answers
  • Which answer best describes why borrowing money was challenging for the U.S. government after the War of 1812?
    7·1 answer
  • Which statement about the US economy during WW II is accurate?​
    15·1 answer
  • The peace process involved England, United States, France, and ______________.
    15·2 answers
  • United States v. Lopez was a case decided on Apr 26, 1995, by the United States
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!