For his own sake, no. What he did blatantly put himself in danger and finally was placed under interrogation, etc & so forth.
For the sake of science, yes. What he did, and the consequences thereof, would have publicised his struggle, especially during the age of Enlightenment. Although what he did might also have momentarily pushed people away from science in fear of the consequences of facing the church due to the harsh punishment that he was subjected to. His persistence was, in the end only healthy for the development of science in later years.
Answer: December 14, 1799
This artifact has a big impact in the world especially since everyone has a story. We would know nothing about Greece if it was not for the artifacts we found over the years. We got to know how they lived and how they survived. We also got to know more about their religion and how it was worshipped.
Although the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) had strong popular support when it passed both the House and the Senate in 1972, it failed to become a constitutional amendment because the feminist movement had made so many gains in eliminating gender discrimination.
<h3>
</h3><h3>
Failure of Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)</h3>
- The feminist movement had achieved so much in the fight against sexism in areas like employment and education that it did not necessarily seem necessary for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to pass both the House and the Senate in 1972, despite the fact that it had strong public support at the time. As a result, the ERA did not become a constitutional amendment.
- The Equal Rights Amendment ultimately failed to be ratified by the required 38, or three-fourths, of the states by the deadline set by Congress because of a conservative backlash against feminism.
- Because a state's legislature must pass it through both houses in the same session in order for it to be considered ratified, it failed in those states.
To learn more about the Equal Rights Amendment refer to:
brainly.com/question/19040257
#SPJ4
Answer:
I do not agree.
Explanation:
The arrival of the British in sub-Saharan Africa is part of European Colonialism, widespread in various parts of the world, with the aim of exploring and dominating a region and all the resources available in it.
It is common to hear that colonization was a blessing for the life of the colonies because it took culture, religion and modenity to a region considered "wild" and "inadequate". However, we can say that colonization was not a blessing anywhere, since in these regions the adoption of European culture and religion was imposed in very violent and authoritarian ways.
All colonies, including sub-Saharan Africa, already had a population established and organized according to their customs and religion. This population was different from what Europeans considered "civilized", but we cannot deny, that the natives had their own type of civilization that functioned efficiently between their citizens and their territory.
However, Europeans considered themselves the owners of the truth, and the only ones endowed with knowledge and education. They totally ignored native civilizations and their cultures, considering them wild and impure, which needed European society to put them in what was right. They used this concept to justify all the violent exploitation and acculturation that the natives went through, because they believed that God had given them the mission to "fix" the peoples and end the civilization that was established in the place, without any consideration.
