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
jenyasd209 [6]
3 years ago
5

Compare and contrast the excerpt from A True Relation by Captain John Smith and the excerpt from John Smith’s second account of

being captured and released by Powhatan. Why do you think the accounts differ? How do the other sources in this set help explain the differences?
First answer is brainliest
History
1 answer:
lys-0071 [83]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:  The accounts differ because they were written about 16 years apart. Smith had different purposes. The first (from <em>A True Relation, </em>1608)<em> </em>was to encourage British people to become colonists and settle in America at Jamestown in the Virginia Colony. He wanted to portray the Native Americans as rich, friendly, and willing to trade.

The later account (from <em>the General History of Virginia, </em>1624) Was a look back. Smith's strict rules helped the Jamestown colonists to survive harsh conditions, but he had become unpopular, and after treatment In England for an injury in 1609, he did not return to Jamestown; he would not have a leadership position there. So his motivation was different. (He was not happy with The Virginia Company.) So he wrote to let people know that conditions were harsh, relations with the Native Americans were not always good, and settling at Jamestown was not in their best interest. His memory of some events may have changed.

Explanation:

The accounts differ: In the  first (1608) version, Smith describes a ceremony where "Powhatams" appears as an emperor on a bed of many mats and he and the women a round him are adorned with necklaces and chains of pearls. Smith says that they gave him food, invited him to stay, told him they'd trade corn and venison for hatchets an copper. They let him go home after four days.

The later account (from <em>the General History of Virginia, </em>1624) describes Powhatan as "a monster" and that two great stones were brought in to have Smith put his head on to be clubbed to death. Pocahontas Begged her father to let Smith go, and eventually put her own head down next to his. Powhatan agreed to free Smith . Two days later Powhatan makes friends with Smith and in exchange for  two great guns, and a grindstone, will give Smith and the colonists the Country of Capahowosick, and consider Smith his son.

You might be interested in
During the Civil War, Harriet Tubman was?
sdas [7]

Answer:

D. A spy for the union

Explanation:

She went back into the south many times to rescue enslaved people so she was also able to spy for the union.

Please give brainliest :D

5 0
3 years ago
What happened with Apollo 1 and Apollo 8? Explain
Hunter-Best [27]
Apollo 1 caught fire and took the lives of 3 astronauts Apollo 8 completed a nearly flawless mission and completed a safe landing in the Pacific Ocean :)
4 0
3 years ago
Can someone explain this image and it's meaning?
SpyIntel [72]

Answer:

I believe the picture is a man who counts the votes in the ballot. However reading the caption, he abuses his power of being the accountant and whichever votes he fonds uneccesary he does not count them. He basically, uses this as his favor to see which candidate HE believes in not the ones against him beleive in.

Explanation:

Hope this helped. However, many people see it differently as a picture is not described in words but in how your presepctive is taken.

7 0
3 years ago
How did Mandela’s tactics differ from Gandhi’s? (Gandhi believed in nonviolent protest)
nadezda [96]

SIMILARITIES —The depth of oppression in South Africa created Nelson Mandela, a revolutionary par excellence, and many others like him: Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu, Albert Lutuli, Yusuf Dadoo and Robert Sobukwe — all men of extraordinary courage, wisdom, and generosity. In India, too, thousands went to jail or kissed the gallows, in their crusade for freedom from the enslavement that was British rule. In The Gods are Athirst, Anatole France, the French novelist, seems to say to all: “Behold out of these petty personalities, out of these trivial commonplaces, arise, when the hour is ripe, the most titanic events and the most monumental gestures of history.”

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi spent his years in prison in line with the Biblical verse, “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” Nelson Mandela was shut off from his countrymen for 27 years, imprisoned, until his release on February 11, 1990. Both walked that long road to freedom. Their unwavering commitment to nationalism was not only rooted in freedom; it also aspired towards freedom. Both discovered that after climbing a great hill, one only finds many more to climb. They had little time to rest and look back on the distance they had travelled. Both Mandela and the Mahatma believed freedom was not pushed from behind by a blind force but that it was actively drawn by a vision. In this respect, as in many other ways, the convergence of the Indian and South African freedom struggles is real and striking.

Racial prejudice characterised British India before independence as it marred colonial rule in South Africa. Gandhi entered the freedom struggle without really comprehending the sheer scale of racial discrimination in India. When he did, however, he did not allow himself to be rushed into reaction. The Mahatma patiently used every opportunity he got to defy colonial power, to highlight its illegitimate rule, and managed to overcome the apparently unassailable might of British rule. Gandhi’s response to the colonial regime is marked not just by his extraordinary charisma, but his method of harnessing “people power.”

Nelson Mandela used similar skills, measuring the consequences of his every move. He organised an active militant wing of the African National Congress — the Spear of the Nation — to sabotage government installations without causing injury to people. He could do so because he was a rational pragmatics.

DIFFERENCES—Both Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are entitled to our affection and respect for more than one reason. They eschewed violence against the person and did not allow social antagonisms to get out of hand. They felt the world was sick unto death of blood-spilling, but that it was, after all, seeing a way out. At the same time, they were not pacifists in the true sense of the word. They maintained the evils of capitulation outweighed the evils of war. Needless to say, their ideals are relevant in this day and age, when the advantages of non-violent means over the use of force are manifest.

Gandhi and Mandela also demonstrated to the world they could help build inclusive societies, in which all Indians and South Africans would have a stake and whose strength, they argued, was a guarantee against disunity, backwardness and the exploitation of the poor by the elites. This idea is adequately reflected in the make-up of the “Indian” as well as the “South African” — the notion of an all-embracing citizenship combined with the conception of the public good.

At his trial, Nelson Mandela, who had spent two decades in the harsh conditions of Robben Island, spoke of a “democratic and free society in which all persons live in harmony and with equal opportunities. […] It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve, but if need be, an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

The speed with which the bitterness between former colonial subjects and their rulers abated in South Africa is astonishing. Mandela was an ardent champion of “Peace with Reconciliation,” a slogan that had a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people. He called for brotherly love and integration with whites, and a sharing of Christian values. He did not unsettle traditional dividing lines and dichotomies; instead, he engaged in conflict management within a system that permitted opposing views to exist fairly.

7 0
3 years ago
What is the length of each leg of the triangle below?
siniylev [52]

By applying the sine trigonometry, the value of leg s is equal to: F. 8 units.

<h3>How to apply basic trigonometry?</h3>

In order to determine the value of leg s, we would apply basic trigonometry. From the diagram of the right-angled triangle shown above, we can deduce the following parameters:

  • Angle (θ) = 45°.
  • Opposite (Opp) = s.
  • Hypotenuse (Hyp) = 8√2.

Next, we would use the sine trigonometry to determine the value of leg s:

Sinθ = Opp/Hyp

Sin45 = s/8√2

1/√2 = s/8√2

s√2 = 8√2

s = (8√2)/√2

s = 8 units.

Read more on sine trigonometry here: brainly.com/question/20367642

#SJP1

7 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why did the declaration of independence increase americans motivation to fight and win the war
    14·2 answers
  • Identify the beliefs of Protestants and the beliefs of Catholics. (Categorize)
    9·2 answers
  • Please help! I really need it :(( Does anyone know anything about the Culper Spy Ring? I need to write an informative essay
    11·1 answer
  • What event led to theodore roosevelt becoming president
    11·1 answer
  • The first Thanksgiving celebrated
    12·2 answers
  • Can anybody help me with my history work?
    10·1 answer
  • What is the only diffference in the meanings of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s and the current Black Lives Matter Movement
    13·1 answer
  • Question 1 of 10
    14·2 answers
  • Differences in the democratic-republican party during the election of 1824 led to:
    15·1 answer
  • Which action is an example of anti-Semitism
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!