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
BARSIC [14]
3 years ago
9

In "Life without Principle," Thoreau writes, "I would have had him deal with his privatest experience, as the poet does." What d

oes this statement mean?
A. Courtrooms are places where people traditionally lie.
B. People talk only about trivial things.
C. Speeches should employ figurative (poetic) language to get their points across.
D. People should speak from their hearts and say what's on their minds.
History
2 answers:
finlep [7]3 years ago
4 0
D.  People should speak from their hearts and say what's on their minds.
zimovet [89]3 years ago
3 0

<em><u>The correct answer is option D. In "Life without Principle", Thoreau writes the statement in order to represent that people should speak from their hears and say what's on their minds</u></em>. "Life without Principle" is an essay written by Henry David Thoreau, published in 1863. In it, Thoreau writes about the importance of having liberty to follow and to express our own opinions, and how when people just follows business, money and economic success, the meaning of life gets lost.

You might be interested in
How did the French and Indian War lead to tensions between England and its<br> colonies?
Lilit [14]

Answer:

Your answer is here but you have to mark it as brainliest answer as it will also give you 3 points

Explanation:

The French and Indian War was the North American conflict in a larger imperial war between Great Britain and France known as the Seven Years’ War. The French and Indian War began in 1754 and ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. The war provided Great Britain enormous territorial gains in North America, but disputes over subsequent frontier policy and paying the war’s expenses led to colonial discontent, and ultimately to the American Revolution.

Map from the French and Indian War

The French and Indian War resulted from ongoing frontier tensions in North America as both French and British imperial officials and colonists sought to extend each country’s sphere of influence in frontier regions. In North America, the war pitted France, French colonists, and their Native allies against Great Britain, the Anglo-American colonists, and the Iroquois Confederacy, which controlled most of upstate New York and parts of northern Pennsylvania. In 1753, prior to the outbreak of hostilities, Great Britain controlled the 13 colonies up to the Appalachian Mountains, but beyond lay New France, a very large, sparsely settled colony that stretched from Louisiana through the Mississippi Valley and Great Lakes to Canada. (See Incidents Leading up to the French and Indian War and Albany Plan)

The border between French and British possessions was not well defined, and one disputed territory was the upper Ohio River valley. The French had constructed a number of forts in this region in an attempt to strengthen their claim on the territory. British colonial forces, led by Lieutenant Colonel George Washington, attempted to expel the French in 1754, but were outnumbered and defeated by the French. When news of Washington’s failure reached British Prime Minister Thomas Pelham-Holles, Duke of Newcastle, he called for a quick undeclared retaliatory strike. However, his adversaries in the Cabinet outmaneuvered him by making the plans public, thus alerting the French Government and escalating a distant frontier skirmish into a full-scale war.

8 0
3 years ago
Who fought on the side of the central powers
Montano1993 [528]

Answer:

Britain, France, Russia, Italy and the United States  fought against the Central Powers which included Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria. Archduke Ferdinand, of Austria-Hungary, was assassinated by a Serb

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
N January of 1986 Ronald Reagan signed an authorization to keep secret the CIA's role in the arms deals from
stepladder [879]
"D. Congress" This was the correct answer for me so I hope this helps you!
5 0
3 years ago
What is the difference between imperialism and nationalism?
Rina8888 [55]

Nationalism and Imperialism are two terms that should be understood in different senses. Nationalism is based on aggressiveness in its concept. On the other hand imperialism is constructive in its concept.

Imperialism is a kind of rule that aims at bringing equality of values, beliefs, and expertise among empires and kingdoms through domination and is autocratic in nature and also sometimes monolithic in its concept. Imperialism is a kind of western undertaking that employs expansionistic views and ideas in its ideals. Nationalism on the other hand paves the way for enmity among nations. A nationalist feels that his own country is better than any other country.

According to the great thinker George Orwell, nationalism is deeply rooted in emotions and rivalry. It makes one contemptuous of the virtues possessed by other nations. Nationalism makes one intolerant towards the progress made by other nations.

Nationalism makes one think that the people belonging to one’s own country should be considered one’s equal. Such thoughts are not present the ideals of imperialism. A nationalist does not mind about the deficiencies of his country but on the contrary takes into account only its virtues.

A nationalist strives for the domination of a nation and expresses his love for the country in an aggressive way. An imperialist though creates unequal economic relationship between states yet he maintains the unequal relationships based on domination. This is a subtle difference between the two terms.

Nationalism gives importance to unity of by way of cultural background and linguistic environment. The factors of cultural background and linguistic environment are not taken into account by the imperialist to a great extent.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which factor contributed to the fall of the Han dynasty, the fall of the Roman Empire?
MArishka [77]

Answer:

Chinese historians have spent well over a thousand years trying to understand why the Han Dynasty collapsed. Over time they developed three main theories: 1) bad rulers; 2) the influence of empresses and court eunuchs over child emperors too young to rule by themselves; and 3) the Yellow Turban Revolt.

Explanation:

3 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Help ASAP please please assss soooon as you see this
    15·1 answer
  • Who were the puritans and where did they settle
    15·1 answer
  • Name a "crossroads" location
    6·1 answer
  • What does your text mean when it says that the Constitution, "...elevated the ideals of the Revolution even while setting bounda
    5·1 answer
  • How did the British effort to regain their market for manufactured goods affect America's industries?
    8·1 answer
  • Who made the rules in the middle ages?
    7·1 answer
  • What is one of the most important beliefs in Hinduism
    5·1 answer
  • Which one of the following is true of the ethnic composition of East Asia
    12·1 answer
  • How will you meet the requirements to complete 60 minutes of cardiovascular endurance each day this week?”
    5·1 answer
  • I need help... can someone plz help?
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!