The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Do you consider Bishop Eusebius’s account to be reliable?
No, really not.
The reason why because his account had created many controversies.
Eusebius has been known as the official historian of the church. He participated in the Council of Nice in 314, organized by Roman Emperor Constantine to revise the religious or historic documents that would end up being in the Bible.
So Eusebius based most of his comments on personal opinions and other historic document's interpretations. It is difficult to say that he did the proper research and had reliable sources. During the Nicea Council, a group of Bishops decided what documents had to be part of the Bible and which not, based on their own criteria. That is not a good indicator of the validity of the documents included, even less we can consider those as sacred.
In the early days of British colonization, the British gave the colonists a lot of self governing powers and autonomy, and it remained this way for several years. However, when King George III took power he tightened the grip on their colonies a lot more, which created some tensions. One big thing was after the French and Indian War, the British heavily taxed the colonists with things like the Stamp Act because it has cost the British government a lot of money to defend the colonies in the. This angered a lot of colonists because they were getting taxed without consent in that they have no representation in Parliament. Although other British colonies also did not have representation, the colonists felt that they were just as valid as British citizens as those in GB, so they were angry that they had to pay all these taxes without agreeing to them. Hence the phrase "no taxation without representation"
<span>C. Northern Mexico.....I believe that's the answer. I could be wrong but I'm positive that's the correct answer.</span>
The nativists believed that immigrants would destroy America. So, option (b) can be considered as the suitable option.
<h3>Why do nativists oppose immigration?</h3>
Joel S. Fetzer claims that conflicts over national, cultural, and religious identity frequently lead to hostility to immigration in many nations. Particularly in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as in continental Europe, the phenomenon has been examined. As a result, the term "nativism" has evolved to refer broadly to opposition to immigration motivated by worries that newcomers may "distort or corrupt" preexisting cultural norms. Nativist movements try to stop cultural change when immigrants outnumber native-born people by a wide margin.
Many of the following arguments against immigrants are used to support immigration restrictionist sentiment :
Economic :
- Employment : Immigrants take occupations that would have been open to native citizens otherwise, which reduces native employment. They also produce a labor surplus, which drives down wages.
- Immigrants incur a cost to the government since they do not pay enough taxes to pay for the services they need.
- Social welfare systems are heavily utilized by immigrants.
- Housing : As vacancies are reduced by immigrants, rents rise.
Cultural
- Language : Immigrants refuse to pick up the native tongue and withdraw into their own communities.
- Culture : As immigrants outnumber the local populace, their culture will take its place.
- Crime : Compared to the native population, immigrants are more likely to commit crimes.
- Patriotism : Immigrants erode a country's feeling of ethnic and national identity.
To know more about, immigration, visit :
brainly.com/question/17124402
#SPJ9
