How did the attitudes of Native Americans and white settlers toward nature differ?

History

2 answers:

Oksanka [162]2 years ago

7 0

Last one: Native Americans believed nature was sacred while white settlers believed nature was a resource.

Brut [27]2 years ago

7 0

The correct answer is D) Native Americans believed nature was sacred. White settlers believed nature was a resource.

The attitudes of Native Americans and white settlers toward nature differ in that Native Americans believed nature was sacred. White settlers believed nature was a resource.

White European settlers and colonists wanted more land to settle in and make a profit. White people believed that nature was a resource and needed to be exploited: too many natural resources and raw materials. On the other hand, Native American Indian tribes considered Mother Nature as sacred, that is why they honored nature, the land, with chants and dances to show appreciation for all nature provide.

You might be interested in

Which nation was divided into two countries by communist ideology after world war ii?

crimeas [40]

Germany as after WWII the "Iron curtain" was dropped by western Europe in an attempt to staunch communism.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Need help with my test

raketka [301]

C because it’s not just from the textbook it’s also seen in the word economy gives it away as it means the wealth going around meaning C

6 0

3 years ago

PLEASE HELP ASAP How do a concurring opinion and a unanimous opinion differ?

Vsevolod [243]

Concurring opinion is when one or more agree
unanimous opinion is when means almost everyone (or everyone) agrees
i.e:
you have to get a box into the house
out of 5 people, 1 person thinks you should hire someone to do it; that's a concurring opinion
out of 5 people, all 5 think you should just carry it into your house, that's a unanimous opinion

5 0

3 years ago

How does the founding fathers original intent relate to the judicial review process

Korvikt [17]

Legal right that a court has to receive a case first. For example, the Constitution makes it clear that the Supreme court has 'original jurisdiction' when states sue states and in cases involving high-level diplomats.

6 0

3 years ago

Need help! Does the arc of history bend towards justice? If so, how? (U.S. Civics)

PilotLPTM [1.2K]

No it really doesn’t, throughout history minorities and other groups of people during the time have been harassed and killed. An example would be the trail of tears in America. Thousands of indigenous people were lead on a March of death and to this day we still don’t have justice for the dead.

4 0

2 years ago