Answer:
The most convincing consideration made by the author is that in America there was freedom, since no individual was responsible for maintaining aristocrats and nobles. Each person was only responsible for himself and worked to enrich himself, something that the English could not do.
Explanation:
Letters from an American Farmer is a series of texts written by J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur. The texts are written in a letter format where the author reasons about the exploitation of america, american identity, the advantages that america has and even slavery.
The third letter is entitled "what is an American?" where the author replies that to be an American is to have freedom and autonomy. He reinforces this argument by informing that in Europe, people do not have freedom and autonomy, because they are trapped by an aristocracy that they need to maintain. In that case, workers do not work to enrich themselves, but rather their princes. This does not exist in America, where each individual is not responsible for any noble person, but for himself and works for his own success.
Well, generally I don't agree with keeping animals in the circus.
But I guess in some rare cases, provided that the animals are really well treated (which excludes the bigger species, since they can't possibly not be stressed by the small amount of space circus offers), and provided that for whatever reason they can't live in the wild, (their environment is disappearing or they're hurt and would be rejected in a group), I guess it would be acceptable to keep them in a circus.
It would probably work best for the species that more readily socialize with humans: dogs, some monkeys. Again, this would only be acceptable if animal welfare was always in the first place, and if for examples the animals could refuse performing on a given day.
In those circumstances, a circus could provide a predator- free environment for them, which would be beneficial for the animals (but again, I am very skeptical this is ever the case).
Answer: adjectives describe stuff
Explanation:
Idk if dis will help but here is a summary.
The Chorus wonders aloud about the origins of Oedipus. An old man is led in by Oedipus’ servants and identified as the herdsman, the man who gave the baby to the Corinthian messenger so many years ago: Oedipus insists on him revealing exactly what he knows. The messenger says that Oedipus is that same baby, who was abandoned by his father and mother - and the herdsman reacts with fear and begs the messenger to hold his tongue. Oedipus threatens the messenger with physical violence, and finally the man confesses that the baby was a child of Laius's house.
Oedipus asks if it was a slave's child or Laius's child, and the shepherd confesses that it was Laius's child - a child that Jocasta gave him to expose on the hillside because of a prophecy that he would kill his father. The shepherd says he didn't have the heart to kill the infant, so he took it to another country instead. “They will all come, / all come out clearly!” cries Oedipus. “Light of the sun, let me / look on you no more!” (1183-4). He has finally realized what has happened and all exit except the Chorus. The Chorus reflects on the mutable nature of human happiness - all happiness, they say, is only “a seeming” and “after that turning away” (1191-2). Nobody can ultimately escape fate.
