Answer:
1700s
Explanation:
By the 1700s, chocolate was a part of life for upper-class citizens in Europe; believed to be a nutritious drink with many health benefits.
Answer:
"Birmingham Sunday" was written as a song and is in the form of a broadside ballad. The structure was formed in part to match the old Scottish folk song "I Once Loved a Lass." I think Fariña may have chosen to use an old melody because he wanted the message to be the main focus of the song. The familiarity of the melody meant that people may have been able to sing along, so all they needed to do was to learn the words. The song has a pattern, which is broken occasionally. The main pattern for syllables in a stanza is 11, 11, 11, and 10. However, Fariña occasionally breaks from this pattern, almost as if stressing particular messages. The first break is in line 7: "At an old Baptist church there was no need to run." This line is 12 syllables instead of the usual 11. The line is also heavy with irony, so it could be that Fariña wanted to emphasize its irony and foreshadow what will happen. The second break is in line 17: "And the number her killers had given was four," referring to Carol Robertson. It is possible that this line was given an extra syllable (12 instead of 11) to emphasize Carol, who was the last victim mentioned in the song. The syllable pattern does not break again until line 30: "And I can't do much more than to sing you a song." This could be to emphasize the helplessness that some felt as a result of the injustice. The song also utilized end rhyme. Using letters to represent end rhymes, most stanzas (except the first) looked like this: AAAB. It is interesting that the first stanza starts off not following this pattern. Instead, it follows a rhyme pattern of AABC. The "B" that seems out of place happens to be the powerful line, "On Birmingham Sunday the blood ran like wine." Perhaps Fariña wanted to keep this line, which utilizes figurative language to hint at the destruction, the topic of the song.
Explanation:
Which scenarios please. the question is not complete
It helps to solve the conflict because Rachel’s family is closer to having a safe place to live
Answer: The answer is you can neither be fully supportive of the either. In fact the battle will go on or you may the arguments will perhaps get louder in the years to come.
Explanation: None of the nations wants to back from using a lucrative resources that they chance upon fully knowing the repercussions of climate change and various other damaging havoc that can impact the entire earth.
The greed in humans cannot be killed and perhaps we already are paying a heavy price for it. The conservationists believe the usage of the resources should be done in a responsible manner.
The supply need not be jeopardised for the future generations but no objections in continuing to use them though. Sustainability is the argument that they propound.
The preservationists are purists in the true sense they don't want to disturb mother nature and allow them to flourish in their pristine form and we continue to live in harmony with that.
The intrinsic value of the land and other resources have to retained and gained inspiration for its beauty and serenity. It is the theory that preservationists have stuck too for years.
Each is right in their own way, if we don't use the natural resources we won't be able to function as well as we do.
If we don't preserve some of the natural resources and stick our head into every resource on the surface of the earth, there will be large destruction and extinction of flora and fauna.
Hence it would be right to say, that we need to rethink what we are going to do because in the next few years what we do will determine our future and there is no going back then.
