<span>Chose John Hancock as president, voted to organize an army and navy and issue money, made George Washington commander of a newly organizing Continental Army, and acted as the government of the colonies throughout the war.</span>
Indentured servants
please give me a brainliest!
Explanation:
Renaissance humanism was a revival in the study of classical antiquity, at first in Italy and then spreading across Western Europe in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. Contemporary use of the term humanism is consistent with the historical use prominent in that period, while Renaissance humanism is a retronym used to distinguish it from later humanist developments.[1]
Renaissance humanism was a response to what came to be depicted by later whig historians as the "narrow pedantry" associated with medieval scholasticism.[2] Humanists sought to create a citizenry able to speak and write with eloquence and clarity and thus capable of engaging in the civic life of their communities and persuading others to virtuous and prudent actions. This was to be accomplished through the study of the studia humanitatis, today known as the humanities: grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry, and moral philosophy.
Humanism, whilst set up by a small elite who had access to books and education, was intended as a cultural mode to influence all of society. It was a program to revive the cultural legacy, literary legacy, and moral philosophy of classical antiquity. There were important centres of humanism in Florence, Naples, Rome, Venice, Genoa, Mantua, Ferrara, and Urbino.
The Renaissance humanism also inspired, in those who followed it, a love of learning and "a true love for books....[where] humanists built book collections and university libraries developed." Humanists believed that the individual encompassed "body, mind, and soul" and learning was very much a part of edifying all aspect of the human. This love of and for learning would lead to a demand in the printed word, which in turn drove the invention of Gutenberg's printing press.[3]
Answer:
No.
Explanation:
The first half of the statement is true because abolishing poverty will help the poor greatly. The second half is false because it does not benefit the rich. Overall, people will only be happy with what benefits their class the most.
