<span>The decline of feudalism was brought about by its own success. The system allowed for a new era of wealth and prosperity within Europe. However, this progress allowed people held back by the system to achieve a better standard of living. </span>During the feudalism era, serfs were at the mercy and will of their feudal lords. However in western Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries, many serfs were able to start growing their own personal wealth by engaging in trade. At the same time, many lords were beginning to have money issues and, therefore, needed to rent out their lands to tenant farmers. Serfs who had raised enough personal capital began to rent the land and, in effect, buy their freedom from serfdom.
As monarchical power in England and France increased, the power of the nobility decreased, which further led to the erosion of feudalism. In 1660, feudalism was outlawed in England. By the start of the French Revolution in 1789, feudalism ceased to exist in France. The lords in these countries who once ruled over serfs became the aristocracy. In Germany, the feudal system was replaced by small royal states until the 19th century and the unification of Prussia.
Answer:
C. The appropriate balance between observing social injustice and seeking social justice.
Explanation:
This issue is strongly debated by modern-day sociologists, because our social order seems to be innately unjust. There are people who start from worse premises than others, there are people who earn less than others and people who will earn more and there is no society without inequality.
<em>This inequality is considered "social injustice" by modern-day sociologists and philosophers, whereas other voices claim that this kind of "injustice" is not something which can be corrected. </em>
<em>The main idea is that there will always be inequalities in any given society. </em>However, <u>the big question is how big these inequalities should be and how much state interference should there be to diminish these inequalities? </u>Moreover, even with state interference, could inequalities ever be wiped out?
This is what modern-day sociologists are trying to answer, in order to build better societies without imposing too many things on individuals who are faring better than others just by birth.
Business people in intense competition with each other to produce a better, less expensive product or service are and always has been good for the economy of any country. When businesses are allowed to become too big to fail, to hire trained gunslingers in the form of expensive lobbyists and contribute heavily to the campaigns of candidates who provide those businesses favors, privileges, subsidies, tax cuts, etc., they cease to be good for the economy of our country. Business owners hate unions because it gets in the way of them making money. The ego maniacal business owner values profit above treating employees with dignity or as a human being at all. Forcing an employee to skip lunch is the difference between earning $100 to $0.00. Unions are hated because they force business owners to do the right thing. Sometimes what is right keeps them from maximizing their profits. There are labor laws, however can be ignored when greed is involved. Most employers get away with it as opposed to employers who have employees with unions.
Answer:
Explanation:
1 piece of evidence: "Massasoit prevented other Indians from harming the English, gave the English corn, showed them how to plant..." This proves that the Wampanoag were very hospitable, but the English betrayed them. "...And the English made them drunk and then cheated them in bargains..."
