1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
pishuonlain [190]
3 years ago
12

William Penn named the Capital of his colony Philadelphia, which meant? * 3 points "Town of Protestant Equality" "City of Elder

Knowledge" "Place of Pilgrim Inspiration "City of Brotherly Love"
History
1 answer:
nasty-shy [4]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

City of Brotherly love

Explanation:

He named it that for the way he had all the different religions living together in harmony.

You might be interested in
Which statement describes influence of natural law believes on Enligenment thinkers
In-s [12.5K]
Hi! Where are the statements?
7 0
3 years ago
What inference can we make from Oedipus’s following line: “This polluting stain I will remove, not for some distant friend, but
Margaret [11]

The correct answer is Oedipus makes decisions based on the will of the gods.

Indeed, at this point in the plot, the Kingdom of Thebes has fallen to some kind of plague that pollutes the people and the fields, causing starvation. He has a prophet consult the Oracle of Apollo to see what can be done and the prophet comes back with an injunction, not a prophecy to find Laius’ killer.

Of course, Oedipus states that “finding Lauis’ murderer is self-serving” but in the sense that he is one with his people and that his people’s welfare is his own. The only unambiguous choice is that Oedipus makes decisions not based on scientific or criminal research but on his religious beliefs and these command that the will of the gods be obeyed at all times.


4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why was the caravel an important development in navigation?
LekaFEV [45]

Answer:

It allowed for longer, safer voyages. C

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Great Britain and France avoided a take over by fascist by
maks197457 [2]

Answer:

Great Britain and France avoid a take over by fascists' by restricting freedom of speech.

Explanation:

Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. , and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.  

How Britain and France avoided fascist revolution inside their own country during rise of fascism in Italy and Germany?

What made Mussolini’s Fascism, and Lenin’s Communism too, was a specific and unique situation, never to be repeated in later history: namely, the presence of enormous masses of disaffected veterans, with recent experience of war at a very high technical level of skill, and angry about the condition of their country. (And of enormous amounts of weapons.) Fascism was not made by speeches or by money, but by tens of thousands of men gathering in armed bands to beat up enemies. And that being the case, what happened to the similar masses of veterans who came home to France, Britain, and America too, after 1918?

Well, France was exhausted. She had fought with her full strength from day one, whereas Britain had taken time to deploy its whole strength, and America and Italy had only entered the war much later. For five years, every man who could be spared had been at the Front. Her losses were larger in proportion than those of any other great power. And on the positive side, France, like Britain and America, was prosperous. The veterans went home to a country that was comparatively able to receive them, give them a place to be, and not foster any dangerous mass disaffection. This is of course relatively speaking. There will have been anger enough, irritation enough, even some disaffection. But the only real case of violence from below due to disaffection was the riot in Paris that followed the Stavisky affair in early 1934, and that, compared to what took place daily in other countries, was a very bad play of a riot.

ON the other hand, both America and Britain experienced situations that had more than a taste of Fascism, but that failed to develop into freedom-destroying movements. In America, Fascism could have come from above. The last few years of the Wilson administration were horrendous: the Red Scare fanaticized large strata of the population, and the hatred came from the top, from Wilson and his terrible AG Palmer. (Palmer was a Quaker. So was Richard Nixon. Is there a reason why Quakers in politics should prove particularly dangerous?) Hate and fear of “reds” was also the driving force of Italian Fascism; and Wilson and Palmer mobilized it in ways and with goals that Mussolini would have understood. Had Wilson not suffered his famous collapse, he might have been a real danger: he intended to run for a third term in office. And the nationwide spread of the new KKK, well beyond the bounds of the old South, shows that he might have found a pool of willing stormtroopers. Altogether, I think America dodged a bullet the size of a Gatling shot when Wilson collapsed in office.

Britain’s own Blackshirt moment took place in Ireland. Sociologically, culturally, psychologically, the Blacks and Tans were the Blackshirts of Britain - masses of disaffected veterans sent into the streets to harass and terrify political enemies, bullies in non-standard uniforms with a loose relationship with the authorities. Only, their relationship with public opinion developed in an exactly opposite direction. Whereas Italy’s majority, horrified by Socialist violence at home and by Communist brutality abroad, tended increasingly to excuse the Blackshirts and wink at their violence, in Britain - possibly because of the influence of the American media, which were largely against British rule in Ireland - the paramilitary force found itself increasingly isolated from the country’s mainstream, and eventually their evil reputation became an asset to their own enemies and contributed to British acceptance of Irish independence.

Thanks,
Eddie

5 0
1 year ago
What is the northerns reaction in the fugitive slave act??
bonufazy [111]

<u><em>Many were displeased, which increased tensions over slavery. </em></u>

<u><em></em></u>

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Are there any lessons that we can learn about how the vote went last night
    15·1 answer
  • The Constitution established three branches of government thata)share the same powers.
    6·2 answers
  • He chart above shows the progression of early colonial documents that influenced American ideals and values. Which of the follow
    8·1 answer
  • Frederick douglass predicted that the fugitive slave act would
    5·2 answers
  • Persia was divided into spheres of influence in<br> 1774<br> 1830<br> 1907<br> 1914
    15·1 answer
  • How did the bracero program benefit both Mexicans and Americans?
    5·1 answer
  • Can someone help me plzzzz I need the answer
    11·2 answers
  • Why did tensions growbetween the United States and theSoviet Union after World War II
    14·1 answer
  • Before about 1650, tobacco plantations in North America and the Caribbean were largely staffed by
    13·1 answer
  • the eleventh-century explorations and discoveries of leif eriksson were common knowledge in the european world of the fifteenth
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!