Answer:
The rest of europe wanted to compete after the UK started become more wealthy (but for a price, since the proletarians had to suffer)
Perhaps the greatest way in which these two time periods were similar is in terms of intolerant attitudes. Both we periods of great discrimination against minorities and women. The 1950s saw far more of a literary revival than the 20s.
Answer:
To begin with, Colonel John Bradstreet starts his statement off by calling the American Indians "savages", the "less useful, and "greatest villains". You can infer that Bradstreet does not like or want a relationship with the American Indians at all. In his statement he emphasizes how the Indians are defenseless, and that they are raising jealousy. I can tell that Bradstreet does not like the encounters with the Indians, nor think they are helpful people. Williams Johnson starts his statement off with saying that the colonist had the wrong idea about the Indians and that they " greatly dispised them" without even knowing their power or knowledge of these lands. He wanted a bond with the Indians that were beneficial; he also believed that the Indians had their own way of living and that they were useful.
The two perceptions are completely different. Bradstreet has a negative perception of the Indians the whole throughout the whole statement. He believes that the Indians are not a ally, but more of an enemy. Johnson on the other hand believes that the colonist hasn't gave the Indians a chance to show them their knowledge. He also believes that the Indians could be allies, and not enemy's.
Explanation:
On Edge 2020.
The stamp act was the first interal tax levied directly american colonist by the british goverement. The tea act was that the colonist had never accepted the constitionability of the duty of tea, and the tea act rekindled their opposition to it.
