All categories

3 years ago

Explain how the manilamen showed reason and logic include at least three details to support your answer

1 answer:

tatiyna3 years ago

3 0

Manilamen showed reason and logic through the following examples.

1) They hid in marshlands to avoid capture. They build their houses on stilts.
2) They formed a colony of fishermen who lived and worked in the swamps and bayous.
3) They developed a successful method of drying shrimps in the sun on raised platforms. Dried shrimps were exported to other countries.

Manilamen is the term used to refer to Filipino deserters from the Spanish ships at Saint Malo in the bayous of Louisiana, near the city of New Orleans and settled there. They jumped ship to escape Spanish brutalities. They spoke in Spanish and a Malay dialect. They lived together without the world knowing about their swamp existence. They became the roots of Filipinos in America.

You might be interested in

Explain the rational as to why people created government

nata0808 [166]

Answer:

Explanation:

Problem Solving

Identifying Basic Rights

Think of a right you believe all people should have. For example, you probably agree that everyone in the United States has the right to be protected from robbers and burglars. The belief that everyone should have this protection is shared by most people in the United States. We hear about it on television, in the newspaper, and in discussions.

Individually or in small groups, explain how you think rights like the one you have identified can be protected.

Defining "Natural Rights"

Most people in the American colonies believed that everyone had a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights were called natural rights. (Sometimes these are now called basic rights or fundamental rights.) The idea of natural rights means that all persons have these rights just because they are human beings. Everyone is born with these rights and they should not be taken away without a person's agreement.

Many of the Founders believed people receive these rights from God. Others believed that people have them just because it is natural for people to have them.

John Locke was a famous English philosopher. He lived from 1632 to 1704. He had written a book called Two Treatises of Civil Government (1690). In that book he wrote about natural rights. He said that the main purpose of government should be to protect the people's natural rights. He also said that kings should not have absolute power, that is, power without limits. They should not be able to deprive people of their natural rights.

Many Americans had read Locke's book, and they agreed with what it said about government. Those who had not actually read Locke's book knew his ideas from newspapers, political pamphlets, church sermons, and discussions.

Protecting Natural Rights

Although people agreed on certain natural rights, they worried about how those rights could be protected. Locke and others thought about what life would be like in a situation where there was no government and no laws. They called this situation a state of nature. They were afraid that in a state of nature their rights would be taken away.

Think what your classroom might be like if there were no rules.

Problem Solving

It's your turn to think like a philosopher

Imagine what life might be like in a state of nature. Think what your classroom might be like if there were no rules. Think what might happen if the teacher didn't have the right to tell anyone what to do.

Work together in groups of about five to answer the following questions about such a situation. Then choose a person to explain your answers to the rest of the class. Then compare your answers with John Locke's which follow.

What might be the advantages and disadvantages of living in a state of nature?

What might happen to people's rights?

What might life be like for everyone?

Compare Your List with John Locke's

You may have seen the same disadvantages in a state of nature that John Locke saw. Locke believed:

The stronger and smarter people might try to take away other people's lives, liberty, or property.

Weaker people might band together and take away the rights of the stronger and smarter people.

People would be unprotected and insecure.

The Social Compact

John Locke and other philosophers developed a solution to the problems that exist in a place without government. In a state of nature, people might feel free to do anything they want to do. However, their rights would not be protected and they would feel insecure.

Locke argued that people should agree with one another to give up some of their freedom in exchange for protection and security. They should consent to follow some laws in exchange for the protection that these laws would give them. This agreement is called a social compact or social contract. A social compact is an agreement people make among themselves to create a government to rule them and protect their natural rights. In this agreement the people consent to obey the laws created by that government.

In a later lesson, you will study the Declaration of Independence. You will see how the Founders included all of the ideas you have studied in this lesson in the Declaration.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

How did the beating of senator sumner pull the nation apart

Natasha_Volkova [10]

Answer: On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate Chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness. The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator." Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery." Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech. Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended. Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions. Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately reelected, and soon thereafter died at age 37. Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years. The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war.

Explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

Please write a paragraph summarizing this paragraph below. I will mark brainliest for the best paragraph!!

yawa3891 [41]

Each individual has a unique opportunity to use his or her capital in order to improve the standard of living of the general public. This is done by making sure that the industry that he or she works in is of the best quality.

3 0

3 years ago

How does the monument convey a ""message of peace""?

Softa [21]

Answer:

which monument?

Explanation:

3 0

2 years ago

1. In what ways can Kipling's poem be interpreted as being ethnocentric and racist?

lyudmila [28]

First of all, it should be mentioned that Rudyard Kipling was a renowned author of short stories and books, among them the famous The Jungle Book, which tells the story of Mogli. In this sense, it is also worth mentioning the advent of Neocolonialism, which used the notion of race domination to justify the capitalist expansion it wished to undertake. Kipling was one of the minds harnessed by Neocolonialism, and his works, which preached the inferiority of non-white people and, consequently, white supremacy, can be considered racist because they aimed at the reduction of individuals based on racial criteria, at the same time time that can be considered ethnocentric because they place the Caucasian European man as the center of the world, superior to the others, and who, therefore, would have legitimacy to govern everything and everyone.

7 0

3 years ago