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
egoroff_w [7]
3 years ago
15

Why was poetry significant in aztecs

History
1 answer:
9966 [12]3 years ago
5 0

Answer: Poetry in the Aztec world was known as "flower and song," the Nahuatl (Aztec language) metaphors for art and symbolism. It was the highest art form and it often celebrated the transient nature of life on earth. ... Thus the idea that "art made things divine," and only the divine was true

Explanation:

Art was an important part of Aztec life. They used some forms of art such as music, poetry, and sculpture to honor and praise their gods. Other forms of art, such as jewelry and feather-work, were worn by the Aztec nobility to set them apart from the commoners. The Aztecs often used metaphors throughout their art.

You might be interested in
Until the 1870s the united states coined both gold and silver. 1. false 2. true
mixas84 [53]

That statement is true.

To be precise, the united states coined both gold and silver in 1873. Before this, gold is the only material that is used to create coin money.

But the cost of production to produce gold coin is really high. Because of this, the government decided to include silver in order to drive the cost of production down in 1973.

6 0
2 years ago
Powerful military lords who headed small territories
Yuliya22 [10]
The answer is Daimyo. 
4 0
3 years ago
5.
n200080 [17]

Answer:A

Explanation:

7 0
2 years ago
In the myth of the "Self-Made Man", what did business tycoons claim their success was simply the result of? What was the actual
True [87]

Answer:

The Self-Made Myth exposes the false claim that business success is the result of heroic individual effort with little or no outside help. Brian Miller and Mike Lapham bust the myth and present profiles of business leaders who recognize the public investments and supports that made their success possible—including Warren Buffett, Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s, New Belgium Brewing CEO Kim Jordan, and others. The book also thoroughly demolishes the claims of supposedly self-made individuals such as Donald Trump and Ross Perot. How we view the creation of wealth and individual success is critical because it shapes our choices on taxes, regulation, public investments in schools and infrastructure, CEO pay, and more. It takes a village to raise a business—it’s time to recognize that fact.

This book challenges a central myth that underlies today’s antigovernment rhetoric: that an individual’s success is the result of gumption and hard work alone. Miller and Lapham clearly show that personal success is closely tied to the supports society provides.

Explanation:

it’s worth mentioning briefly an additional impact that the self-made myth has on our public debates—that of people voting their aspirations. Because the rags-to-riches myth persists, many Americans hold on to the belief, however unlikely, that they too may one day become wealthy. This has at times led to people’s voting their aspirations rather than their reality. As Michael Moore noted in 2003:

After fleecing the American public and destroying the American Dream for most working people, how is it that, instead of being drawn and quartered and hung at dawn at the city gates, the rich got a big wet kiss from Congress in the form of a record tax break, and no one says a word? How can that be? I think it’s because we’re still addicted to the Horatio Alger fantasy drug. Despite all the damage and all the evidence to the contrary, the average American still wants to hang on to this belief that maybe, just maybe, he or she (mostly he) just might make it big after all.35

It is essential that we find a more honest and complete narrative of wealth creation. In chapter 2, we expose the fallacy of the self-made myth by examining the stories of individuals often lifted up as successes in our public dialogues. In examining their stories, we come to better understand that even their business success includes contributions from society, from government, from other individuals, and even luck.

Beyond the moralizing ridiculed by Twain, this individual success myth overlooked a number of key social and environmental factors. The emergence of a clear geography of opportunity showed that there was something about the place where one lived that contributed to one’s success. No matter what personal qualities someone had, if you lived in Appalachia or the South, your chances of ascending the ladder to great wealth were slim. Those who achieved great wealth were almost invariably from the bustling industrial cities of the Northeast. By one estimate, three out of four millionaires in the nineteenth century were from New England, New York, or Pennsylvania.7

Another unique external factor was the opportunity that existed at that time, thanks to expanding frontiers and seemingly unlimited natural resources. The United States was conquering and expropriating land from native people and distributing it to railroads, White homesteaders, and land barons. Most of the major Gilded Age fortunes were tied to cornering a market and exploiting natural resources such as minerals, oil, and timber. Even P. T. Barnum, the celebrated purveyor of individual success aphorisms, had to admit in Art of Money Getting that “in the United States, where we have more land than people, it is not at all difficult for persons in good health to make money.”8

He might have added that it also helped to be male, to be free rather than a slave, and to be White. While free Blacks had some rights in the North, they had little opportunity to achieve the rags-to-riches dream because of both informal and legal discrimination. Even after the Civil War, Blacks, Asians, and others were largely excluded from governmental programs like the Homestead Act that distributed an astounding 10 percent of all US lands—270 million acres—to 1.6 million primarily White homesteaders.9

5 0
2 years ago
Do you think the people who live in Europe today always eat the regional foods found in their home countries? Why or why not?
satela [25.4K]

Answer:

European cuisine comprises the cuisines of Europe[1] [2] including the cuisines brought to other countries by European settlers and colonists. Sometimes the term "European", or more specifically "continental" cuisine, is used to refer more strictly to the cuisine of the western parts of mainland Europe.

Grilled steak

Bratkartoffeln

The cuisines of Western countries are diverse, although there are common characteristics that distinguish them from those of other regions.[3] Compared with traditional cooking of East Asia, meat is more prominent and substantial in serving size.[4] Steak and cutlets in particular are common dishes across the West.[dubious – discuss] Western cuisines also emphasize grape wine[dubious – discuss] and sauces as condiments, seasonings, or accompaniments (in part due to the difficulty of seasonings penetrating the often larger pieces of meat used in Western cooking). Many dairy products are utilised in cooking.[5] There are hundreds of varieties of cheese and other fermented milk products. White wheat-flour bread has long been the prestige starch, but historically, most people ate bread, flatcakes, or porridge made from rye, spelt, barley, and oats.[6][7] The better-off also made pasta, dumplings and pastries. The potato has become a major starch plant in the diet of Europeans and their diaspora since the European colonisation of the Americas. Maize is much less common in most European diets than it is in the Americas; however, corn meal (polenta or mămăligă) is a major part of the cuisine of Italy and the Balkans. Although flatbreads (especially with toppings such as pizza or tarte flambée) and rice are eaten in Europe, they are only staple foods in limited areas, particularly in Southern Europe. Salads (cold dishes with uncooked or cooked vegetables, sometimes with a dressing) are an integral part of European cuisine.

Explanation:

·∪·

7 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • What were the main ideas expressed in the declaration of independence? govt 2305?
    10·1 answer
  • Select the items that are considered low risk investments. Stocks, bonds, or bank accounts?
    8·2 answers
  • What effect did the great awakening have on the relationship between the colonies and Great Britain
    7·1 answer
  • Elisha requested a double portion of Elijah's spirit. What was the condition that would show whether or not Elisha's request of
    14·2 answers
  • Which is an example of an environmental influence that would most likely result in natural selection?
    9·1 answer
  • What did the movement for the Equal Rights Amendment have in common with the movement against the amendment? A. Both were ignore
    13·1 answer
  • True or false president carter. succeded in negotatio the retrase ir the hostales​
    13·1 answer
  • Which of the following descriptions best characterizes the "hell ships” of WWII?
    5·2 answers
  • One cause of the Panic of 1819 was Select one: a. decreased foreign demand for American agricultural goods.
    15·1 answer
  • This power given to the president allows him to enact laws and actions without Congressional approval
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!