Europeans started to enslave Africans.
They started to use slaves instead of indentured servants, because the investment was better. Indentured servants only served for a few years, and then were granted freedom, while slaves were purchased and used for their entire lives. The investment of a slave was better than an indentured servant.
Answer:⍗⍗⍗⍗⍗⍗⍗⍗⍗⍗⍗
Girolamo Savonarola, (1452- 1498), was an Italian preacher and theologian, who sought to reform the church and society in Florence and Italy. He became renowned throughout Italy after his attacks on the immoral and the corrupt clergy and his criticism of the ruling elite in Florence. After the overthrow of the Medici in 1494, Savonarola was the most influential figure in Florence, even though he never held office. His power was short-lived, and he ended his days on the gallows. However, he was a very important figure and was an immensely influential figure in Renaissance Italy and indeed Europe. This article will show that Savonarola was a key figure in the development of both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. Uniquely, he was to inspire figures such as Martin Luther and other leaders of the Reformation and also leading figures in the Catholic Church.
Explanation:
<3
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
I think it's health care but I could be wrong
