The roots of the renaissance plant tells us that the medieval and classical periods and the renaissance are related and one gives rise to another. In this case, the medieval and classical eras existed between the 5th and 15th century. The two periods form the basis of culture and art, where most people painted based on their perception, beliefs and artistic understanding. On the other hand, the renaissance that existed during the 16th century marked the beginning of most things that people see today. It was a period of a peaking society among Europeans. The art was changing into more fashionable designs in clothes, houses, etc. Hence, the roots of the renaissance plant tells as the origin of all arts and culture in the European society throughout the generations.
Here is what I found from an expert, you might want to put this into your own words. :)
Answer:
After arriving in North America in 1630, the Puritans focused on converting American Indians to their religion.
Explanation:
Puritans were said to be people who were members of a religious movement that came up in the northern English colonies in the 1620s and 1630s. By the 1630s, they left England in large numbers and formed New haven colony, Massachusetts Bay Colony and others.
They acted like their Spanish and French Catholic rivals by converting the native peoples to the version of Christianity they were professing.
Answer:
I really do not know. I am usually pretty good with this but I don't understand if there is supposed to be a question with it.
<span>A rational ethical egoist
would advocate for people to pursue their own interest for it is in pursuing
our own interests that we contribute to the advancement of society. Progress in
human society lies in people pursuing their own interest and in competing which
has resulted in innovations and technological development,</span>
Answer: is a bad idea
Explanation: Hamilton's argument is ultimately that a bill of rights should not be added to the Constitutions because the entire Constitution is itself a bill of rights. Also Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.
