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
Irina18 [472]
3 years ago
10

Please help me!

History
1 answer:
svetoff [14.1K]3 years ago
5 0

The relationship of the Aztecs and Cortez was a fake bond, the Aztecs believed that he was a god that came to earth to fulfill a prophecy, he realized it and played off this fantasy so he could get close and then strike them. When Cortes returned to the city he found out that his men mass murdered the Aztecs at a religious ceremony. The Aztecs were angered at this so they fought back. During this outbreak, he was hit in the head by a rock and died. The relationship between the Incas and Pizarro was like the relationship between the Aztecs and Cortez. He befriended them for a short time and struck down the Incas when he had the opportunity. Pizarro scheduled a meeting with the Incas and killed them all in an hour in an ambush. Cortez had a huge impact, he helped explore Mesoamerica and conquered the Aztecs in the name of Spain, this gave an incentive to explore North America and Pizzaro conquered the Incas in the name of Spain and gave an incentive to explore the Andes. In both cases, the natives lost much of their native culture, they became subordinated people, they were exploited for their labor. Both of them were a symbol of imperialism. Spain profited from both explorers once they took natural resources from these places and enslaved natives.

You might be interested in
Did ancient rome have unique forms of art, customs, sports, dress, language, music, dance, foods, celebrations, or architecture?
Alexus [3.1K]

Answer:

yeah

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
How do i translate (7,4)
kolezko [41]
You add the sides then multiply your answer with the sides.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
how can we interpret and compare speeches from president lincoln and Obama, and from Frederick Douglass, to help us analyze the
zavuch27 [327]

Answer:

I have a short article included to help.

Explanation:

Frederick Douglass’s 1845 Narrative continues to be a popular pedagogical text for high school and college curricula for the didactic reason that Douglass is a strong advocate for the benefits of reading and writing. Responding to the rumor that he might have been a well-educated freeman masquerading as a runaway slave, the educational elements of Douglass’s autobiography were partially intended to explain the source of his eloquence—tracing his beginning lessons in penmanship with neighborhood boys in Baltimore to his clandestine reading of The Columbian Orator. By including the letter he forged in his first escape attempt, he implies the message that literacy set him free. Setting a precedent for many African American literary figures who came after him, including Ralph Ellison’s fictionalized Invisible Man and the real-life President Barack Obama, Douglass fashioned a compelling explanation of his coming-to-voice, which even competes with, and eventually eclipses, the drama of his escape in the book’s final chapters.

One of the most dramatic emblems of Douglass’s literary education is the moment he becomes moved to address the ships on the Chesapeake Bay—it is a picture in words of his oratorical birth. In William Lloyd Garrison’s preface to Frederick Douglass’s 1845 Narrative, he celebrates the theatrical scene: Reduced to total abjection by the brutality of his slavemaster Covey, Douglass retreats to the Chesapeake shore on Sunday, and gives a moving speech to the white-sailed ships on the horizon. Performing as if he were on stage, Douglass laments his misery, questions whether there is a God, and concludes that since Covey is probably going to kill him anyway, he might as well try to escape. According to Garrison, Douglass’s oratorical tableau is the visual and literary epitome of the basic human desire for freedom—a “whole Alexandrine library of thought, feeling, and sentiment” (7). Like Garrison’s investment in The Liberator’s 1850 masthead, adapting Josiah Wedgwood’s image of a shackled and kneeling slave asking, “Am I not a man and a brother?,” Garrison points Douglass’s readers to this moving portrait of suffering with the hope that they, too, will vicariously experience the slave’s resolution for freedom.1 Although Garrison seems to have hoped that the scene would principally inspire sympathy for Douglass among his white readers, in Douglass’s hands it also turns into a representation of literary agency with lasting significance for African American literature. Douglass’s figure of himself—embodied in words—as communicating with the nation is echoed in similar moments of coming-to-voice in African American literary figures to the present day, and has become one of the most enduring elements of his rhetorical legacy.

Douglass’s waterside speech is a curiously artistic milestone in antislavery testimony even beyond its anguished desperation. Garrison might have pointed to many other dramatic passages—such as the whipping of Aunt Hester, the slave auction, the abandonment of Douglass’s grandmother, or even the fight with Covey—but he chose instead to highlight this highly literary, if not overwrought, transformational moment in Douglass’s consciousness. In his essay on the aesthetic elements of Douglass’s Narrative, written over forty years ago, Albert Stone argued this speech was an expression of Douglass’s artistic impulses to imaginatively synthesize his thought processes concerning freedom (72).2 But put more bluntly, he might have admitted that Douglass probably never gave this speech at all. Part of what makes Douglass’s first autobiography so effective is his ability to blend his largely factual account of slavery so seamlessly with the inventions of art. Like his deliberately falsified account of his grandmother’s abandonment and death, whose purple passages remained in his autobiographies even after he admitted that they were not true, Douglass’s speech is one of the more glaring examples of his departure from conventional fact in telling his story

6 0
3 years ago
Which of the following best explains why the French had very little territory in North America after 1763?
Talja [164]
It c they lost land after the sevens year war or French and Indian war it's not d because that does not happen until the early 1800s a is the worst answer b the Indians never have a say and the French fought with them in the 7 years war which is why it is called the French and Indian war
7 0
3 years ago
In the early 1800s, why was there so little settlement on the Great Plains?
Likurg_2 [28]

Answer:

C.

Explanation: Conditions were not suitable for the kind of farming done at that time.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • __________ is believed to be the first englishman to cultivate orinoco tobacco in virginia.
    15·1 answer
  • What bounds North America to the north?
    6·1 answer
  • James k. initiated a war with Mexico in order to
    7·1 answer
  • Which of the following was NOT a reason why Portugal became home to many great explorers?
    7·1 answer
  • Which of the following occurred during Reconstruction? A Women were given the right to vote. B The Supreme Court said that segre
    8·1 answer
  • Drag each feature to the correct category.
    14·2 answers
  • How did Kublai Khan grandfather become ruler?
    11·2 answers
  • What are cataracts of the Nile in Egypt in Egypt
    8·2 answers
  • If you want to learn more about God, go to fbcinterlaken.org. It is a completely free website of my church. My dad is the pastor
    13·2 answers
  • What are the Pros and Cons of Herzl's Jewish State Plan?
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!