Answer:
a second constitution was approved for Tennessee in _1835__ to add descriptions of the state ___ ___ and update language on ___
Explanation:
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
Because they can help each other to build our world. And in help of God
Can you mark me as Brainliest
Pleaassse!!
Answer:
Demonization: Artists portrayed enemy individuals as demons or monsters. Example: The poster above of the Japanese soldier with evil eyes.
Emotional Appeal: Viewers emotions were used in an effort to have them agree with the message.
Example: Posters showing that thousands of Americans have died by the hands of the Germans and Japanese.
Patriotic Appeal: Artists appealed to the love of one's country. These posters usually had a country's flag or some form of representation for that country. Example: The use of an American Flag or American soldier.
Name Calling: Artists called other group of people by their derogatory names. Example: Germans were called Huns and the Japanese were called Japs.
Appeal to Fear: The use of fear sought to build support and unite a group of people by instilling fear in the general population. It scared Americans, for example, into believing that the war had to be fought, otherwise, America was going to be invaded by monstrous Germans and Japanese.
Catchy Slogan: Artists used short phrases or words in an effort to grab the viewer's attention. These slogans had to be very easy to remember with a very clear message. These always utilized prejudice or racism that existed against these people. Example: Remember Pearl Harbor!
Bandwagon: The message was clear: the audience was told "everyone else is doing it." It made Americans want to be a part of the crowd, to not feel left out, and to "do their part." Example: A poster saying that victory is inevitable, so you should join and support the cause to be on the winning side...(because who doesn't want to be a winner!)
Explanation:
yw! :)
Any women who could read or write would be able to be trained as a physician.
The main law regulating child labor in the United States is the Fair Labor Standards Act. For non-agricultural jobs, children under 14 may not be employed, children between 14 and 16 may be employed in allowed occupations during limited hours, and children between 16 and 18 may be employed for unlimited hours in non-hazardous occupations.[1] A number of exceptions to these rules exist, such as for employment by parents, newspaper delivery, and child actors.[1] The regulations for agricultural employment are generally less strict.
The economics of child work involves supply and demand relationships on at least three levels: the supply and demand of labor on the national (and international) level; the supply and demand of labor at the level of the firm or enterprise; the supply and demand for labor (and other functions) in the family. But a complete picture of the economics of child labor cannot be limited to simply determining supply and demand functions, because the political economy of child labor varies significantly from what a simple formal model might predict. Suppose a country could effectively outlaw child labor. Three consequences would follow: (1) the families (and the economy) would lose the income generated by their children; (2) the supply of labor would fall, driving up wages for adult workers; and (3) the opportunity cost of a child’s working time would shrink, making staying in school (assuming schools were available) much more attractive. In principle, a virtuous circle would follow: with more schooling, the children would get more skills and become more productive adults, raising wages and family welfare.20 To the extent that the demand for labor is elastic, however, the increase in wages implies that the total number of jobs would fall.
The labor supply effects are the basic outline of the logic that underlies almost all nations’ laws against child labor, as well as the international minimum age standard set in ILO Convention 138 and much of the anti-child labor statements during the recent protests against the World Trade Organization, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. This model does describe in very simplified form the long-term history of child work in the economic development of developed economies. But in the short-term, the virtuous circle seldom occurs in real life as quickly as the simple, static model suggests. The reason for the model’s short-term failure is that child work results from a complex interweaving of need, tradition, culture, family dynamics and the availability of alternative activities for children.
History suggests that children tend to work less, and go to school more, as a result of several related economic and social trends. the political economy of a place plays at least as big a part as per capita income in determining the level of child labor there.
