They are both written in first person, they share conflicts. <span>First, in similarity, they lived in close time periods (both lived in 20th century) and were very poor. They went through a lot of struggle but in the end they achieved a lot. They both share similar conflicts. These are both memoir stories written in first person and talk about being young children.
In difference, No Gumption is about a boy who delivers newspapers to help support his family and to learn how to have a job. His mother wants him to have gumption so he won't end up the way his father was. In Barrio Boy, it is about an immigrant who goes to school and learns English. I don't think the story ever talks about him getting a job.</span>
Answer:
1.- No and yes, they should be forgiven by society in order to move on.
2.- The spouse are to "blame" and it's not justified and no one can say that its was pushed to cheat.
Explanation:
1.- People who commit a serious crime can't change but they could learn to control their impulses but they will always be there, I mean, not in all cases because someone who commited a serious crime in self-defense, they don't even have to learn to control because they don't have the intention/impulse to do it again; as for the forgiveness of society, this is fair to happen only if they already compulgated their sentence.
2.- When I say <em>blame</em>, it is not in all the extension of the word because when a person decides to cheat it's because the relationship he/she is in, it's over [love is gone, routine, unhappiness, etc...] and the two people inside that relationship let it happen, therefore I say the two are to blame although it's not a fault as such. And no one can be justified or pushed to cheat, everyone has the power on their own actions, so if someone cheats it's because they took that decision and the consequences of it.
3.- In a literary form it's in did nobler to die with integrity but that, in reality can hardly ever become true because in the world that we live in and in order to survive in this society, at some point we will have to compromised our principles and affect other people and learn to live with it.
4.- Because the worst enemy of people is fear, it was B.C. and A.F. and it will continue to be till the end of times because even though we have records of the consequences of irrationality, we don't care when we face the unknow, it's a simple survival instinct.
Answer:
b. would most likely be your answer.
Explanation:
Hi, you've asked an incomplete question. It seems you are likely referring to the online article, The complicated legacy of the Pilgrims by Peter C. Mancall, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences on the actively learn website.
<u>Explanation:</u>
1. The first misconception occurs when we are told that even though many American students have been taught to believe that the Compact signed by the pilgrims was <em>"a stepping stone toward self-government, a defining feature of American constitutional democracy.
"</em> it isn't actually the case, the article explains why,
<em> "After all, self-governing communities existed across Indigenous New England long before European migrants arrived...So </em><em>American self-government</em><em>, however one defines it, was </em><em>not</em><em> born in Plymouth."</em>
<em>2. </em>Another misconception was that the Pilgrims showed kindness and love towards the indigenous people they met, For example, we are told that in 1802, "the future President John Quincy Adams" referring to the pilgrims said, <em>"shown “kindness and equity toward the savages.” </em>However, William Bradford another observer said about the land, <em>“a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts and wild men.”</em>
Moreover, the article further says,<em> "...colonists slaughtered Indigenous people on the banks of the Mystic River." </em>This alludes to the fact that there was a very little period of kindness amongst the Pilgrims and the indigenous people they met.
<em />
<em />
<em />
