Doing good deeds is not a mean to salvation.
Answer:Hope this Helps!
Explanation:
The invention of the cotton gin was a revolution in the cotton industry. Due to the manner in which this sector was exploited in the US, it led to a large increase in slavery in the Southern states, in order to meet the constantly growing demand for cotton using a larger workforce.
Answer:
The answer is the Magna Carta.
Explanation:
<h2><u><em>
PLEASE MARK AS BRAINLIEST!!!!!</em></u></h2>
Answer: It is a set of actions taken by interest groups on issues that relate to the economy.
Explanation: An economic policy is when there is a course of action intended to control or influence the economy's behavior. (Like being told as a kid to not run down the hallway or else you'll get hurt.)
Answer: “Birth of a Nation”—D. W. Griffith’s disgustingly racist yet titanically original 1915 feature—back to the fore. The movie, set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites. It depicts freedmen as interested, above all, in intermarriage, indulging in legally sanctioned excess and vengeful violence mainly to coerce white women into sexual relations. It shows Southern whites forming the Ku Klux Klan to defend themselves against such abominations and to spur the “Aryan” cause overall. The movie asserts that the white-sheet-clad death squad served justice summarily and that, by denying blacks the right to vote and keeping them generally apart and subordinate, it restored order and civilization to the South.
“Birth of a Nation,” which runs more than three hours, was sold as a sensation and became one; it was shown at gala screenings, with expensive tickets. It was also the subject of protest by civil-rights organizations and critiques by clergymen and editorialists, and for good reason: “Birth of a Nation” proved horrifically effective at sparking violence against blacks in many cities. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to understand why Griffith’s film merits anything but a place in the dustbin of history, as an abomination worthy solely of autopsy in the study of social and aesthetic pathology.
