Answer:
1.Christopher Columbus was a fraud.2. He was indeed a brave and prolific explorer. 3.but he also was a brutal evil man who never even made it to the place that is now the United States.4. We all believe that Columbus is a villain than a hero.
5.First of all, according to Wikipedia, A hero (masculine) or heroine (feminine) is a person or main character of a literary work who, in the face of danger, combats adversity through feats of ingenuity, bravery or strength, often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good. However, based on what we have learned about Christopher Columbus, what he did has nothing to do with the definition of hero. His motivation to take the travel was to arrive in India, a country in east Asia, to obtain gold. From this perspective, his motivation was not noble. In addition, he did not arrive in India.
Secondly, he set a bad example to colonists came later. According to the article “Christopher Columbus: Hero or Murderer?” by Whitney DeWitt, it is said that “Columbus’s arrogance and exploitation regarding slavery began on his second voyage. Ferdinand and Isabella had ordered that the natives be treated kindly. In opposition to this order, Columbus began exporting slaves in great numbers in 1494.” His way to treat the native residents was improper and rude, which is bad model to colonists who came later. A hero is supposed to be a decent man who get rid of bad reputation. Columbus’ behavior did not conform to the standard.
Because of the reasons given above, it will be hard to classify Christopher Columbus as a hero. His motivation to come to American continent was not noble. He set a bad example to colonists who came later. In addition, his arrival caused a catastrophe to local residents. Therefore, he is more like a villain than a hero.
brainliest plz
There was a lot of public discussion in the States over the Constitution's ratification procedure. Nine of the thirteen State legislatures needed to ratify it in order for it to go into force; unanimity was not necessary.
First, three-fourths of state conventions or state legislatures must support each amendment. Getting many states to concur on a long-lasting amendment to the Constitution is exceedingly challenging.
However, it wouldn't be until 1790 that the Constitution would eventually be accepted and ratified by all states. Roadblocks included disagreements about the delegates' authority, anti-federalist phobias, and the absence of a Bill of Rights. However, the new administration's concessions and pledges ultimately resulted in a solution.
To learn more about ratification
brainly.com/question/28246915
#SPJ1
Answer:
yes it can
Explanation:
the alliances is what started the war
It was definitely a success for the most part, cause if it wasn't we wouldn't be where we are politically, technologically, and economically
The concept of "total war" refers to a type of armed conflict that is bound by no rules or limitations in terms of who is being attacked, the weapons that are used or the elements of society that will be sacrificed to win it.
Engaging in this type of war can have some benefits, such as:
- There is no need for the government to define its objectives clearly.
- Because of it, there is no accountability between the government and its citizens, which gives them free reign of action.
- Countries with a strong military can use their full power.
However, the costs far outweigh the benefits:
- Increased cost of human lives, from all parties involved.
- The destruction of all civil society.
- Because civil society is so disrupted, government institutions are likely to collapse as well.
- Extremely difficult recovery process, both politically as economically.
- Complete depletion of the country's resources.
- Violation of human rights and the laws of just war.
- Closes the door to any peaceful solution.
There is rarely, if ever, a situation in which a total war provides benefits that would outweigh the costs of it, or that would not be achieved through some other means.
