<span>Nanahuatzin and
Tecuciztecatl are two Aztec Gods who have different characteristics far from
each other. Nanahuatzin or Nanahuati is the most humble of all gods. He sacrificed
himself so that he would continue to shine on earth as the sun by throwing himself
to the fire. The meaning of Nanahuatzin is “full of sores”. Usually, Nanahuatzin
is depicted as a man emerging from fire. Tecuciztecatl or Tecciztecatl on the
other hand, is the lunar deity in the Aztec mythology. He represents the old “man-in-the-moon”.
In the stories, it is said that all were living in a universe dominated by a
generation of sun gods. The first few sun gods either perished by wind storms,
jaguars, and fiery rain or by flood. After the fourth sun perished, Nanahuatzin
and Tecuciztecatl vied for the honor of becoming the next sun god. A bonfire was
built for it is there that they will sacrifice the next volunteer. It was
Nanahuatzin, a poor god, who was favored by the majority to be the next sun
god. Tecuciztecatl pushed that he was more deserving but at the last moment he hesitated.
It was because of Nanahuatzin’s courage that he jumped into the fire. But then Tecuciztecatl
gained courage too and followed the lead of Nanahuatzin. The other gods were
mad at the rich and proud Tecuciztecatl for he had followed the humble
Nanahuatzin and so they threw an imprint of the rabbit’s shape dimming Tecuciztecatl’s
brightness. This is the reason Tecuciztecatl’s brightness could only be seen at
night. </span>
The line from which Helen grey implies that the author thinks physical beauty is not the most valuable quality would be “but so you miss that modest charm; which is the surest charm of them all” there’s no focus on any physical attribute but instead on the modesty of Helen grey
The correct answer is <span>what is written in the Constitution is not open to interpretation
Strict constructionism is a way of interpreting the constitution. Constructionists only accept what is written and the way in which it was written. There is nothing beyond what is written and from his point of view, if it says that all people are equal and citizens of the United States then all people indeed, including African-Americans. For him, there is no interpretation that looks at deeper meaning, what is written is what is intended and that's why he is a strict constructionist. </span>
<span>"All our yesterdays have lighted fools/ The way to dusty death." i think</span>
