For context, do you need it in point form as most of the info is presentable in that format
Answer:
There is no concrete way to know if they had any roast turkey that day, but we do know there were plenty of wild turkeys in the region then, "and both the native Wampanoag Indians and English colonists ate them," writes Curtin in Giving Thanks
Explanation:
Answer: Thousands of women in the North and South joined volunteer brigades and signed up to work as nurses.
Explanation: also they disguised themselves as men to fight but i doubt that will show up tho
The most important motivation for colonists than the ones suggested is to make money.
<h3>Who are colonists?</h3>
Colonist are members of a government group that settles in a new country or region.
The people brings innovations and new idea and the original settler of a colony·
The colonist had the opportunity to make money, there are business opportunities that is brought it though them into this country in which they firm key stakeholder having there own share of the business.
They are mostly motivated for the colonization of the New World because they see opportunity to make more money.
Therefore, the most important motivation for colonists than the ones suggested is to make money.
Learn more on colonists below
brainly.com/question/24736605
#SPJ1
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.
