1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
bonufazy [111]
3 years ago
11

How did the introduction of technology change the way Americans received the news? Use two specific examples to support your ans

wer.
History
1 answer:
Shalnov [3]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

news papers or mail would be great that all they could use or maybe a messager

Explanation:

messagers can bring word or news to the town also news paper would tell about the news tha messager brought or local news

best I could think of

You might be interested in
What four things should you look for when analyzing sources in history?
skad [1K]

When you analyze a primary source, you are undertaking the most important job of the historian. There is no better way to understand events in the past than by examining the sources--whether journals, newspaper articles, letters, court case records, novels, artworks, music or autobiographies--that people from that period left behind.

Each historian, including you, will approach a source with a different set of experiences and skills, and will therefore interpret the document differently. Remember that there is no one right interpretation. However, if you do not do a careful and thorough job, you might arrive at a wrong interpretation.

In order to analyze a primary source you need information about two things: the document itself, and the era from which it comes. You can base your information about the time period on the readings you do in class and on lectures. On your own you need to think about the document itself. The following questions may be helpful to you as you begin to analyze the sources:

1. Look at the physical nature of your source. This is particularly important and powerful if you are dealing with an original source (i.e., an actual old letter, rather than a transcribed and published version of the same letter). What can you learn from the form of the source? (Was it written on fancy paper in elegant handwriting, or on scrap-paper, scribbled in pencil?) What does this tell you?

2. Think about the purpose of the source. What was the author's message or argument? What was he/she trying to get across? Is the message explicit, or are there implicit messages as well?

3. How does the author try to get the message across? What methods does he/she use?

4. What do you know about the author? Race, sex, class, occupation, religion, age, region, political beliefs? Does any of this matter? How?

5. Who constituted the intended audience? Was this source meant for one person's eyes, or for the public? How does that affect the source?

6. What can a careful reading of the text (even if it is an object) tell you? How does the language work? What are the important metaphors or symbols? What can the author's choice of words tell you? What about the silences--what does the author choose NOT to talk about?

Now you can evaluate the source as historical evidence.

1. Is it prescriptive--telling you what people thought should happen--or descriptive--telling you what people thought did happen?

2. Does it describe ideology and/or behavior?

3. Does it tell you about the beliefs/actions of the elite, or of "ordinary" people? From whose perspective?

4. What historical questions can you answer using this source? What are the benefits of using this kind of source?

5. What questions can this source NOT help you answer? What are the limitations of this type of source?

6. If we have read other historians' interpretations of this source or sources like this one, how does your analysis fit with theirs? In your opinion, does this source support or challenge their argument?

Remember, you cannot address each and every one of these questions in your presentation or in your paper, and I wouldn't want you to.



hope it helps

7 0
3 years ago
What does it mean the civilisation they encountered?
rewona [7]

<u><em>Answer:</em></u>

<u><em>So what is civilisation? In the literal sense it means living in towns, but  I would like to suggest that in modern usage, it tends to embrace the term ‘freedom’, to be involved in what we call ‘democracy’ — though democracy itself is a very slippery term. It is better perhaps to look at the opposite, which is totalitarianism, a long word which denotes a state where the ruler demands not only control over your body, but over your mind too. And it is this demand for control over your mind that marks the totalitarian state, or barbarism. And it is freedom to think that is the essence of civilisation. </em></u>

<u><em> </em></u>

<u><em>This freedom to think has its origin in economics. In a society ruled by an Emperor or Pharaoh, a Dictator who controls everything, you depend on the ruler for your well-being and for the necessities and luxuries of daily life. You are under the control of the ruler, so you switch off your critical facilities and enthusiastically follow the ruler. You are brain-washed (which in practice can be a not unpleasant form of life).  In economics, this is what is known as the gift exchange society where you pay tribute to the ruler, and the ruler in return gives you the essential luxuries of life as ‘gifts’. </em></u>

<u><em> </em></u>

<u><em>But once you get control of your everyday economics, you move into a different form of society which we call civilisation, where you have control of what you buy and how you live –and what you think. Economically, this new form of choice depends on money. The essence of money is that it gives you choice, and when you have choice in your everyday life, and you live in a market economy, this brings about a new way of living which we call civilisation.</em></u>

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Was george washington the man who said the british are coming
Zigmanuir [339]
I actually think it was Paul Revere
3 0
3 years ago
What challenge did President George Washington face regarding the executive branch?
ICE Princess25 [194]
Id say your best bet is A because Washington established the cabinet which aids presidents in running the country. It cannot be B, C or D because congressional oversight was already established by the constitution, there were only a couple departments,  and the constitution already defined its purpose.
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
A leader of the National Rifle Association (NRA) would be very unlikely to propose a policy position of highly restricted gun co
crimeas [40]
Because he/she would lose money, because less people would be buying guns due to them being harder to get.
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Government decisions at any level must not conflict with what national document?
    15·1 answer
  • who did the most to promote the cause of independence: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Thomas Paine? Give reasons for yo
    6·2 answers
  • What 3 things caused the French Revolution
    9·1 answer
  • What were the causes of poverty in France during the French revolution​
    13·1 answer
  • Which city is closets to 30°N, 30°E
    9·1 answer
  • Who would have most likely NOT supported the Freedmen's Bureau?
    9·2 answers
  • Jews from russia and austria-hungary came to america in order to A. Escape religious perscuation B.Aviod forced military service
    13·1 answer
  • Describe how an upper-class Japanese woman looks like during the 10th century.
    15·1 answer
  • What factors led to the growth of a consumer-based economy in Louisiana and the rest of the country following World War II?
    5·1 answer
  • The yellow press in the US pushes the country to war.
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!