The became engines because when ever the Europeans crossed ocean they wanted more land and started pushing native turfs and destroying the recourses but also not all hated Europeans
European immigration changed America's overwhelmingly Protestant perspective by the early 1900s in many ways, one of which led to religious tolerance among the protestants.
The other effect is the idea of secularism became widespread in the United States.
This is evident in the fact that the Protestant belief or view in America before the 1900s is centered on the idea of controlling the American culture and fighting against secularism.
However, with many European immigrants coming into the United States around the 1900s with different religious ideologies and socioeconomic and political beliefs, the notion and ideas of a typical American Protestant changed over time.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the European immigrants changed the perceptions of typical American Protestants.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/24585675
Answer:
Although many served in the infantry and artillery, discriminatory practices resulted in large numbers of African-American soldiers being assigned to perform non-combat, support duties as cooks, laborers, and teamsters. African-American soldiers were paid $10 per month, from which $3 was deducted for clot
Follow me and pick me brainliest....
Answer:
What do peasant farmers do when they lost their crops?
Peasant farmers often depended on <em>subsistence agriculture</em> - this means that the farmers primarily grew crops to feed themselves and their families, rather than selling their crops for economic gain.
So, if the peasant farmers lose their crops, they will have nothing to eat. The peasants will probably go hungry and perhaps starve.
And what common pattern do we see when the masses are starving? They <em>revolt </em>! I suppose that's a bit of a stretch, but in general, the peasant class would definitely be upset at having no crops to feed themselves and their children. Such tensions will be directed at their leader or "King" who is supposed to be prepared for any disaster.
Wouldn't people think, "The leader has everything he wants and can get anything he does not have, can't he share with us?"
Anyways, that's how I would interpret this question.
Hope this helps!
:D
