Answer:
The constitution reflects a desire to protect our rights. We still have the same constitution up to this day, so the goverment does seek the same goal.
Explanation:
The constitution states That when a goverment becomes destructive to these ends, it is the duty of the people to "alter or abolish it". When the goal is other then to protect our rights, this goverments must be replaced or removed, but we must always have a goverment, who's goal is to do so.
Answer:
The answer is <u><em>X: Load, Y: Fulcrum, Z: Lever</em></u>
Explanation:
I've taken this question before!
Hope this helps! :D
(Can you mark me brainliest? It is greatly appreciated!)
- <em><u>❤ 7272033Alt ❤</u></em>
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.
Explanation:
