In the short story the crowning of Arthur by sir thomas malory what made it seem so legendary was that only he could pull and put in the sword from the stone
Islam helped tie people in such distant location because of the teachings and changes it had to offer. Before Islam was revealed, baby girls were buried alive because they were the undesired gender, and it was considered a shame to be a girl or have a daughter. People were cruel and like animals. Islam offered change, prosperity and ultimately humanity to the Arabs, 1400 years ago. When things began to change for Arabs, the message was spread to other countries and civilizations and still continues to be spread to this day. This is all thanks to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).Islam nowadays has been corrupted unfortunately
Answer:
lol i hope you don't copy this word for word
Explanation:
A. Bacon's Rebellion was caused by dissatisfaction among the colonists from high taxes, low prices for tobacco, and anger towards Sir Berkeley because he provided special privileges that were given to those close to the Berkeley. In addition, Berkeley told the Indians that colonists would not expand further into the west, which greatly angered the colonists because they wanted more land. The biggest effect of this revolt was that people began to turn away from indentured servants and the slave trade grew. This was because the ruling class was surprised and worried that black servants and white colonists had banded together against them, leading them to be more harsh on black slaves.
Shay's Rebellion was caused by a rise in taxes and because a debt crisis was about to lead many colonists to be imprisoned. The rebellion occurred in protest of these taxes and to prevent the imprisonment of the colonists. As a result of the violence, people called for the Constitutional Convention because the rebellion exposed governmental weakness (especially flaws in the Articles of Confederation) and needed a way to prevent future rebellions.
B. Bacon's Rebellion best reflects the statement above. As people began to settle and create distinctive cultures in the Virginia colonies, social and ethnic tensions fueled between them and the Native Indians as the colonists kept wanting more of their land. These tensions resulted in Bacon's Rebellion, which was a violent protest to express grievances to their governor. Their governor promised the natives that the colonists would not expand any further, a decision that infuriated the Virginia colonists because that was against their desire. They wanted to keep expanding and taking more Indian land.
C. Bacon's Rebellion is a better choice than the Whiskey Rebellion because Bacon's Rebellion deals with ethnic tensions much more than the Whiskey Rebellion. Both of these had many similarities, such as that backcountry settlers violently revolted to protest something that the ruling class did. However, a main difference is that Bacon's Rebellion protested against Native Americans, a group of people whose social and ethnic cultures were extremely different from the colonists. In contrast, the Whiskey Rebellion was a protest about the government, and both the colonists and the politicians were white American citizens, therefore meaning that these two groups of people did not have social/ethnic cultures that were as contrasting.
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
A. they were immigrants from Europe whose language and other customs were differed from the original white anglosaxon protestants