Answer:
- The figures waiting in front of the billboard.
Explanation:
As per the question, the component of 'figures presented at the front of the billboard regarding the flood victims' would be suitable to the conviction of decisive movement propagated by Cartier-Bresson. These figures represented on the billboard most likely display Cartier's decisive moment.
In his book, Cartier gave a new dimension to his photojournalism and displayed different images in his books that highlighted the transient and voluntary events where the image gives a key idea about the entire event. He says such moments require 'knowledge' and 'intuition' to be captured precisely after observing closely.
He believed that crossing the border and attacking the North would be good since the Northern army had low morale and would easily be defeated. What he really wanted was for European powers to notice this and accept the Confederacy and send them support since they would easily win everything if they had European support in the war.
It did so because Britain refused to stop seizing American ships that traded with France—Britain's enemy in Europe. ... Sometimes there were also seizures of American sailors. These seizures were known as impressment.
Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
The correct answer is:
<em>Food, language and architecture. </em>
Explanation:
The history of Texas is a complex one, before being part of the United States, Texas was under Spanish control, followed by Mexican control. Nowadays the Spanish legacy still remains in this state. The most outstanding legacy is the language, while English is the primary language, Spanish is the second language spoken in Texas, and many towns have Spanish names like "El Paso".
Spanish conquerors also brought new food like lemons, limes and oranges. Texas architecture has also influence in the Spanish legacy with things like buttress, arches and towers.<em> Religion is also part of their legacy. </em>
