I can't write you a paragraph but I can give you some thing about Khufu he was a Pharos to the Egyptians he reigned for a very long time and he had the Egyptians build the pyramids for him
It forms the way that the people apart of that nation percieve their country. As well it encourages almost romantacizing conflict in the way that it seems epic and more heroic. This can be dangerous because it starts to make peoples first reaction to an issue start to revolve around conflict. For example if a country is being faced with a possible global crisis a possible solution that is always on the table is war and battle because their whole lives in that country they have been exposed to that concept and therefore is more familiar to them. That "our country has to have a strong milotary this is America for gosh sake!" (just an example) It creates a connection between national identity and conflict, which serves to make both more prevelent.
This excerpt is taken from the autobiography “Eighty Years and More” from Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Because Stanton was very active in the women’s rights movement, this book focuses a lot on her work in publicizing the issues of the women’s rights movement.
Question: Which statement best describes the central idea of this excerpt?
Answer: D. Stanton discovered inequality and began fighting for gender equality at a young age.
Answer:
United Kingdom-cultural change
Explanation:
It was in this period that private life achieved a new prominence in British society. The very term “Victorianism,” perhaps the only “ism” in history attached to the name of a sovereign, not only became synonymous with a cluster of restraining moral attributes—character, duty, will, earnestness, hard work, respectable comportment and behaviour, and thrift—but also came to be strongly associated with a new version of private life. Victoria herself symbolized much of these new patterns of life, particularly through her married life with her husband, Albert, and—much later in her reign—through the early emergence of the phenomenon of the “royal family.” That private, conjugal life was played out on the public stage of the monarchy was only one of the contradictions marking the new privacy.
However, privacy was more apparent for the better-off in society than for the poor. Restrictions on privacy among the latter were apparent in what were by modern standards large households, in which space was often shared with those outside the immediate, conjugal family of the head of household, including relatives, servants, and lodgers. Privacy was also restricted by the small size of dwellings; for example, in Scotland in 1861, 26 percent of the population lived in single-room dwellings, 39 percent in two-room dwellings, and 57 percent lived more than two to a room. It was not until the 20th century that this situation changed dramatically. Nonetheless, differences within Britain were important, and flat living in a Glasgow tenement was very different from residence in a self-contained house characteristic of large parts of the north of England. This British kind of residential pattern as a whole was itself very different from continental Europe, and despite other differences between the classes, there were similarities among the British in terms of the house as the cradle of modern privacy. The suggestive term “social privacy” has been coined to describe the experience of domestic space prior to the intervention of the municipality and the state in the provision of housing, which occurred with increasing effect after mid-century. The older cellular structure of housing, evident in the tangle of courts and alleys in the old city centres, often with cellar habitations as well, resulted in the distinction between public and private taking extremely ambiguous form. In the municipal housing that was increasingly widespread after mid-century, this gave way to a more open layout in which single elements were connected to each other.
