Answer:
Explanation:
In the 1830s, American abolitionists, led by Evangelical Protestants, gained momentum in their battle to end slavery. Abolitionists believed that slavery was a national sin, and that it was the moral obligation of every American to help eradicate it from the American landscape by gradually freeing the slaves and returning them to Africa.. Not all Americans agreed. Views on slavery varied state by state, and among family members and neighbors. Many Americans—Northerners and Southerners alike—did not support abolitionist goals, believing that anti-slavery activism created economic instability and threatened the racial social order.
But by the mid-nineteenth century, the ideological contradictions between a national defense of slavery on American soil on the one hand, and the universal freedoms espoused in the Declaration of Independence on the other hand, had created a deep moral schism in the national culture. During the thirty years leading up to the Civil War, anti-slavery organizations proliferated, and became increasingly effective in their methods of resistance. As the century progressed, branches of the abolitionist movement became more radical, calling for the immediate end of slavery. Public opinion varied widely, and different branches of the movement disagreed on how to achieve their aims. But abolitionists found enough strength in their commonalities—a belief in individual liberty and a strong Protestant evangelical faith—to move their agenda forward
Answer:
All personnel decisions must be made on C. objective criteria.
Explanation:
Within any <em>company or organization</em>, all decisions regarding the personnel should be made under objective criteria so as to give every employee a fair stand.
Let's see why the other options are unjust:
- Subjective preferences: this means someone might be getting <em>favored or unfavored</em> in account of what the individual carrying out the decision, thus this is not a fair option.
- Sexual preferences: again, the person might get favored or unfavored based on a sexual preference which is unfair once again.
- National origin: it should not be taken into account when carrying out decisions for the personnel.
Japan wanted to 'destroy' America's navy in an un-expected and aggressive way, so they bombed Pearl Harbor, they un-intentionally killed many civilians.
Linguistic <u>relativity</u> suggests that because language determines our perceptions of reality, people see the world differently depending on what language they speak.
<h3>What is linguistic relativity?</h3>
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfian's is a theory that contends that a language's structural features have an impact on its speakers' worldviews or cognitive processes. As a result, people's perceptions are said to be relative to the language they speak.
<h3>What is an example of linguistic relativity?</h3>
The way in which Inuit Eskimos describe snow is an often used illustration of linguistic relativity. The Inuit language uses various words to describe snow, including "wet snow," "clinging snow," "frosty snow," and others. There is just one word for snow in the English language.
To know more about linguistic relativity visit:
brainly.com/question/9225007
#SPJ4
