1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Alenkinab [10]
3 years ago
5

I need the answer ASAP

History
1 answer:
Ostrovityanka [42]3 years ago
5 0
I think the correct answer is the D
You might be interested in
Who were the antipopes in the great schism?
Anastasy [175]

Answer:

The Pisan popes Alexander V and John XXIII are now considered to be antipopes. Gregory XII's resignation (in 1415) was the last time a pope resigned until Benedict XVI in 2013.

Result: Stabilization between 1417–1429 during the pontificate of Pope Martin V and ...

Date: 1378–1417

Location: Western Christendom (primarily Europe)

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
In the myth of the "Self-Made Man", what did business tycoons claim their success was simply the result of? What was the actual
True [87]

Answer:

The Self-Made Myth exposes the false claim that business success is the result of heroic individual effort with little or no outside help. Brian Miller and Mike Lapham bust the myth and present profiles of business leaders who recognize the public investments and supports that made their success possible—including Warren Buffett, Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s, New Belgium Brewing CEO Kim Jordan, and others. The book also thoroughly demolishes the claims of supposedly self-made individuals such as Donald Trump and Ross Perot. How we view the creation of wealth and individual success is critical because it shapes our choices on taxes, regulation, public investments in schools and infrastructure, CEO pay, and more. It takes a village to raise a business—it’s time to recognize that fact.

This book challenges a central myth that underlies today’s antigovernment rhetoric: that an individual’s success is the result of gumption and hard work alone. Miller and Lapham clearly show that personal success is closely tied to the supports society provides.

Explanation:

it’s worth mentioning briefly an additional impact that the self-made myth has on our public debates—that of people voting their aspirations. Because the rags-to-riches myth persists, many Americans hold on to the belief, however unlikely, that they too may one day become wealthy. This has at times led to people’s voting their aspirations rather than their reality. As Michael Moore noted in 2003:

After fleecing the American public and destroying the American Dream for most working people, how is it that, instead of being drawn and quartered and hung at dawn at the city gates, the rich got a big wet kiss from Congress in the form of a record tax break, and no one says a word? How can that be? I think it’s because we’re still addicted to the Horatio Alger fantasy drug. Despite all the damage and all the evidence to the contrary, the average American still wants to hang on to this belief that maybe, just maybe, he or she (mostly he) just might make it big after all.35

It is essential that we find a more honest and complete narrative of wealth creation. In chapter 2, we expose the fallacy of the self-made myth by examining the stories of individuals often lifted up as successes in our public dialogues. In examining their stories, we come to better understand that even their business success includes contributions from society, from government, from other individuals, and even luck.

Beyond the moralizing ridiculed by Twain, this individual success myth overlooked a number of key social and environmental factors. The emergence of a clear geography of opportunity showed that there was something about the place where one lived that contributed to one’s success. No matter what personal qualities someone had, if you lived in Appalachia or the South, your chances of ascending the ladder to great wealth were slim. Those who achieved great wealth were almost invariably from the bustling industrial cities of the Northeast. By one estimate, three out of four millionaires in the nineteenth century were from New England, New York, or Pennsylvania.7

Another unique external factor was the opportunity that existed at that time, thanks to expanding frontiers and seemingly unlimited natural resources. The United States was conquering and expropriating land from native people and distributing it to railroads, White homesteaders, and land barons. Most of the major Gilded Age fortunes were tied to cornering a market and exploiting natural resources such as minerals, oil, and timber. Even P. T. Barnum, the celebrated purveyor of individual success aphorisms, had to admit in Art of Money Getting that “in the United States, where we have more land than people, it is not at all difficult for persons in good health to make money.”8

He might have added that it also helped to be male, to be free rather than a slave, and to be White. While free Blacks had some rights in the North, they had little opportunity to achieve the rags-to-riches dream because of both informal and legal discrimination. Even after the Civil War, Blacks, Asians, and others were largely excluded from governmental programs like the Homestead Act that distributed an astounding 10 percent of all US lands—270 million acres—to 1.6 million primarily White homesteaders.9

5 0
3 years ago
What did the ""Turner Thesis"" explain? A. the end of agriculture industry in the U.S. B. the beginning of the Second Industrial
aleksklad [387]

Answer:

Option C, the closing of the western frontier, is the right answer.

Explanation:

An argument that claimed that American democracy was established by the American frontier came to be known as the Frontier Thesis. This argument was presented by historian Frederick Jackson Turner in the year 1893. He argued that the primary result of the American frontier was American democracy along with a lower interest in high culture, violence and egalitarianism.

4 0
3 years ago
How did the federalist and republican visions for the United States differ?
serg [7]

Answer:

Federalists believed in a strong federal republican government led by learned, public-spirited men of property. They believed that too much democracy would threaten the republic. ... In the United States, the French Revolution hardened differences between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

hope this helps!

Tell me if I am wrong :)

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
PLATO!!!!! HELP!!!!!Robert Bork wrote an article opposing a Supreme Court decision about ruling on married couples because he sa
liq [111]

Answer:

E. original intent

Explanation:

Bork, simply, believed that unless the Founders declared something to be true, it was not Constitutional. So, if the Founders wanted a right to privacy, they would have explicitly stated it.

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • How did all the late Queen Elizabeth's die?
    8·1 answer
  • Why did the founding fathers decided to replace the articles of confederation
    14·1 answer
  • Which writer combined history with stories about gods?
    7·2 answers
  • Which of these was the GREATEST influence and inspiration to the American Revolution? A) The Reformation B) The Enlightenment C)
    8·2 answers
  • HELP ME THIS IS DUE ON 2/22/21 (History)
    14·2 answers
  • PLEASE HELP I WILL MAKE THE BRAINIEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    10·1 answer
  • CULINARY ARTS 20 POINTS
    9·1 answer
  • Write Your Own Civil War Letter- Battle of Antietam or Battle of Gettysburg
    11·1 answer
  • which geographic feature most influenced the ability of the united states to protect its mainland from attack during world war i
    12·1 answer
  • In what ways did france aid the american revolution?
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!