Answer:
b. social distinctions were more blurred than in europe.
Explanation:
<u>British taxes practically caused the revolution of the colonies</u>, therefore option "A" is not the correct answer.
That various religious and ethnic groups coexisted in the American colonies was no reason for colonists to tend to support British royalty (D).<em> In fact, diversity and immigration were one of the reasons why the thirteen colonies flourished so quickly.</em>
The colonists didn´t feel that British royalty did anything for them as they had to survive on their own, dedicating themselves mainly to agriculture. <u>The difference in wealth between the inhabitants of England and the colonists was very large, therefore the colonists did not feel entitled to the rights of English citizens (C). Not because the American colonies had a great diversity of religious and ethnic groups.</u>
Because the American colonies were home to diverse religious and ethnic groups, social distinctions were more blurred than in Europe (B). In New England, diversity was ironically the point in common that its inhabitants had and that would lead them to fight for their independence.
The spread of maize cultivation from present-day Mexico northward into the present-day American Southwest and beyond supported economic development, settlement, advanced irrigation, and social diversification among societies.
Examples: Pueblo, Navaho (Navajo)
the question is incomplete .please read below to find the missing content
What particular agricultural crop helped advance a civilization?
Cultivate Add to list Share. Cultivation is the act of caring for and growing plants. Your desire to grow your own fruits and vegetables in your backyard means that you will engage in some heavy cultivation. Commonly used.
Plowing (or excavating) refers to digging the soil down to a spade depth, burying weeds and debris into the soil, and aerating the soil to avoid compaction. It facilitates the penetration of airborne nutrients and water deep into the soil for plant roots to access.
Learn more about cultivation here
brainly.com/question/4755653
#SPJ4
The Hamburg Massacre (or Red Shirt Massacre or Hamburg riot) was a key event in the African American town of Hamburg, South Carolina in July 1876, leading up to the last election season of the Reconstruction Era. It was the first of a series of civil disturbances planned and carried out by white Democrats in the majority-black Republican Edgefield District, with the goal of suppressing black voting, disrupting Republican meetings, and suppressing black Americans civil rights, through actual and threatened violence.[1]
Beginning with a dispute over free passage on a public road, the massacre was rooted in racial hatred and political motives. A court hearing attracted armed white "rifle clubs," colloquially called the "Red Shirts". Desiring to regain control of state governments and eradicate the civil rights of black Americans, over 100 white men attacked about 30 black servicemen of the National Guard at the armory, killing two as they tried to leave that night. Later that night, the Red Shirts tortured and murdered four of the militia while holding them as prisoners, and wounded several others. In total, the events in Hamburg resulted in the death of one white man and six black men with several more blacks being wounded. Although 94 white men were indicted for murder by a coroner's jury, none were prosecuted.
The events were a catalyst in the overarching violence in the volatile 1876 election campaign. There were other episodes of violence in the months before the election, including an estimated 100 blacks killed during several days in Ellenton, South Carolina, also in Aiken County. The Southern Democrats succeeded in "redeeming" the state government and electing Wade Hampton III as governor. During the remainder of the century, they passed laws to establish single-party white rule, impose legal segregation and "Jim Crow," and disenfranchise blacks with a new state constitution adopted in 1895. This exclusion of blacks from the political system was effectively maintained into the late 1960s.
<em>Answer:</em>
<em>pragmatics </em>
<em>Explanation:</em>
<em><u>Pragmatics,</u></em><em> in psychology, is described as the study of an individual's capability of "natural language speaker" to communicate beyond the factor that has been stated explicitly. An individual's capability to understand and comprehend speaker's or someone else's intended meaning. It encompasses the process through which words have been utilized by a person.</em>
<em><u>As per the question, Donna is demonstrating her grasp of pragmatics.</u></em>
