...What were some similarities and differences between their absolute rule?
Be as specific as you%26#039;d like, write me an essay if you want, lol.
...It%26#039;s for an AP World History project, and my teacher wants me to %26#039;elaborate%26#039; more on their rule.
I%26#039;ll choose best answer.
Thanks, people (:
Thursday, March 26, 2009
I would like to know what life was for pilgrims that were rich and poor?
I am trying to write a story about a teenage love between a rich pilgrim girl and a poor pilgrim boy. The problem is that I have no clue about those times. Please help!
I would like to know what life was for pilgrims that were rich and poor?
A pilgrim before setting out would normally require the permission of his lord, bishop, or (if he was a monk) his abbot. If his journey was approved, he would be given a letter of recommendation to be carried with him. This document was important for three reasons. First, it verified his purpose as a pious exercise so that he was not mistaken for a wanderer. Secondly, it made him eligible for the privileges to which a pilgrim was entitled, like alms and lodgings. Lastly, it was a crucial symbol of his status as a pilgrim. Under an ordinance of Richard II in 1388, a pilgrim could be arrested if discovered without this letter of testimoniales on his person. This was to discourage the abuse of pilgrimage by adventurers of less than pious motives.
Next, the pilgrim would attend a special consecration ceremony, in which he would be adorned in the recoginsed pilgrim%26#039;s garb. The subject would be blessed along with each article of pilgrimage that would go with the pilgrim. He would hear confession to purge himself of sin before he left. His scrip and staff would be consecrated by being sprinkled with holy water. For those making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, their cloak would be adorned with a red cross at the shoulder.
Pilgrims would often be escorted to outside the city gates or boundary of the village by members of the village, brotherhood or guild. Some guilds had particular rules about the undertaking of pilgrimage by one of their members, so that small donations of money would be made to their cause. The fourteenth-century Guild of the Resurrection, at Lincoln, encouraged its membrs to give at least a halfpenny to the departing pilgrim. some guilds went further by opening houses as lodgings for the poor pious traveller.
for a pilgrim travelling on foot, a substantial walking staff was a reliable companion, serving the duel purpose of support, and, if necessary, defence. In an amusing citation of the use of pilgrim staffs, an unrluly and impatient crowd of pilgrims on St Richard%26#039;s Day in 1487 took to using their staffs on each other. The pilgrim would also carry a scrip, or leather satchel, usually suspended from a belt worn across the body. This would carry provisions and a water bottle, as well as the important pilgrim%26#039;s letter of safe conduct, signed by the lord or the church authorities.
In %26#039;The Canterbury Tales%26#039; Chaucer writes about pilgrims travelling on horseback. Many of these pilgrims are wealthy. Bright coloured clothes were expensive in those days, since the dyes cost a lot of money, and Chaucer%26#039;s Wife of Bath wears hose (stockings) of scalret, the most expensive colour of all.
The pilgrim would have to make sure he took enough money with him to cover the cost of his journey, and he would need enough for offerings and donations to make at the many shrines along the way. Some poor pilgrims made their way by begging, and some were given gifts of money. He did not need health insurance as pilgrims hospitals and monasteries would care for him.
Monasteries were encouraged to accomodate pilgrims on their journeys. Monastic houses offered a kind of open house to all types and classes of pilgrims, including the poor and foreigners. Guests would be fed and given a blessing before they set off again, so that they were spiritually as well as physically rejuvinated by their stay. for those pilgrims requiring medical attention, monasteries also had their own infirmaries within the grounds. the Clunic monasteries are perhaps the best known for their hospitality to the pilgrim.
Pilgrims fortunate enough to find lodgings within the Guesten hall of Christ church Priory, Canterbury, were assured of the hospitality as a result of the statues of Archbishop Winchelsea. These dictated that pilgrim guests should be fed daily with bread and meat. Also, if any should die there, whatever his rank or nationality, he should recieve the privilege of burial within the cathedral grounds. Royal visitors to Canterbury were housed within Saint Augustine%26#039;s Abbey.
Those monastic houses in the vicinity of the larger, more famous shrines, were more likely to receive wealthier pilgrims and those of noble background. Moreover, such guests would be in a position to pay for such charity, while monasteries were obliged to shelter the poor for free.
Naturally, some monastic hostels offered better service to their guests than others. Abbot Agelwy of Evesham Abbey was particularly benevolent in his provision of shelter for the pilgrim and made it a ritual to wash the feet of all who entered.
As the numbers of pilgrims increased, many monasteries struggled to accomodte them, so special guest halls were often erected. This was the case at Worcester Cathedral for example where the remains of the large Guesten Hall can still be viewed in the cathedral%26#039;s grounds.
Within the grounds of Winchester Cathedral, the Pilgrim%26#039;s hall was built during the reign of Edward I (1272-1307). Erected by teh monks of Saint Swithin%26#039;s priory, its function was to receive pilgrims visiting the saint%26#039;s shrine. Later such halls came to be located outside the monastic precincts.
In the 8th and 9th centuries, many more hospices were established in response to increased travel. These received and sheltered the pilgrim as %26#039;hsopes%26#039; or guests. Hospitals were sometimes founded by knightly orders, like the Knights Templar, recognised guardians of the pilgrim and the traveller, as well as poorere brotherhoods and those of wealth and influence.
Conditions within medieval hostels varied greatly. Often word was spread by pilgrims themselves, in the form of guidebooks, as to which were better and what to preapre for. One book relates the following exchange between a traveller and his servant who had been sent ahead to check that there %26quot;be no fleas, nor bugs, nor other vermin.%26quot; His reply came %26quot;No sir...for please God you will be well and comfortably lodged there - except that we suffer much from rats and mice.%26quot; another section reveals something of the other problems encountered. %26quot;Wiliam, undress and wash your legs and then dry them with a towel and rub them well on account of the fleas, that they may not leap on your legs. For there is a mass of them about in the dust under the rushes....%26quot;
Pilgrims would also lodge at inns, which would also vary greatly in quality and provision, but at the least should have been able to offer the guests a bed. Many inns got away with charging expensive board for low-rate accomodation. A letter from John Paston in 1474 relates such an experience at the George Inn in Southwark, which left much to be desired.
In most hostels, guest would sleep on straw-covered floors. With so many pilgrims frequenting the same hostels and sleeping on the same floor, there were no reasurance as to how often fresh straw was laid. In general, beds were prized objects owned by those who could afford them. Surviving medieval wills speak of beds, stuffed mattresses, pillows and sheets. In a few cases, such articles were even left to hostels.
Taverns, for those who could afford them, were known for serving better food and were far more likely to have beds. In these instances you could expect to share a bed with at least one other traveller, although the advantages of this do not need to be stated in colder climates (i.e. it kept you warm). Men and women would often be offered seperate quarters, so that even husbands and wives would sleep apart from each other.
Competition ensued between inns, hostels, and taverns who all vied for supremacy and employed sneaky methods to canvas more customers. many of them hired boys to rush to the gates of the city to greet, kiss and hug the arriving pilgrims and then lead them back to their respective hostelry. In Compostela in Spain, such boys went out wearing or carrying placards that openly advertised their employer%26#039;s tavern or inn.
Many mementos and trinkets were available to the pilgrims as souvenirs. These could be obtained at any of the numerous stalls that were close to the entrance of a shrine in expectation of pilgrim custom. In Canterbury%26#039;s Mercery Lane, anarrow road leading straight to the entry gate of the cathedral precinct, was the place to buy souvenirs. A guidebook to Santiago de Compostella states that the open square outside the cathedral was the place to buy souvenirs as well as necessities.
In the Holy Land since the sixth century, small flasks could be bought by the pilgrims wishing to collect miracle-working water from teh Jordan. However, it was the second half of the twelfth century, with its boom in pilgrimage activity, that saw the beginings of the mass manufacturing of pilgrim souvenirs and badges.
Wherever possible, the pilgrim would endeavour to further substantiate his souvenir by having it blessed at the related shrine, or by bringing it into as close physical contact with the shrine as possible. In this way, it was beleived that a portion of the relic%26#039;s supernatural power would be transmitted to and absorbed by the souvenir.
Important pilgrimage sites often sold souvenir badges that were mostly made of a tin-lead alloy, or brass or clay. They were fitted with a pin or clasp so that the badge could be worn, and the surface was stamped with either a portrait of the saint, a scene from his life or death, or a symbol associated with him.
Badges from the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham portrayed the Virgin, whether it be the statue shown on its own or within an openwork depiction of the Holy House.
Pilgrims wore these badges with pride, attaching them to their broad brimmed hats. As well as serving as souvenirs, the badges assured the weare%26#039;s status and credentials as a pilgrim and offered visible authentication of his journeys. For some it seems there was also an element of competitiveness.
I would like to know what life was for pilgrims that were rich and poor?
A pilgrim before setting out would normally require the permission of his lord, bishop, or (if he was a monk) his abbot. If his journey was approved, he would be given a letter of recommendation to be carried with him. This document was important for three reasons. First, it verified his purpose as a pious exercise so that he was not mistaken for a wanderer. Secondly, it made him eligible for the privileges to which a pilgrim was entitled, like alms and lodgings. Lastly, it was a crucial symbol of his status as a pilgrim. Under an ordinance of Richard II in 1388, a pilgrim could be arrested if discovered without this letter of testimoniales on his person. This was to discourage the abuse of pilgrimage by adventurers of less than pious motives.
Next, the pilgrim would attend a special consecration ceremony, in which he would be adorned in the recoginsed pilgrim%26#039;s garb. The subject would be blessed along with each article of pilgrimage that would go with the pilgrim. He would hear confession to purge himself of sin before he left. His scrip and staff would be consecrated by being sprinkled with holy water. For those making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, their cloak would be adorned with a red cross at the shoulder.
Pilgrims would often be escorted to outside the city gates or boundary of the village by members of the village, brotherhood or guild. Some guilds had particular rules about the undertaking of pilgrimage by one of their members, so that small donations of money would be made to their cause. The fourteenth-century Guild of the Resurrection, at Lincoln, encouraged its membrs to give at least a halfpenny to the departing pilgrim. some guilds went further by opening houses as lodgings for the poor pious traveller.
for a pilgrim travelling on foot, a substantial walking staff was a reliable companion, serving the duel purpose of support, and, if necessary, defence. In an amusing citation of the use of pilgrim staffs, an unrluly and impatient crowd of pilgrims on St Richard%26#039;s Day in 1487 took to using their staffs on each other. The pilgrim would also carry a scrip, or leather satchel, usually suspended from a belt worn across the body. This would carry provisions and a water bottle, as well as the important pilgrim%26#039;s letter of safe conduct, signed by the lord or the church authorities.
In %26#039;The Canterbury Tales%26#039; Chaucer writes about pilgrims travelling on horseback. Many of these pilgrims are wealthy. Bright coloured clothes were expensive in those days, since the dyes cost a lot of money, and Chaucer%26#039;s Wife of Bath wears hose (stockings) of scalret, the most expensive colour of all.
The pilgrim would have to make sure he took enough money with him to cover the cost of his journey, and he would need enough for offerings and donations to make at the many shrines along the way. Some poor pilgrims made their way by begging, and some were given gifts of money. He did not need health insurance as pilgrims hospitals and monasteries would care for him.
Monasteries were encouraged to accomodate pilgrims on their journeys. Monastic houses offered a kind of open house to all types and classes of pilgrims, including the poor and foreigners. Guests would be fed and given a blessing before they set off again, so that they were spiritually as well as physically rejuvinated by their stay. for those pilgrims requiring medical attention, monasteries also had their own infirmaries within the grounds. the Clunic monasteries are perhaps the best known for their hospitality to the pilgrim.
Pilgrims fortunate enough to find lodgings within the Guesten hall of Christ church Priory, Canterbury, were assured of the hospitality as a result of the statues of Archbishop Winchelsea. These dictated that pilgrim guests should be fed daily with bread and meat. Also, if any should die there, whatever his rank or nationality, he should recieve the privilege of burial within the cathedral grounds. Royal visitors to Canterbury were housed within Saint Augustine%26#039;s Abbey.
Those monastic houses in the vicinity of the larger, more famous shrines, were more likely to receive wealthier pilgrims and those of noble background. Moreover, such guests would be in a position to pay for such charity, while monasteries were obliged to shelter the poor for free.
Naturally, some monastic hostels offered better service to their guests than others. Abbot Agelwy of Evesham Abbey was particularly benevolent in his provision of shelter for the pilgrim and made it a ritual to wash the feet of all who entered.
As the numbers of pilgrims increased, many monasteries struggled to accomodte them, so special guest halls were often erected. This was the case at Worcester Cathedral for example where the remains of the large Guesten Hall can still be viewed in the cathedral%26#039;s grounds.
Within the grounds of Winchester Cathedral, the Pilgrim%26#039;s hall was built during the reign of Edward I (1272-1307). Erected by teh monks of Saint Swithin%26#039;s priory, its function was to receive pilgrims visiting the saint%26#039;s shrine. Later such halls came to be located outside the monastic precincts.
In the 8th and 9th centuries, many more hospices were established in response to increased travel. These received and sheltered the pilgrim as %26#039;hsopes%26#039; or guests. Hospitals were sometimes founded by knightly orders, like the Knights Templar, recognised guardians of the pilgrim and the traveller, as well as poorere brotherhoods and those of wealth and influence.
Conditions within medieval hostels varied greatly. Often word was spread by pilgrims themselves, in the form of guidebooks, as to which were better and what to preapre for. One book relates the following exchange between a traveller and his servant who had been sent ahead to check that there %26quot;be no fleas, nor bugs, nor other vermin.%26quot; His reply came %26quot;No sir...for please God you will be well and comfortably lodged there - except that we suffer much from rats and mice.%26quot; another section reveals something of the other problems encountered. %26quot;Wiliam, undress and wash your legs and then dry them with a towel and rub them well on account of the fleas, that they may not leap on your legs. For there is a mass of them about in the dust under the rushes....%26quot;
Pilgrims would also lodge at inns, which would also vary greatly in quality and provision, but at the least should have been able to offer the guests a bed. Many inns got away with charging expensive board for low-rate accomodation. A letter from John Paston in 1474 relates such an experience at the George Inn in Southwark, which left much to be desired.
In most hostels, guest would sleep on straw-covered floors. With so many pilgrims frequenting the same hostels and sleeping on the same floor, there were no reasurance as to how often fresh straw was laid. In general, beds were prized objects owned by those who could afford them. Surviving medieval wills speak of beds, stuffed mattresses, pillows and sheets. In a few cases, such articles were even left to hostels.
Taverns, for those who could afford them, were known for serving better food and were far more likely to have beds. In these instances you could expect to share a bed with at least one other traveller, although the advantages of this do not need to be stated in colder climates (i.e. it kept you warm). Men and women would often be offered seperate quarters, so that even husbands and wives would sleep apart from each other.
Competition ensued between inns, hostels, and taverns who all vied for supremacy and employed sneaky methods to canvas more customers. many of them hired boys to rush to the gates of the city to greet, kiss and hug the arriving pilgrims and then lead them back to their respective hostelry. In Compostela in Spain, such boys went out wearing or carrying placards that openly advertised their employer%26#039;s tavern or inn.
Many mementos and trinkets were available to the pilgrims as souvenirs. These could be obtained at any of the numerous stalls that were close to the entrance of a shrine in expectation of pilgrim custom. In Canterbury%26#039;s Mercery Lane, anarrow road leading straight to the entry gate of the cathedral precinct, was the place to buy souvenirs. A guidebook to Santiago de Compostella states that the open square outside the cathedral was the place to buy souvenirs as well as necessities.
In the Holy Land since the sixth century, small flasks could be bought by the pilgrims wishing to collect miracle-working water from teh Jordan. However, it was the second half of the twelfth century, with its boom in pilgrimage activity, that saw the beginings of the mass manufacturing of pilgrim souvenirs and badges.
Wherever possible, the pilgrim would endeavour to further substantiate his souvenir by having it blessed at the related shrine, or by bringing it into as close physical contact with the shrine as possible. In this way, it was beleived that a portion of the relic%26#039;s supernatural power would be transmitted to and absorbed by the souvenir.
Important pilgrimage sites often sold souvenir badges that were mostly made of a tin-lead alloy, or brass or clay. They were fitted with a pin or clasp so that the badge could be worn, and the surface was stamped with either a portrait of the saint, a scene from his life or death, or a symbol associated with him.
Badges from the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham portrayed the Virgin, whether it be the statue shown on its own or within an openwork depiction of the Holy House.
Pilgrims wore these badges with pride, attaching them to their broad brimmed hats. As well as serving as souvenirs, the badges assured the weare%26#039;s status and credentials as a pilgrim and offered visible authentication of his journeys. For some it seems there was also an element of competitiveness.
If Alexander ruled for such a short time, why are his conquests so important?
What personal goals did Alexander achieve during his short reign? How do the contributions of Alexander the Great compare to the contributions of modern leaders?
If Alexander ruled for such a short time, why are his conquests so important?
He conquered his way from the Mediterranean, all the way to India.
He controlled the trade route%26#039;s from Europe, Asia and Africa.
He started out at eighteen years of age, and achieved such a huge area of influence, that before he died; he cried because he thought there was no one left to conquer.
Shortly afterwards, he caught a fever and died.
And all this before the age of thirty three!
Military leaders from Julius Caesar, Napoleon Ghenghis Khan and Hitler to name a few, tried to emulate his generalship.
If Alexander ruled for such a short time, why are his conquests so important?
They are not. His empire fell apart immediately after his death. The only reason his conquests might be important is because they created a bunch of unintended consequences. One of the most important ones is the emergence of Alexandria (ruled by the Ptolemaic dynasty, starting with Ptolemy I Soter, formerly a general in Alexander%26#039;s army) as a major center of culture and learning. Suffice it to say that Euclid lived in Alexandria, the steam engine was invented by Hero (although it was almost immediately forgotten) in Alexandria, and the size of the globe has for the first time been estimated (with some accuracy) by Eratosthenes in Alexandria. Not to mention the best library in the ancient world...
A better question to ask would be, why the contemporary writes felt it was so important? Well, just ask yourself one question: who paid them to write? :)
Reply:Alexander is important because he spread the greek/hellenistic culture. This changed western civilization bceause of what he was able to do (Kids learn about Alexander the Great as well as the Hellenistic culture in western schools) Alexanders personal goal was to take over the Persian Empire to get them back for when they tried to take over Greece under Cyrus the Great. Once he achieved his goal of conquering the Persians he wanted to get on going until he reached the end of the world(Pacific Ocean). Alexander was held up to high esteem up to the Middle Ages. Julius Caesar once grieved about how he was not able to conquer as much land as Alexander did. During the Middle Ages, Alexander was seen as the noble kind that everybody should look up too.
“Alexander was even thought to have a special connection with Britain. As early as the fourteenth century the French Romance Perceforest had sought to link the story of Alexander with the Arthurian legends of Britain. According to this work, Alexander’s ship was swept off course soon after his conquest of India, and blown ashore in Britain, where he made his lieutenants Betis and Gadifer kings of England and Scotland respectively. Alexander was thus established in the legendary past of Britain, as a distant ancestor of Arthur, and particularly in Scotland, whose kings, several of them named Alexander, liked to trace their pedigree to the conqueror. (Stoneman, Introduction)”
Alexander was a figure who was not only real but was a mythical being which kept him in the history books.
If Alexander ruled for such a short time, why are his conquests so important?
He conquered his way from the Mediterranean, all the way to India.
He controlled the trade route%26#039;s from Europe, Asia and Africa.
He started out at eighteen years of age, and achieved such a huge area of influence, that before he died; he cried because he thought there was no one left to conquer.
Shortly afterwards, he caught a fever and died.
And all this before the age of thirty three!
Military leaders from Julius Caesar, Napoleon Ghenghis Khan and Hitler to name a few, tried to emulate his generalship.
If Alexander ruled for such a short time, why are his conquests so important?
They are not. His empire fell apart immediately after his death. The only reason his conquests might be important is because they created a bunch of unintended consequences. One of the most important ones is the emergence of Alexandria (ruled by the Ptolemaic dynasty, starting with Ptolemy I Soter, formerly a general in Alexander%26#039;s army) as a major center of culture and learning. Suffice it to say that Euclid lived in Alexandria, the steam engine was invented by Hero (although it was almost immediately forgotten) in Alexandria, and the size of the globe has for the first time been estimated (with some accuracy) by Eratosthenes in Alexandria. Not to mention the best library in the ancient world...
A better question to ask would be, why the contemporary writes felt it was so important? Well, just ask yourself one question: who paid them to write? :)
Reply:Alexander is important because he spread the greek/hellenistic culture. This changed western civilization bceause of what he was able to do (Kids learn about Alexander the Great as well as the Hellenistic culture in western schools) Alexanders personal goal was to take over the Persian Empire to get them back for when they tried to take over Greece under Cyrus the Great. Once he achieved his goal of conquering the Persians he wanted to get on going until he reached the end of the world(Pacific Ocean). Alexander was held up to high esteem up to the Middle Ages. Julius Caesar once grieved about how he was not able to conquer as much land as Alexander did. During the Middle Ages, Alexander was seen as the noble kind that everybody should look up too.
“Alexander was even thought to have a special connection with Britain. As early as the fourteenth century the French Romance Perceforest had sought to link the story of Alexander with the Arthurian legends of Britain. According to this work, Alexander’s ship was swept off course soon after his conquest of India, and blown ashore in Britain, where he made his lieutenants Betis and Gadifer kings of England and Scotland respectively. Alexander was thus established in the legendary past of Britain, as a distant ancestor of Arthur, and particularly in Scotland, whose kings, several of them named Alexander, liked to trace their pedigree to the conqueror. (Stoneman, Introduction)”
Alexander was a figure who was not only real but was a mythical being which kept him in the history books.
Experts in American History, could you please reply to this question:?
John Eliot met with little success in converting the New England Indians to Christianity beause he:
a) allowed the Indians to blend their own religious ideas with Puritan religious ideas.
b) insisted that converts reject traditional Indian culture and live like Europeans.
c) preached his ideas only to Indian women.
d) insisted that the Indians had to adhere strictly to the elaborate rituals of the Puritan church.%26quot;
Experts in American History, could you please reply to this question:?
I may not be an expert in American History, but I would call myself an expert in answering multiple-choice questions.
Answer (a) is just silly; why would this cause him to be unsuccessful?
Answer (b) seems pretty likely; this sort of thing doesn%26#039;t tend to go over very well.
Answer (c) doesn%26#039;t sound like the sort of thing a Puritan missionary would do.
Answer (d) might be the answer if the Puritan church had elaborate rituals, but it didn%26#039;t.
Ergo, pick B.
Experts in American History, could you please reply to this question:?
The answer is probably “b” but it is not as simple as that. Eliot organized his converted Indians into communities called “praying towns” and these were subject to the laws and customs of the colony. These rules were the source of the pressures to adapt to an English form of society. It was not so much Eliot who was responsible for that as the Indian Superintendent, Major Daniel Gookin.
a) allowed the Indians to blend their own religious ideas with Puritan religious ideas.
b) insisted that converts reject traditional Indian culture and live like Europeans.
c) preached his ideas only to Indian women.
d) insisted that the Indians had to adhere strictly to the elaborate rituals of the Puritan church.%26quot;
Experts in American History, could you please reply to this question:?
I may not be an expert in American History, but I would call myself an expert in answering multiple-choice questions.
Answer (a) is just silly; why would this cause him to be unsuccessful?
Answer (b) seems pretty likely; this sort of thing doesn%26#039;t tend to go over very well.
Answer (c) doesn%26#039;t sound like the sort of thing a Puritan missionary would do.
Answer (d) might be the answer if the Puritan church had elaborate rituals, but it didn%26#039;t.
Ergo, pick B.
Experts in American History, could you please reply to this question:?
The answer is probably “b” but it is not as simple as that. Eliot organized his converted Indians into communities called “praying towns” and these were subject to the laws and customs of the colony. These rules were the source of the pressures to adapt to an English form of society. It was not so much Eliot who was responsible for that as the Indian Superintendent, Major Daniel Gookin.
Does anyone remember the Victory Gardens from th World War II era and what was planted in them?
Anything that could be eaten! My grandparents had a number of acres in Los Angeles, and they grew all their own vegetables, and gave much away to neighbors. They also kept a milking cow, and chickens and ducks.
Does anyone remember the Victory Gardens from th World War II era and what was planted in them?
I believe all sorts of vegetables were planted in them. Probably varied by the region. Spinach wouldn%26#039;t grow well in Kansas.
I was just thinking about Victory gardens recently. Isn%26#039;t it amazing that the current war has been going on longer than WWII and no one has encouraged planting victory gardens now? Especially with the food crisis that is evident.
You know what the largest crop is in America? Grass. The golf course, front yard, back yard, serves little purpose kind. If we all grew victory gardens perhaps food prices wouldn%26#039;t be spiraling out of control, there wouldn%26#039;t be food riots in Haiti, Egypt, Mexico and other places.
And corn wouldn%26#039;t be going in gas tanks instead of on plates.
Does anyone remember the Victory Gardens from th World War II era and what was planted in them?
Vegetables and the best ones that were planted were the
ones that could be saved over the winter. These would be
root vegetables like potatoes, carrots, turnips, cabbages,onions, pumpkins, You could store these vegetables in dark cool places and they would stay good throughout the winter. In those days you could only eat what was in season whether it was fruit, vegetables or meat. With basically the whole world at war it was too dangerous to ship things by sea so you couldn%26#039;t expect to get fruit from Hawaii or South America. Also a lot of the food was being shipped overseas to feed the troops so you just couldn%26#039;t buy things. You had to grow your own stuff or do without!
Reply:We grew potatoes. Most never got larger than a golf ball. The rabbits got a share of the string beans. We grew carrots, lettuce, radish, onions and tomatoes. I think we also grew lima beans and peas. It took a lot of work.
My older cousin was in the third grade and he got a certificate signed by President Roosevelt. I was bummed, because I spent more time in the garden than he did. FDR musta figured that five year olds can%26#039;t vote.
Does anyone remember the Victory Gardens from th World War II era and what was planted in them?
I believe all sorts of vegetables were planted in them. Probably varied by the region. Spinach wouldn%26#039;t grow well in Kansas.
I was just thinking about Victory gardens recently. Isn%26#039;t it amazing that the current war has been going on longer than WWII and no one has encouraged planting victory gardens now? Especially with the food crisis that is evident.
You know what the largest crop is in America? Grass. The golf course, front yard, back yard, serves little purpose kind. If we all grew victory gardens perhaps food prices wouldn%26#039;t be spiraling out of control, there wouldn%26#039;t be food riots in Haiti, Egypt, Mexico and other places.
And corn wouldn%26#039;t be going in gas tanks instead of on plates.
Does anyone remember the Victory Gardens from th World War II era and what was planted in them?
Vegetables and the best ones that were planted were the
ones that could be saved over the winter. These would be
root vegetables like potatoes, carrots, turnips, cabbages,onions, pumpkins, You could store these vegetables in dark cool places and they would stay good throughout the winter. In those days you could only eat what was in season whether it was fruit, vegetables or meat. With basically the whole world at war it was too dangerous to ship things by sea so you couldn%26#039;t expect to get fruit from Hawaii or South America. Also a lot of the food was being shipped overseas to feed the troops so you just couldn%26#039;t buy things. You had to grow your own stuff or do without!
Reply:We grew potatoes. Most never got larger than a golf ball. The rabbits got a share of the string beans. We grew carrots, lettuce, radish, onions and tomatoes. I think we also grew lima beans and peas. It took a lot of work.
My older cousin was in the third grade and he got a certificate signed by President Roosevelt. I was bummed, because I spent more time in the garden than he did. FDR musta figured that five year olds can%26#039;t vote.
Jesuit missionaries in New France were more successful than Puritan missionaries in New England in converting?
Indians to Christianity for which of the following reasons:
a) The Jesuits emphasized the simplicity of the worship experience; the Puritans employed elaborate rituals.
b) The covenant of grace taught by the Jesuits was closer to Indians%26#039; religious beliefs than was the covenant of works taught by the Puritans.
c) The Jesuits understood that Christianity and Indian culture were compatible; the Puritans dis not.
d) The large French settlements convinced the Indians of the superiority of the Christian God; the small Puritan settlements made little impression.%26quot;
Jesuit missionaries in New France were more successful than Puritan missionaries in New England in converting?
I%26#039;d say C. The Indians thought the Catholic Mass was fascinating and more like their own, with robes, offering yourself to Christ by drinking his %26#039;blood%26#039; and eating his %26#039;flesh%26#039;
a) The Jesuits emphasized the simplicity of the worship experience; the Puritans employed elaborate rituals.
b) The covenant of grace taught by the Jesuits was closer to Indians%26#039; religious beliefs than was the covenant of works taught by the Puritans.
c) The Jesuits understood that Christianity and Indian culture were compatible; the Puritans dis not.
d) The large French settlements convinced the Indians of the superiority of the Christian God; the small Puritan settlements made little impression.%26quot;
Jesuit missionaries in New France were more successful than Puritan missionaries in New England in converting?
I%26#039;d say C. The Indians thought the Catholic Mass was fascinating and more like their own, with robes, offering yourself to Christ by drinking his %26#039;blood%26#039; and eating his %26#039;flesh%26#039;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)