The skepticism about the empire of Ghana and the accounts for it is nothing weird because the majority of what is written about it is from two people from the same place, that had totally different views and interpretations on the things, and came from different culture.
Very often in the historical text, the people that wrote something have been very subjective, not objective. Thus the writings of these two Arab geographers can be very misleading, as they described what they saw with their own eyes, but also with using their own perception. That has proven numerous times to give very inaccurate depictions of a society and culture, like the depictions of the Romans for the Celts, or of the Greeks for the Scythian female warriors that they named Amazons.
There's only one point of view unfortunately, and it is always much more reliable when multiple writings are available from people from multiple different backgrounds, or the best scenario if it is writings from the people in question.
Answer:
They would be best described by Idealism and unilateralism
Explanation:
Hope this Helos You
<span>Lincoln was threatened by Maryland dues to its close proximity to Washington DC.
</span>
The best answer is <span>increased as more US troops went to fight in Vietnam.
LBJ's policy of "escalation", sending more troops and resources into Vietnam, started to quickly shift public opinion against the US presence in Vietnam. Although initially considered unpatriotic to protest the war, gradually more and more Americans began to oppose the war. </span>
