1. babur
2. 1527
3. The Sher Mandal
4. Humayun
5. ?
6. i’m not doing that it’s almost 3am rn
7. because he thought highly
8. no
9. It is a policy made to seek a special relationship with the Rajputs matured under akbar (change that sentence a bit i got it online)
10. no
<span>stare decisis means a basic principle of the law whereby once a decision (a precedent) on a certain set of facts has been made</span>
Answer:
This is a bit of a complex question for a simple yes or no. Ultimately, extravagance can become a social problem related to the wealth gap, specifically if the extravagance comes from political leaders. For example, King Louis XVI lived in great extravagance. (During his reign, he built the Versailles palace.) The poor of France absolutely saw this extravagance as a social problem, and, well, Louis and his wife's heads ended up in a basket. Hope this helps.
Answer:
No, it definitely was not pure racism.
Explanation:
While individuals who have pure hatred and racist views against other groups of people have always existed, during the centuries that slavery existed, not everyone who owned slaves or supported slavery justified their position on the basis of racist arguments.
Very often, these arguments in favor of racism were made from an economic point of view. They justified slavery because slavery was fundamental for their economic well-being. Some people even justified slavery under supposedly moral, ethical, or religious reasons, arguing that slaves were better off under the control of their owners, or that some religious scripture justified slavery.
