The Federalists prominently worried about mob rule in the United States, writing about it throughout their Federalists papers. As such, Federalists wanted calm enlightened educated elites to run the country on behalf of all citizens.
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.
<span>I believe that the answer to the question provided above isthat he inspired the </span>rebels<span> in 1776 to declare independence from Britain and</span><span> his ideas reflected Enlightenment-era rhetoric of transnational human rights.
Hope my answer would be a great help for you. If you have more questions feel free to ask here at Brainly.
</span>
Answer:
Historians did not learn much about the Harappan civilization from written sources because its writing system has not yet meen figured out. They learned much from building remains, like the drainage system, and where grains were stored.
Explanation:
The British Empire wasn't a consistent empire. Every colonie had their on viewpoint and methods for each empire. They did neglect some of there own and even america.
