1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Pepsi [2]
3 years ago
10

What could a 21st century historian learn from this primary source?

History
1 answer:
shtirl [24]3 years ago
7 0
What the writer of the primary source was thinking at the exact time whatever the person was writing about. 
You might be interested in
How was the second continental congress divided on the subject of a national government
Rufina [12.5K]
<span>The Second Continental Congress was divided by differing beliefs on where the central strength of the government should lie. Some members believed that the national government should be the focus of governmental power, while others were of the opinion that the national government should be less involved and allow state and local governments to have the most power.</span>
4 0
3 years ago
How old must they be to serve?
kirill115 [55]
You must me 17 years of age to serve in the military
4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did the British act alone during king Leopolds rule
Julli [10]

Answer:

Mark as brainliest

Explanation:

symbolic presence in international legal accounts of the 19th century, but for historians of the era its importance has often been doubted. This article seeks to re-interpret the place of the Berlin General Act in late 19th-century history, suggesting that the divergence of views has arisen largely as a consequence of an inattentiveness to the place of systemic logics in legal regimes of this kind.

Issue Section:

 Articles

INTRODUCTION

The Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-1885 has assumed a canonical place in historical accounts of late 19th-century imperialism 1 and this is no less true of the accounts provided by legal scholars seeking to trace the colonial origins of contemporary international law. 2 The overt purpose of the Conference was to ‘manage’ the ongoing process of colonisation in Africa (the ‘Scramble’ as it was dubbed by a Times columnist) so as to avoid the outbreak of armed conflict between rival colonial powers. Its outcome was the conclusion of a General Act 3 ratified by all major colonial powers including the US. 4 Among other things, the General Act set out the conditions under which territory might be acquired on the coast of Africa; it internationalised two rivers (the Congo and the Niger); it orchestrated a new campaign to abolish the overland trade in slaves; and it declared as ‘neutral’ a vast swathe of Central Africa delimited as the ‘conventional basin of the Congo’. A side event was the recognition given to King Leopold’s fledgling Congo Free State that had somewhat mysteriously emerged out of the scientific and philanthropic activities of the Association internationale du Congo . 5

If for lawyers and historians the facts of the Conference are taken as a common starting point, this has not prevented widely divergent interpretations of its significance from emerging. On one side, one may find an array of international lawyers, from John Westlake 6 in the 19th century to Tony Anghie 7 in the 21 st century, affirming the importance of the Conference and its General Act for having created a legal and political framework for the subsequent partition of Africa. 8 For Anghie, Berlin ‘transformed Africa into a conceptual terra nullius ’, silencing native resistance through the subordination of their claims to sovereignty, and providing, in the process, an effective ideology of colonial rule. It was a conference, he argues, ‘which determined in important ways the future of the continent and which continues to have a profound influence on the politics of contemporary Africa’. 9

5 0
3 years ago
What does the American propaganda poster above reveal about the relationship between the
UNO [17]

Answer:

yes and yes yes yes1habhsvahavshwcz hVwsk

Explanation:

yes

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What caused World War I, and why did the United States enter the war? Explain.
kaheart [24]

Answer:When World War I erupted in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson pledged neutrality for the United States, a position that the vast majority of Americans favored. Britain, however, was one of America’s closest trading partners, and tension soon arose between the United States and Germany over the latter’s attempted quarantine of the British Isles. Several U.S. ships traveling to Britain were damaged or sunk by German mines, and in February 1915 Germany announced unrestricted warfare against all ships, neutral or otherwise, that entered the war zone around Britain. One month later, Germany announced that a German cruiser had sunk the William P. Frye, a private American vessel. President Wilson was outraged, but the German government apologized and called the attack an unfortunate mistake. But when it kept happening the US declared war of Germany sending the US in WWI.

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What was eisenhower's reason for sending federal troops to little rock science forums?
    9·1 answer
  • What does unequivocally mean <br><br> Please hurry
    15·2 answers
  • In the poem "Barbara Frietchie,” which is the direct result of an action taken by Stonewall Jackson?
    13·1 answer
  • Thomas is a lord in France during the middle ages.why would lord Thomas want to acquire more land even if he does not have enoug
    12·1 answer
  • Choose one
    14·2 answers
  • What event occurred 1775?
    15·2 answers
  • What’s cascade range industry/economy
    11·1 answer
  • 1.
    7·1 answer
  • 8.) After which event(s) did the Confederate States of America surrender?
    7·2 answers
  • The conduct of the siege as described in the passage could best be used to explain which of the following processes in the perio
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!