After the death of Timur in 1405, power began to shift from migrating peoples to sedentary populations living in large centralized empires. After about 1683, when the last Ottoman campaign against Vienna failed, the great empires for which this period is so famous began to shrink and weaken
Answer:
Explanation:
The problem is they don't. One day you will take a history class that talks about Hiroshima or the Holocaust. They were both tragedies of a kind that is almost impossible to record with no bias.
But what would happen if you read the history from another point of view. Suppose, which I don't think has been done in any school in North America, you were to read about Hiroshima from the point of view of the Japanese. What have they said about it? What will they teach their children? What is the folklore about it from their point of view? Undoubtedly their best historians will record it without bias, but will be the same as what we read? I'm not entirely sure.
That does not answer your question, but I have grave doubts that it is possible. Personal bias always comes into everything. I will say this about your question: we must do our best to present the facts in an unbiased manner. That's important because we need to have a true picture of what happened. Many times it is because historians don't want humanity committing the same errors as the events they are trying to make sense of.
So far we have not dropped an atomic weapon on anyone else. But there have been holocausts after the European one. What have we learned? That six million is a number beyond our understanding, and we have not grasped the enormity of the crime, bias or no bias.
The answer is Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God
The Great Awakening was a series of Christian revivals, so a sermon on sinners fits the timeframe.
The argument Oliver Wendell Holmes was making in this quotation about how the federal system works is that:
- "The Supreme Court needs to be able to settle disputes between the states and the federal government by reviewing the constitutionality of state laws."
- This is evident when he said, "I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make the declaration as to the laws of several States."
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that Oliver Wendell Holmes felt for the federal system to work, the Supreme court should be able to make the distinction between federal and state laws.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/17812433
Something i would do is search each answer and after the sentence i would put true or false yw:))
