Answer:
Explanation:In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of an historical account.[1] It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event or time-span or phenomenon, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then results in revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments.
At a basic level, legitimate historical revisionism is a common and not especially controversial process of developing and refining the writing of histories. Much more controversial is the reversal of moral findings, whereby what mainstream historians had considered (for example) positive forces are depicted as negative. Such revisionism, if challenged (especially in heated terms) by the supporters of the previous view, can become an illegitimate form of historical revisionism known as historical negationism if it involves inappropriate methods such as:
the use of forged documents or implausible distrust of genuine documents
attributing false conclusions to books and sources
manipulating statistical data
deliberately mis-translating texts
This type of historical revisionism can present a re-interpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record.[2] Negationists use the term "revisionism" to portray their efforts as legitimate historical revisionism. This is especially the case when "revisionism" relates to Holocaust denial.
They differed mostly <span>in their relationships with the American Indians they encountered. The French built positive relations with the locals and traded with them which helped them get fur and help with hunting. The Spaniards were conquerors and were all about finding gold and Spreading Christianity and they killed and enslaved numerous people while doing it and didn't care about the locals.</span>
<span />
George Washington Believed That The United States Should Have Become Involved In The Rebellion In France In The 1789.
The letter signed by Samuel Adams caused very negative reactions in the British, which increased tensions between the British Parliament and Massachusetts, who not to give up what the letter said, led the British Empire to decide the occupation of the city of Boston by the British Army. This fact, in turn, and given the repressive forms of reaction of the British, was a fact that rushed and provoked the American Revolution. It should be noted that in the letter, it was expressed at the end that the settlers were still subjects of His Majesty and that only expressed with anguish their problems.
Answer:
Explanation: The period of reconstruction in American history occurred after the American Civil War. During those 12 years, the government sought to address the country's accumulated problems that arose as a war product. Also, one of the elementary details of the reconstruction period is an effort to resolve slavery in the country. The Reconstruction period also represents a change in the elements of the American constitution, primarily involving the inclusion of new laws that were supposed to guarantee the civil rights of African Americans and Africans in the country. In this context, it is important to mention Amendment 13 of the United States Constitution, which abolishes slavery.
The Reconstruction period included the inclusion of the Confederation in the union and the regulation of all economic and political problems. The issue of economics was also one of the main problems. Namely, in the war, the south of the country was destroyed, and the cotton plantations where slaves used to work remained empty. So the economic problems were obvious. The south of the country, therefore, needed to be involved in industrial flows.
