One sec i have to look back in my notes give me two min
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.
In 1935, the Commonwealth. of the Philippines. was established with U.S. approval, and Manuel Quezon was elected the country's first president. On July 4, 1946, full independence was granted to the Republic of the Philippines by the United States.
Answer:
he didn't go to public school
Explanation:
he was homeschool
I believe that a society can function in a state of anarchy only as long as all of the citizens residing in that state care for the public welfare as much as they care for their personal welfare. A society in which there is no structure cannot stand however a society with structure not upheld by a government can stand as long as all of the citizens residing inside of the society uphold it themselves. It must be a utopian society in which the golden rule is the law and no one violates it and remains in the community. For a society without structure will collapse.
