Pode-se notar que a linha do tempo é baseada na visão eurocêntrica e que os historiadores não a consideram apropriada porque adota apenas os eventos que ocorreram na Europa ou causados pelos europeus como determinantes e relevantes para a história.
A linha do tempo é baseada na visão eurocêntrica e isso é negativo para muitos porque ignora os eventos históricos e transições que ocorreram em outras partes do mundo, como China e Japão, por exemplo; bem como na América antes das descobertas.
At the Battle of Gettysburg, It was a crushing blow to rebel morale. Their nearly undefeated hero, general Lee, had been defeated. Of course, it was a huge morale boost for the Union, who had been grumbling about the war in the East because of the invincible Lee. In addition, after the Battle of Gettysburg, two great speeches were given, one by the president himself. He showed how the Union needed to keep fighting this war to keep the greatest nation from leaving the earth and so that the country could truly be one where all men (or people) could be equal. At Vicksburg, it was more of a military advantage. In addition to being a highly defensible location to put things of high importance in, it also completed the final piece of the Mississippi River. With the Union controlling all of the river, the Union could split the enemy in 2. This completed part of the Anaconda Plan.The Union could also use the river as a platform for transportation of troops, supplies, and as an artillery platform with their new ironclads. I think that the Battle of Gettysburg would have been more important. There was already low morale in the Union army. They were asking thrmselves why they were fighting a war to get people back into out country that didn't want to be here. Already, nearly 200 thousand casualties had taken place. They thought this was far too much to end slavery. If Lee had not finally been defeated, Vicksburg would never have happened, and the outcome of the civil war could have been very different.
The Russian people started to revolt. The Bolsheviks, promising peace, land, and bread, took over Petrograd and Moscow, ousting the provisional government almost bloodlessly.
The social structure employed by the Hindus but rejected by the Buddhists is the caste system.
Explanation:
There are several things that define India and that are unique to its society, and one of those trademarks is the caste system. This system is a social structure that has been practiced for thousands of year. The caste system has been implemented by the Hindus, and has been essential part of the Hindu society.
The Buddhist, on the other hand, became majority in India in one period, and the caste system was rejected by them, as it was a system that was discriminatory and restrictive, especially toward the members of the lower castes, and that was not what the Buddhism encourages. That didn't lasted long though, and once the Hindus became majority again, the caste system again became part of the whole subcontinent. It was only recently that the caste system has been outlawed and made illegal, as it was seen as a social structure that harms the society and its progress.
Learn more about Buddhism brainly.com/question/12315545
#learnwithBrainly
The correct answer is C) <span>By writing articles about the horrors of lynching in the South.
</span>
One of the ways in which Ida B. Wells worked toward Progressive reform was "C. By writing articles about the horrors of lynching in the South," since the used her influence to "open the eyes" of both blacks and whites.