You would be mostlikely to find a high population density "along the banks of
<span>the Niger River," since rivers bring water, which is a crucial element of human survival. </span>
This is not a fair assessment because it is a generalization about the other presidents due to an event that happened a long time ago and that does not involve them.
The Vietnam War was a warlike confrontation that occurred in the territory of Vietnam in which two sides faced each other. On one side were the North Vietnamese who had a Communist ideology, while the South Vietnamese had a Capitalist ideology.
This confrontation involved several foreign countries such as the Soviet Union and the United States. In the case of the United States, many American citizens rejected the idea of involving the country in an alien confrontation because it had not affected American interests.
The president of the United States did not take into account citizen requests not to get involved in this confrontation and lied to be able to get involved in it. From that moment the credibility of the government is lower.
The credibility of the next government was also affected because now citizens believe that the rulers are lying. This conception is wrong and unfair because the management of all the presidents and public servants cannot be generalized due to the wrong action of one of them.
Therefore, I believe that it is not a fair evaluation that is expressed by the war veteran Karl Marlantes because he is generalizing about all the rulers because of what one of them has done.
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/11375126?
Answer:
In 1619, colonists brought enslaved Africans to Virginia. This was the beginning of a human trafficking between Africa and North America based on the social norms of Europe. Slavery grew quickly in the South because of the region's large plantations. ... New England did not have large plantations for growing crops..
Explanation:
Hope it helps you..
Y-your welcome in advance..
(;ŏ﹏ŏ)(ㆁωㆁ)
Following the collapse of the soviet union and lack of decisive leadership after Tito in Yugoslavia, a new breed of divisive politics blossomed fueled by Serbian nationalism. Tito had served to unite the various ethnic groups and Muslims into one major Yugoslavia state under the patronage of the Soviet union. with soviet not eager on supporting any other leadership, warring leadership factions emerged. Weak leadership always have to cling on divisive politics such as nationality and ethnicity which culminated into Bosnian genocide, where Muslim minorities were utterly massacred.
<span />
