Chinese because they mainly went after the whites and blacks
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.
Trade played a more central role in the mercantilist period of European history from 1500 to 1750 – sometimes referred to as early capitalism or trade capitalism – than in almost any other period.1<span> We must begin with the questions: When in human history did the first exchange of goods between </span>Europe<span> and the other four continents of </span>Africa<span>, </span>Asia<span>, </span>America<span> and </span>Australia<span>occur? Where are the origins of what one could describe as on-going exchange, as established economic relations to be found? These questions refer to an even larger global context because the global economic edifice changed fundamentally from "proto-globalization" to </span><span>globalization </span>.2<span> This process was primarily determined by Europe from the 15th to the 20th century. From the 16th century to 1914, trade within Europe at all times constituted the most significant portion of global trade, and the volume of that trade grew disproportionately quickly during the early modern period and into the modern period.</span>3<span> National markets became increasingly interconnected, driven by numerous innovations in the areas of infrastructure, </span>transportation<span>, energy supply, and – not least – institutions (rules, constitutions, division of labour, currency standards, etc.). The transition from individual production to </span><span>mass production </span><span> and the convergence of prices of goods and materials made transactions considerab</span>
Well, I'll make a hard guess on this one. it might be the people of France after the revolution. but if you teacher says it's wrong, I'm sorry ok!!
