1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
guapka [62]
3 years ago
15

What is one negative effect that can come from applying modern values to historical events?

History
1 answer:
otez555 [7]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.[1] The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy when writing about the past.

You might be interested in
Why did pontiac lead a rebellion against the British following the french and indian war?
mezya [45]
Pontiac lead a rebellion against british following the french and indian war because the british created several policies that offended the tribes, because they keep taking the tribe's land and power, causing them to feel dishonored by the colonies

hope this helps
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The continental Army won the war mainly because they did mostly guerilla fighting
ludmilkaskok [199]

Answer: true

Explanation:

The continental army did win hope it help( ◜‿◝ )

8 0
3 years ago
Which statement best describes the Open-Door policy established by John Hay's?
Crazy boy [7]

Answer:

C it prevented European countries from taking advantage of China's resources

Explanation:

Because China had things that everybody wanted so america said "no" for china

3 0
3 years ago
The emergency quota act of 1921 sought to limit which of the following
Sedaia [141]

An Act to limit the immigration of aliens into the United States. The Emergency Quota Act, also known as the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, the Per Centum Law, and the Johnson Quota Act (ch. 8, 42 Stat. 5 of May 19, 1921) restricted immigration into the United States.

6 0
3 years ago
How did Mandela’s tactics differ from Gandhi’s? (Gandhi believed in nonviolent protest)
nadezda [96]

SIMILARITIES —The depth of oppression in South Africa created Nelson Mandela, a revolutionary par excellence, and many others like him: Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu, Albert Lutuli, Yusuf Dadoo and Robert Sobukwe — all men of extraordinary courage, wisdom, and generosity. In India, too, thousands went to jail or kissed the gallows, in their crusade for freedom from the enslavement that was British rule. In The Gods are Athirst, Anatole France, the French novelist, seems to say to all: “Behold out of these petty personalities, out of these trivial commonplaces, arise, when the hour is ripe, the most titanic events and the most monumental gestures of history.”

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi spent his years in prison in line with the Biblical verse, “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” Nelson Mandela was shut off from his countrymen for 27 years, imprisoned, until his release on February 11, 1990. Both walked that long road to freedom. Their unwavering commitment to nationalism was not only rooted in freedom; it also aspired towards freedom. Both discovered that after climbing a great hill, one only finds many more to climb. They had little time to rest and look back on the distance they had travelled. Both Mandela and the Mahatma believed freedom was not pushed from behind by a blind force but that it was actively drawn by a vision. In this respect, as in many other ways, the convergence of the Indian and South African freedom struggles is real and striking.

Racial prejudice characterised British India before independence as it marred colonial rule in South Africa. Gandhi entered the freedom struggle without really comprehending the sheer scale of racial discrimination in India. When he did, however, he did not allow himself to be rushed into reaction. The Mahatma patiently used every opportunity he got to defy colonial power, to highlight its illegitimate rule, and managed to overcome the apparently unassailable might of British rule. Gandhi’s response to the colonial regime is marked not just by his extraordinary charisma, but his method of harnessing “people power.”

Nelson Mandela used similar skills, measuring the consequences of his every move. He organised an active militant wing of the African National Congress — the Spear of the Nation — to sabotage government installations without causing injury to people. He could do so because he was a rational pragmatics.

DIFFERENCES—Both Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are entitled to our affection and respect for more than one reason. They eschewed violence against the person and did not allow social antagonisms to get out of hand. They felt the world was sick unto death of blood-spilling, but that it was, after all, seeing a way out. At the same time, they were not pacifists in the true sense of the word. They maintained the evils of capitulation outweighed the evils of war. Needless to say, their ideals are relevant in this day and age, when the advantages of non-violent means over the use of force are manifest.

Gandhi and Mandela also demonstrated to the world they could help build inclusive societies, in which all Indians and South Africans would have a stake and whose strength, they argued, was a guarantee against disunity, backwardness and the exploitation of the poor by the elites. This idea is adequately reflected in the make-up of the “Indian” as well as the “South African” — the notion of an all-embracing citizenship combined with the conception of the public good.

At his trial, Nelson Mandela, who had spent two decades in the harsh conditions of Robben Island, spoke of a “democratic and free society in which all persons live in harmony and with equal opportunities. […] It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve, but if need be, an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

The speed with which the bitterness between former colonial subjects and their rulers abated in South Africa is astonishing. Mandela was an ardent champion of “Peace with Reconciliation,” a slogan that had a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people. He called for brotherly love and integration with whites, and a sharing of Christian values. He did not unsettle traditional dividing lines and dichotomies; instead, he engaged in conflict management within a system that permitted opposing views to exist fairly.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • During the Cold War, the international system was ___ and the great powers were ___.
    5·1 answer
  • When did the first americans arrive in north america??
    12·1 answer
  • European nations came together at the
    8·1 answer
  • Which country, now a parliamentary government, was once a racial oligarchy ruled by the white citizens?
    12·2 answers
  • Which of these provisions was included in the treaty of versailles (1919)?
    6·1 answer
  • Why did the colonies reject the Albany plan?
    11·2 answers
  • Who are the bill of rights protecting, and who or what are they protecting from?
    11·1 answer
  • Explain what tectonic plates are and what controls their movements.
    13·1 answer
  • Question 4 of 5
    7·1 answer
  • Our Study of the Boston Massacre showed:
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!