Answer:
Mali
Explanation:
We just took a test with this same answer.
The skepticism about the empire of Ghana and the accounts for it is nothing weird because the majority of what is written about it is from two people from the same place, that had totally different views and interpretations on the things, and came from different culture.
Very often in the historical text, the people that wrote something have been very subjective, not objective. Thus the writings of these two Arab geographers can be very misleading, as they described what they saw with their own eyes, but also with using their own perception. That has proven numerous times to give very inaccurate depictions of a society and culture, like the depictions of the Romans for the Celts, or of the Greeks for the Scythian female warriors that they named Amazons.
There's only one point of view unfortunately, and it is always much more reliable when multiple writings are available from people from multiple different backgrounds, or the best scenario if it is writings from the people in question.
All of these men reacted to the newly minted wealth of the United States in different ways, however Carnegie was the most pronounced in the way he seized much of it for industry. Washington, on the other hand spread awareness.
Answer:
3rd person perspective
Explanation:
the narrator was neither of the people but was explaining what was happening as it did
Jim Crow laws kept african americans from going to movies, playing with kids of another race, different schools, and african americans got beaten aplenty
