In George Washington's words "A pasionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils".
With this statement, as well as a many others in his famous Farewell Address, what Washington was mainly trying to warn the American people about is that becoming fanatical of any political party or overly-obsessive about geographical divisions would always set-up injustice. The privilege of any Nation always comes at the expense of others when sympathy grows into an illusion of "an imaginary common interest". Also of much importance, alliances must be chosen wisely as to not end up betraying the interests of our own Nation in order to defend these alliances. When they're formed without good justification, we end up wrongly following blind and passionate attachment instead of reason.
Hope this helps out!
Spending reduction and tax reduction
Answer:
George Washington had said that though alliances with other countries is a good thing, it is important to keep a distance from them and remember that your country is most vital and not to forget our own agenda. He didn't disagree with alliances but it wasn't vital and worrying about America was more important than worrying for other countrys since The United States was so new.
Explanation:
I remember learning this so ur welcome.
The second alternative is correct (B).
Historically, women played a secondary role in societies, being limited, basically, to the care of the children, the house and the husband.
After many struggles, women gradually gained their place in Western societies. Currently, the discussion on gender equality is based on the search for wage equity and against macho thinking.
However, in some Eastern societies, of religious culture and or patriarchal, men still dominate all positions of leadership. In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, women could not even drive until 2016. In such societies, women are practically the property of men. Since this type of culture involves religion, it is more difficult to establish a gender equality debate.
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.