this is an opinion, so i really don’t think what others respond should have an effect on your personal answer. however, no, i don’t think the costs of ww2 were worth the casualties and financial loss because since it grew gradually, there was a generous amount of time to negotiate beforehand. however, i’m sure a lot of people disagree with this. see what other have to say.
They were trying to civilize them, trying to convert them to Christianity—— this was the concept of social Darwinism, that Europeans had to “civilize” Africans from their barbarous ways
Answer:
They can take away products, which then limits the supply and demand.
Explanation:
Evidence that can be used to modify or refute what Stannard said about Columbus would be (D) examples of long-term benefits for people in Europe and Asia that resulted from the voyages by Columbus.
<h3>What did Stannard think of Columbus?</h3>
David Stannard thinks very lowly of Christopher Columbus as a result of the latter's crimes in North America which included the killing and mutilating of Native Americans.
David Stannard believed that the exploration of the Americas brought only long-term pain to Native Americans so a view that would refute this would have to show descriptions that Native Americans enjoyed some long term benefits thanks to Columbus.
Find out more on Christopher Columbus at brainly.com/question/15581111
#SPJ1
