I'm a fan of historian Michael Wood! One of my favorite items from him was the BBC documentary series, "In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great."
The quote you mention from Wood comes from his historical researches regarding India. (You could also look for his BBC documentary series, "The Story of India.") The "rejection of a whole way of understanding history" was the way that Wood described the actions of Asoka (or Ashoka -- you'll see both spellings). Asoka was ruler from 268 to 232 BC of lands that would later become known as India. Asoka was a great conqueror but also someone who found enlightenment through Buddhism. After conquering the Kalinga region in eastern India, rather than feeling some great rush of pride or accomplishment because of their victory, Asoka felt guilty. So he worked hard to improve the lives of the Kalinga people that he had conquered. This was what Wood was referring to when he said Asoka's attitude/approach "was a rejection of a whole way of understanding history." Conquest was not something to be celebrated triumphantly. Rather, the conquerors had an obligation to those whom they had conquered.
<span>Charles Beard believed that the constitution was written by a group of rich people with economic interests. Beard believed that the reasons were financial interest and called the constitution a counterrevolution of the holders of bonds against ordinary people, farmers, and debtors. I argue that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not the true motivation of the editors and were trying to protect their wealth. The authors were rich and powerful men who did things like allow slavery to continue and the contradiction of their speeches.</span>
Answer:
The oil embargo was an especially strong response because oil was Japan's most crucial import, and more than 80% of Japan's oil at the time came from the United States.
Explanation: CAN I GET BRAINLIEST PLZZZZZZZZZ
Hello there, to answer your question...
Susan B. Anthony was the first woman to
...
<h2>A.Be depicted on a US coin.</h2><h2 />
I hope this information helps.
Answer:
Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, while taking too much power away from state and local governments. Many felt that the federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen.
Explanation:
Hope this helped you out! PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU HIT THANKS AND RATE THIS A 5 STAR!
