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.
If you're a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses and you've submitted a proposal for a law that requires colonial inspectors
to place grades
<span> on different qualities of harvested tobacco</span>, then even if it passes the house it won't be effective until the Governor signs it.
D, the article gave citizens new rights
The American soldiers are seen applauding suggests that the artist of the painting is most likely an American
.
Answer: Option B
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The picture suggests that it was painted by an American because there are American soldiers and people in the background who are applauding when the flag is being hoisted. This means that the picture is taken from the American War of Independence.
The picture might symbolize victory over a particular war or celebration of the independence of the thirteen colonies which were occupied by the British as below the American flag there is the Union Jack i.e., the flag of the United Kingdom
.
By Jesus I think I'm not sure
