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.
<span>Europeans saw Africa as a rich source of raw materials to use in industry and as a market for European products of industry. Also, it was felt that having a colonial empire at this time was part of being a European power, in order to be able to compete. Furthermore, some Europeans felt that they were superior to Africans and were therefore justified in conquering what they thought were the backward peoples of Africa.</span>
Answer:
I mean, at least they didn't deny you to make a new account with the same email (I'm assuming that's what you did.) so at least you can still answer questions ^^
Explanation:
For Native Americans at the time, it would have been next to impossible to understand something like the Treaty of Tordesillas. This treaty intended to partition tracts of land that the Europeans did not even know whether they existed, an action that may have looked like sheer madness and even dishonorable, for the Europeans claimed possession of lands they had not conquered by the force of their arms.Maybe, after some thought and analysis, Native Americans would have felt outraged as a man living in such a distant place, the Pope in Rome, who had no authority whatsoever for them, made the decision of handing over lands, people,wealth, etc, to two different groups of Europeans. Perhaps, other Native Americans, once they managed to understand that agreement so odd to them, might have found it laughable and it might have prompted them to challenge to take what was their own over their dead bodies.
Hey there,
Answer:
Japan wanted to expand its borders and looked for nation to colonize. In 189, Japan convinced Korea to open its ports to trade with Japan. However, China controlled much of Korea's trade. This conflict led to the Sino - Japanese war. Japan emerged victorious in this war. It captured part of Manchuria, which had been under Chinese occupation.
Hope this helps :D
<em>~Top</em>
