Answer: One major difference is that King's believes that slavery didn't play a role, while Burns' does. A historical event that could support King's is when Congress established the Freedmen's Bureau in 1865. This provided aid to African Americans in their transition from slavery to freedom. A historical event that could support Burns' is Dred Scott v. Sandford. The case in 1857 declared that slaves and blacks descended from slaves and were not American citizens and cannot sue, so this could have led to outrage and war.
Answer:The Ghana Empire (c. 300 until c. 1100), properly known as Wagadou (Ghana being the title of its ruler), was a West African empire located in the area of present-day southeastern Mauritania and western Mali. Complex societies based on trans-Saharan trade in salt and gold had existed in the region since ancient times,[1] but the introduction of the camel to the western Sahara in the 3rd century CE, opened the way to great changes in the area that became the Ghana Empire. By the time of the Muslim conquest of North Africa in the 7th century the camel had changed the ancient, more irregular trade routes into a trade network running from Morocco to the Niger River. The Ghana Empire grew rich from this increased trans-Saharan trade in gold and salt, allowing for larger urban centres to develop. The traffic furthermore encouraged territorial expansion to gain control over the different trade routes.
When Ghana's ruling dynasty began remains uncertain. It is mentioned for the first time in written records by Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī in 830.[2] In the 11th century the Cordoban scholar Al-Bakri travelled to the region and gave a detailed description of the kingdom.
As the empire declined it finally became a vassal of the rising Mali Empire at some point in the 13th century. When, in 1957, the Gold Coast became the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to gain its independence from colonial rule, it renamed itself Ghana in honor of the long-gone empire.
Explanation:
