eneidabenitez14
04.03.2021 •
History
What was the acts that declared that all persons born in the us were now citizens without regard of race color or previous condition
Solved
Show answers
More tips
- H Health and Medicine 10 Tips for Avoiding Vitamin Deficiency...
- F Food and Cooking How to Properly Cook Buckwheat?...
- F Food and Cooking How Many Grams Are In a Tablespoon?...
- L Leisure and Entertainment Carving: History and Techniques for Creating Vegetable and Fruit Decorations...
- P Photography and Videography How to Choose the Perfect Photo Paper for Your Images?...
- H Health and Medicine What vaccines do children need?...
- H Health and Medicine Reasons for the Appearance of Warts: Everything You Need to Know...
- A Art and Culture How to Learn Screaming: Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners...
- H Health and Medicine Contraceptive Pills After 35: The Importance Of Choosing The Right Medication...
- C Computers and Internet How to Choose a Monitor?...
Answers on questions: History
- H History Why do you think the king of ghana collected tolls on goods entering or leaving his kingdom...
- H History What was the french role in the beginning of the north american fur trade?...
- H History What was the main impact of the completion of the panama canal?...
- H History In the first ever televised presidential debate, which person was the first to display telegenic qualities?...
- H History Which of the following chronological listings for eras of texas history is correct? a. civil war texas, early statehood, era of reform, the great depression. b. era of reform,...
- H History After the great war, which group produced a kind of anti-art that mocked modern civilization?...
- H History Simbolismo sa tikang hele...
- H History HELPPPPPPPPPPPP my teacher will check tomorrow plz help...
- H History Name the 3 sins and 3 punishment of king david....
- H History Need this ASAP! C. Explain why this question is significant. Why is it important today to understand the policy of containment?...
Ответ:
The civil rights act of 1866.
Ответ:
Ответ:
1. There is small amount of bias in the first passage. The author seems to favor passive resistance over people who use brute force, or extremists. He says the people who use brute force over being a passive resistor “devoid of courage and manhood.” To some, that could be very offensive. In the second passage their doesn’t appear to be any bias, if so, it is virtually undetectable. Nelson seems to know both sides of the story and speaks in a way that all people can get behind. He is obviously knowledgeable about what he’s speaking on.
2.Gandhi talks about the English at one point and that makes me think that they are trying to add their “two cents” to what India already has. In the second source, I think Nelson is speaking on the government and police systems being corrupt and them abusing their power. He said he decided to meet violence with violence, which means something was happening before he decided to get involved. If I was unable to determine the context, I personally might search what article, book, etc. the excerpt comes from to get a better understanding. With the second passage, it doesn’t come from a specific source that is listed so I might search words or phrases that are used to see where they come from.
3.Due to the fact that there is bias present in the first source, I would say that while it is still reliable, it might not be the first source I use to get evidence. The fact that it was written by Ghandi is a small redeeming factor. The second source, I would definitely use. It is a firsthand statement by Nelson Mandela, and he is very honest about the events that unfolded. To determine a sources reliability, I would first check the accuracy of the information with what I already know. I would also check where the source comes from and who wrote it as well as the type of source it is. Lastly, I would check for bias.
4. They both talk and address the government and the powers that are corrupt at different points in the passages. The main difference between the two is that in the 1st passage, the standpoint is more the difference in the people that are fighting back against the oppressors, while in the 2nd passage the standpoint is of a person fighting back that knows they could’ve did it differently and the events that took place didn’t have to happen. They both confirm that repressive governments need to be handled and that it is the publics job to call them out and step in when necessary. For me personally, to find a source that would corroborate another one, I would search for the overall theme or message of the source I already have. Then based on what comes up find a short passage that I can use.
Ok, that was a lot. Could i maybe get brainliest?
Explanation: