My history teacher showed us two primary sources. One is an account written by an educated slave under Egyptian rule. The account describes the Egyptians as cruel and merciless. The second account was written by an Egyptian priest. This account describes the Egyptians as peaceful and deeply religious people. Use what you know about historical perspective and answer the question below. Consider the perspective of the slave and why he would describe the Egyptians like he did. Also consider the perspective of the priest and why he would describe the Egyptians like he did. The accounts seem like opposites, but could both accounts be right? In the space provided construct a response analyzing the two perspectives like a historian would. The rewritten perspective should treat both accounts as being true.

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Both perspectives are right. assuming my role as a historian, I can say that both perspectives are correct because those were the different realities that slaves and priests lived during ancient Egyptian times.

For the unmedicated slave, the Egyptians were cruel and merciless people. Why? Because they exploited slaves. They treated slaves badly. They were seen as "tools" to work in the fields, in construction, and at the service of the owners.

Of course, priests had a totally different point of view because they belonged to a social class that was much respected in ancient Egypt. So elite classes treated them well. If they treated them in the right way, priests did not have anything to complain about. That is why they described the Egyptians as peaceful and deeply religious people.

So we can conclude that different realities equal different perceptions.

1.new zealand has a large temperate climate while for north has subtropical weather during summer.

i can only answer one

chavez's example shows that nonviolent protest can work well. it shows that one nonviolent man can stop a mob, which proves chavez's point and persuades people to protest nonviolently.