Why might a personal narrative offer better insight into what it was like to be Native American than a fictional story from the same period? A. Fictional stories were never based on real life historical events.
B. Fictional stories never included Native American characters.
C. Fictional stories were often based on biased ideas about Native Americans.
D. Fictional stories often did not include specific details about Native Americans.

C). Fictional stories were often based on biased ideas about Native Americans.

Explanation:

A personal narrative would provide greater and finer insight into the conditions of a Native American and the struggles they had to undergo than the fictional stories as the latter often presented biased ideas that prevent a clear understanding of the exact situation. The one who went through the pain of discrimination, prejudice, and injustice could never be equal to the one who is merely imagining the situation. Achebe puts up a similar argument against Joseph Conrad for his racist portrayal of native Africans in 'Heart of Darkness.' Thus, option C is the correct answer.

how much wood did the woodchuck chuck since a wood chuck can chuck wood.

xd

btw woodchucks cant chuck wood.

brainliest ?

answer: he just dumps them all in his mouth

explanation: