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.

Historical perspective can be accepted but not relied

Explanation:

Historical perspective depends on the point of view of the narrator and the "side" of history one belongs to.

Both the accounts of slave and the Egyptian priest could be taken as true yet cannot be believed as completely true. The slave cannot accept the subjugation by the Egyptian rule and the hardships he has to go through. Hence, his account of cruelty may be taken as true.

On the other hand, the priest describes Egyptians as religious and peaceful which is justified from his perspective and the role he plays within the rule.

However, it is important to note that the historical perspective must be proven with facts, documented writing and other sources of information. It cannot be completely relied.

answer; sexual harassment prohibition act; is your answer,good luck

earthquake fault lines