Question

I really need help with these I will give a medal if you can help me answer in full sentences.. Please.

1. What facts about the Japanese American internment camps do you need to have in order to understand the event's importance to new citizens?

2. Why is this event (Japanese-american internment camps) important for new citizens to understand?


3. What perspective do your primary sources bring to understanding the event?


4. How do your primary sources help you make your argument?

Answer 1

These are my sources and such

Answer 2

Japanese American internment was the World War II internment in "War Relocation Camps" of over 110,000 people of Japanese heritage who lived on the Pacific coast of the United States. The U.S. government ordered the internment in 1942, shortly after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[2][3] The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally as a geographic matter: all who lived on the West Coast were interned, while in Hawaii, where 150,000-plus Japanese Americans comprised over one-third of the population, only 1,200[4] to 1,800 were interned. Sixty-two percent of the internees were American citizens.[5][6]
President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps.[7] In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders.[8] The Court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion orders, adding, "The provisions of other orders requiring persons of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers and providing for the detention of such persons in assembly and relocation centers were separate, and their validity is not in issue in this proceeding."[9] The United States Census Bureau assisted the internment efforts by providing confidential neighborhood information on Japanese Americans. The Bureau's role was denied for decades, but was finally proven in 2007.[10][11]
In 1980, President Jimmy Carter conducted an investigation to determine whether putting Japanese Americans into internment camps was justified well enough by the government. He appointed the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) to investigate the camps. The commission's report, named “Personal Justice Denied,” found little evidence of Japanese disloyalty at the time and recommended the government pay reparations to the survivors. They formed a payment of $20,000 to each individual internment camp survivor.
In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law legislation that apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".[12] The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.[13]
Of 127,000 Japanese Americans living in the continental United States at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, 112,000 resided on the West Coast.[14] About 80,000 were nisei (literal translation: "second generation"; Japanese people born in the United States and holding American citizenship) and sansei (literal translation: "third generation"; the sons or daughters of nisei). The rest were issei (literal translation: "first generation"; immigrants born in Japan who were ineligible for U.S. citizenship).

Answer 3

that's number 1 and number 2
3 Primary sources raise questions, perhaps first among them: What is a primary source? Other questions are less obvious. They represent a spectrum of concerns that range from critical reading skills to the nature and limits of historical knowledge. These issues are discussed below. The purpose of this brief introduction to Primary Sources is to provide useful working definitions about historical sources and practical tips for reading primary documents. This short essay ends with selected readings from various historians on the importance and use of primary sources.
Primary Sources

From the outset it must be admitted that the common distinction between primary and secondary sources is problematic -- however useful, it may be entirely artificial. By tradition, a primary source represents firsthand testimony or direct evidence concerning a given topic. Primary sources are often associated with a particular event, with those who participated or witnessed an event, or those who directly authored thoughts on a given topic, whether as a philosopher, scientist, fiction writer, journalist, or someone writing a letter or diary. Here historians are concerned about several issues, most importantly, the value of the source. This negotiable quality often involves authenticity, credibility, usefulness and the authority, reliability, and status of the author. Some sources are valuable due to dumb luck; by chance the document survives, by chance the author scribbled about an expected or little-known event.

Because 'the value and usefulness of a source' is open to question (as discussed more fully below) it is important to discuss the various categories and traditions associated with documents themselves. By tradition, different kinds of documents have carried different degrees of value and prestige, for example, historians have different views of the relative merits of handwritten manuscripts (unpublished diaries; journals; research notebooks; letters; notary, baptismal, legal, and other handwritten records such as census reports) and contemporary printed, often synonymous with published, documents (printed materials ranging from broadsides, leaflets, and newspapers to monographs and books).

The status of these documents, and their relative positions in various hierarchies, have changed over the last several centuries. Take a few minutes to jot down as many specific kinds of 'primary sources' as you can. Compare your list with the list at the very bottom of this page. Clearly 'primary sources' have changed over time. With these changes come new challenges in interpretation. But before approaching that problem, it is useful to provide some simple distinctions concerning these categories.

Primary sources fall into several categories and physical formats which sometimes overlap. The vast majority of printed or published texts include books and monographs. By current definition, a book is composed of leaves of paper, parchment, or other materials joined together (sewn, bolted, glued, etc.) whether it is printed, published, handwritten, or blank. A more recent invention, the monograph is traditionally described as a work written on a single topic (hence mono-graph) that is systematic. In practice, at least during this century, monographs are often shorter and sometimes more specialized than books. The reader can now see the useful limits of defining these objects. Specific examples (associated with a given time and place) are often more useful than abstract definitions.

Since the seventeenth century, there has been a marked increase in the number and kinds of other printed and published sources now commonly known as serials. Examples of serials include newspapers, periodicals, scholarly journals, and magazines. Generically, as the term suggests, serials are published or circulated on a regular time schedule. The 'serial' component suggests that publication commenced at a given time and appeared 'periodically' at a regular 'daily' (jour-nal), weekly, monthly, or quarterly (4 x year) interval.

Good examples for our purposes include the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London and the Journal des Sçavans. But we should be careful about our assumptions. Newspapers may have begun as broadsides or single sheet printings designed for the general reader (some seem to have been intended to be read aloud for the non-literate). From the outset, Henry Oldenburg published the Philosophical Transactions privately. We know little about how many copies of the PT were printed, much less where they were sent or who read them. Indeed, it is possible to ask if they were widely read at all, much less widely understood. In France, the Journal des Sçavans appeared irregularly during its first decades, and it appears to have had an identity crisis regarding its audience. The editors also seem to have been at odds with the journal's sponsors. As always, context is important, and readers of primary texts should be cautious about transporting contemporary assumptions into the past.

Manuscripts are often described as 'unique documents' which may be either handwritten, duplicated by a mechanical tracing device, typed, or otherwise electronically reproduced. Since the 19th century definitions have changed concerning manuscripts. For example, the term 'manuscript' has changed as it applies to individual written works, personal papers, correspondence, archives, and so forth. Today the term generally applies to a body of records, personal papers, or to a collection of manuscripts conserved by an individual or institution other than the original author.

Why Read Primary Sources?

Some historians have argued that primary sources provide important insight not only into the past but into the writing of history itself. Primary sources, it is argued, make history come alive, they immerse the reader in a network of issues and a variety of perspectives rather than a single vision or secondary summary. At their best, primary sources challenge conventional interpretations by presenting not only the full complexity of issues but sometimes a series of stark contradictions. Primary sources problematize historical interpretations.

More troublesome, if primary readings represent a puzzle, the puzzle inevitably has missing pieces. The challenge then becomes two-fold. The reader must not only attempt to understand the text as the author intended it (if this is humanly possible) but must also make sense of the text despite lost or limited information. To these difficulties, there is the additional problem of 'hidden' or unsuspected meanings. The 'meaning(s)' of a text inevitably invites discussion of context and sub-text.

Arguably, the most perplexing problem with primary sources is that the 'meaning' of a text is not black and white. It is difficult to imagine a text that is not open to multiple interpretations and hence scholarly negotiation. What an author writes is seldom transparent or a simple matter of historical documentation or textual fact. Here historical texts not only raise problems with our assumptions about 'objectivity' and 'honesty' but the very possibility of establishing a single defensible 'reading' of the text. To be sure, experience and rigorous research can help distinguish between a 'good reading' and others that are less defensible, appropriate, or satisfying.

But it often happens that the most important and telling elements of a primary text are absent, marginal, or easily glossed over. Interpretation is inevitable and often a dicey affair. Interpretation prompts the reader to come to grips with the text as well as the broader intellectual, cultural, and social contexts. And the task does not end there. Understanding the context (the surrounding circumstances) of a text often directs the reader to the difficult question of the 'subtext' of the author, that is, to the author's reasons, purposes, goals, motives, and, dare we say it, the author's intent. Hence: Text, Context, Subtext. Each becomes an inter-textual component of any sophisticated and nuanced reading.

The critical yet sympathetic reader approaching an historical text is thus drawn into the historical context (the broader contemporary circumstances) as well as the author's subtext (intellectual assumptions and personal motives). There is ample room for debate about what historians can know about such matters. Scholars disagree about what reading strategies are appropriate and what value there is to such an enterprise.

Enthusiasts claim that primary documents invite the reader to join a debate, to appreciate different perspectives, to interpret things from different points of view. Because human affairs are complex, so the story goes, primary sources prompt the reader to reconsider the difficulties of interpretation and the pitfalls of inference and generalization. Some historians imagine that primary sources offer an opportunity to reflect on how we read and write 'history', they argue that primary sources insist on a dialogue between the past and present. Other historians counter with the more modest claim that interrogating historical texts sharpens our awareness about the negotiable limits (or perhaps the very possibility) of historical knowledge.

Whatever theorists may claim, at a practical level of historical research primary texts require strong reading skills. Reading, of course, is a ritual for thinking, it is an invitation to interpret, to exercise critical and creative thought. Strong reading skills balance critical analysis and imaginative insight. Historians aim to justify their interpretations by displaying detailed (hardheaded) analysis and sensitive (often empathetic) appreciation of cultural difference. Somewhere between there may be a path connecting 'past and present.'

Practical Concerns in Reading Primary Sources

As we have noted, critical reading skills are important in coming to grips with primary sources. Arguably, one text is just like another (at least in Pan-Textual-Land, where an author's intent might count for little). But historians are generally less interested in theoretical constraints than making sense of documents. This, of course, may be a completely naive enterprise. Without question, it is risky business. Making sense of a document means making assumptions and risking unfounded inference. There is ample room for error. But historians have few alternatives. So we proceed with caution and humility -- and perhaps a hint of optimism.

Much of what historians would most like to know about the past is forever lost. But we are often at a loss for other reasons. Because the author imagines a different audience, critical assumptions are habitually left unstated. Important contemporary ideas and beliefs (perhaps unknown or unsuspected by later readers) are deemed too obvious for mention. Arguably, the most commonplace notions are thoughtfully omitted as redundant, too well-known to identity for a contemporary audience. For the historian, what is 'absent' is often most telling. For the author, contextual omissions lighten the load, they limit the banal while offering nuance for those in the know. For the historian, primary historical texts invite discussion of things absent. Readers must be careful about what they "bring to the text" in their interpretation. Understanding the historical context is critical. Readers must aim to see the world as the author and the audience saw it, how it was, how they wished it might be.

Like readers of any text, readers of historical texts wisely consider the author's assumptions and personal motives. The assumption here is that writers have a subtext, a web of ideas and beliefs, stated or unstated, rational or not. To complicate matters, writers themselves are often unaware of the full measure of their subtexts, their deepest beliefs are often not fully articulated or easily verbalized. This claim enters into difficult territory. But the present author would wager that most writers are hard pressed to provided a detailed map of their reasons and motives for writing. The more so for writing to their assumed audience.

If the above outline makes sense, the challenge for readers of primary historical texts is to unravel (and then weave back together) the text, context, and subtext. At risk of simplification, the text "then and there" is somehow not the same text confronted "here and now." The first difference, we might suppose, is between the "past" and "history" -- arguably a signature problem with events and texts. In sum, and without apology, a single sentence: The historical text is usefully approached by situating it in context (imagining a contemporary audience) in relation to the subtext (imagining the author's reasons and motives). More complicated yet, what applies to past authors applies to each reader.


As suggested above, finding historical answers in textual 'foreign countries' can be difficult. For all that, the interpretation of primary sources is at the core of the historical enterprise. And if there is no Royal Road, the journey requires careful preparation and a ragbag of skills. In practice, framing questions to unravel the text--to explore 'subtexts'--is often an exercise in imagining the text in a number of different 'contexts', imagining the author faced with unspoken possibilities, unplanned contingencies, and unknown consequences. These games of imagination aim at divining any number of possible meanings that can be supported by the text. Texts are always negotiable.
In the end, clear answers to important questions may not be possible. Historians are thus invited to provide good 'readings' rather than indisputable answers. Good readings conform to the text, they are defended by critical analysis and creative insight. Like any good theory, good readings of primary texts provide a relatively simple way to account for the greatest complexity. The best readings account for the widely agreed "facts of the matter" as well as the most subtle interlinear hints. Most perplexing, the best readings often address issues unidentified for centuries, frequently enough, good readings were not provided by contemporaries, they may not have been anticipated by the author. These are several of the more exciting possibilities in reading primary sources. Texts are continually re-read and re-negotiated.

But enough Thin Theory & Gee Whiz! Consider the following questions as a practical guide to reading primary texts. The issue again returns to good reading skills. The Mantra may look familiar.

1. Text: What is the argument? Specifically, what is the author's thesis? The objectives? How does the structure of the text inform the reader about the thesis and objectives? Does the author seek to persuade, convince, to identify problems, to provide a solution? What are the forms of evidence used by the author? Are they effective? For whom? Are important facts or perspectives omitted? What is left out? Can you improve the author's case? Could new evidence be adduced? Could the text be better organized? What are the 'facts' of the text (stuff most readers might agree upon) and can they be verified? Is the primary text consistent with what you have read in other primary texts? In other 'secondary sources'? What does the text seem to reveal that is not central to the author's purpose (for example, what may seem unremarkable to the author may be revealing to a modern reader.) Is the author credible -- to whom? Explain. Does the author attempt to be objective, impartial, neutral? Does the author consider alternative positions and perspectives? Does the author acknowledge prejudice or personal interest? Is there an ax to grind? Are 'opponents' mentioned, either by name or by school or by tradition? Provide examples of an interpretation made by the author and compare it with what you think represents an 'indisputable fact' found in the text. What arguments and evidence do you have for your claims? How could you make your interpretations more persuasive? Be specific.

2. Context: What kind of document is it? A diary, manuscript treatise, letter, printed document? Was it published--when and where? Who is the author and what position, role, reputation, status, did the author have at the time of writing? Is the author well-known today? At the time of writing? Who is the intended audience? Who read this text at the time? What were the responses? What was to be gained and what were the risks in writing this text? How is this document related to other primary documents known to you, particularly from the same time period? Does this document square with what you know from secondary sources? What evidence do you have for your claims about the text? Be specific.

3. Subtext: What does the text assume on the part of the reader? What has the author knowing assumed (consciously, rationally, purposefully), what has the author silently presupposed (perhaps unconsciously, or perhaps to spare the audience from the obvious)? What intellectual assumptions has the author made? Do you think the author aware of these assumptions? What personal motives are there in writing this piece, that is, why was it written? Can you distinguish between the author's purpose and the author's motives, that is, between reasons stated and unstated, and statements that suggest other unspoken factors (causes vs. effects; reasons vs. actions; statements that may betray distinctions crudely distinguished by conscious vs. unconscious)? Was the purpose of the writing to convince, persuade, motivate? Was the writing a call to action, to change ideas, beliefs, behaviors? Is the structure based on defining and presenting a problem/solution? Is there a school or genre or tradition to which the author belongs? Is there an ax to grind? Is the author straightforward in presenting information and arguments? What rhetorical devices are employed? What does the author assume? What preconceptions (which may not be perfectly clear to the author) seem evident? Identify these unstated aspects (as you interpret them) and other assumptions, presupposition, and possible motives not stated in the text. What evidence and arguments do you have for your interpretations and your claims? Be specific.

4. It's-Your-Text: Themes & Patterns: Primary texts sometime work together to form a pattern and a set of themes. Here the usual concern is to look for similarity and difference. Primary texts can be made to speak to continuity and discontinuity, to coherence and correspondence, to chaos and contradiction. As you read texts from the same time period dealing with similar topics, identify recurrent themes as well as differences of assumption, approach, and opinion. If there are distinct differences, are there similarities in the difference? How do the texts present and defend their views? Are there similarities in method and approach? Why are some texts more compelling than others?

Be prepared to explain your views and defend your interpretations using the text itself. Be prepared (with exact page numbers) to read the relevant passages outloud and have your arguments ready. Be self-conscious about your own assumptions and motives. Be clear about your own methods and approach. What criteria would you use to evaluate the 'truth value' of a primary text? How would you judge the relative credibility of two different sources? Can a primary source be 'valuable' without being 'credible' or 'reliable'? What can be said about the reliability of an author? What can be said about the 'truth-value' of a text? Be clear: What does this ongoing exercise tell you about 'writing history' and the enterprise of 'telling the truth'?
number 4 Thesis: A good historian does not adopt a thesis until quite late on in the process of preparing a paper. First, find good questions to ask yourself, questions that deserve and actually call for an answer, real world questions even if the paper is about a remote period of the past. Only at the almost-final stage of preparation will you know at last more or less exactly what you want to argue, what your line of argument (thesis if you will) is to be. You can then make sure that we readers know too, by signalling to us both questions and thesis in the introduction.

In the body of the paper, argue your case for your answers to the questions you have set youself. Do not write a simple narrative, or just tell a story, or try to include everything (no matter how little) you know about a subject.

Of course, in making your argument, you will need to give examples that support the thesis, and these examples may well include narrative. But you should try to persuade the reader of the validity of your argument. So aim to write an analytical paper in which you discuss the thesis, and then draw a conclusion for the preceding debate. By the end the reader should be able to state your point of view clearly, and to summarize the evidence of which you base that argument.

Take a position; don't waffle. Say what you think, and why. In history, although certain facts are indisputable, there are few "right" or "wrong" answers; usually it is a matter of a "good", i.e. persuasive, argument, or a "bad" one, i.e. an unpersuasive, poorly planned one.

Bibliography: A research paper requires research, i.e. finding the relevant primary sources, secondary literature, etc, and evaluating all this material. Skim through the secondary sources and see what general lines of argument develop that relate to your topic.

Question:- Are you sure you understand the difference between "primary" and "secondary" materials, and why they matter? If not, ask! and see below.
Use your professor (and/or the nice, friendly T. A.) as a resource.

Consult one of them for broad suggestions on manageability of the topic, which directions might be most promising, etc.
Ask for pointers on bibliography.
Come to Office Hours ahead of deadlines!
Outline: After you have done your research, plan in advance what line of argument you will take. Depending on the complexity of your subject and on your own study habits, the outline may be anything from a broad general guide to a very detailed plan. The outline should enable you to check easily on the development of the argument, and to re-order it in the most effective, logical order.

An outline will also help you gauge your time. Start working on the paper well in advance of the due date. It is highly recommended that you meet the specified due date. Notify your instructor as soon as possible if it seems that, for some legitimate reason, you may need an extension. A paper simply turned in late, without prior negotiation, will usually draw a penalty

You may need to go through multiple plans before writing the paper, to clarify your questions and their ordering (crucial) and to gradually sort out the argument with which you bring together the different questions you have set yourself. .

Title: Choose a title which suggests a question or debate you will address. Print it at the top of the first page, and on the cover sheet. Bear it in mind while you are writing the paper. Don't let yourself stray from the subject as you have framed it. Subtle suggestion: If you have something nifty you badly want to include, you should arrange the initial presentation (title and introduction) to make it relevant -- Right from the start.

Introduction: Start strongly. This is where you manage (or fail) to capture interest and thereby improve your grade. Usually the first paragraph should introduce the argument. Sometimes a short opening paragraph is also needed to set the historical context.

Argument: Marshall evidence to support your thesis. This does not mean that you simply pile up facts. If others take different lines of argument on your topic, indicate why you agree or disagree with them.

Conclusion: Finish with a bang not a whimper. Summarize the debate neatly in a paragraph or two. Save a point of interest to end on -- a comment on the significance of the subject, what is original about your argument, etc. The conclusion should reinforce, in the reader's mind, the persuasiveness of your whole argument.

Style: Write in clear, concise English. Use the least number of words possible to make your point.

Always write in the past tense: this is, after all, history. The events have occurred already and should be treated as such. Do not use colloquial or abbreviated English.
Complex points of debate or material which is necessary for background but somewhat tangential to your thesis can often be treated in footnotes, so as not to interfere with your main argument.
Short sentences are often easier to control. This helps you to make your points clearly and forcefully. Frequent paragraph divisions may also help to maintain interest and to separate thoughts from each other. How you handle sentence and paragraph divisions is naturally a matter of taste. But keeping things short will usually at least ensure that your points come over clearly, your first responsibility. You can go after elegance at a later stage.
A couple of minor points for medieval history papers.
We know many medieval figures by toponymic names, that is, after some place with which they are associated. John of Salisbury and William of Baskerville are two English examples. When you refer to them in the text, do it by the first name: "John writes very clearly ..." Do not say "Salisbury was very clever."
Never give Domesday Book or Magna Carta a definite article. "The" Domesday Book and "the Magna Carta" are wrong. But you can say "the Great Charter"! Do not ask me why! It is just the style, and anything else sounds wrong. One day, knowing the right style will win you brownie points at some toney gathering, or assist your entry to writers' heaven.
Paragraphs: Each paragraph should contain one major point with advances your argument. Use about 3 or 4 paragraphs to a page. Don't write the paper as a "stream of consciousness" with the stages of the argument undifferentiated.

Quotations: Keep all quotes short: I am more interested in what you have to say than in anyone else's words. All quotes must fit smoothly into the text. Any quotation longer than 3 lines should be indented and single-spaced. Acknowledge the source of all direct quotations in a footnote -- author, work, page etc.

Annotation: Use either footnotes or endnotes, but not both! A first reference (even to a textbook) should contain certain details.

For the correct format, see Footnote 1.[1] Abbreviate subsequent references as in Footnote 2.[2] Use "Ibid." only where the context is absolutely clear. If you need more than this (which you do not, in my classes), check out one of the standard guides for the M.L.A. Rules or the Chicago Style.
It does not (in my opinion) matter much which set of conventions you use; it matters a good deal that you follow your chosen set carefully and stay consistent. Try and ensure that you spell the authors and titles correctly. Copying errors of this kind scream out the message that you are so slapdash that sensible people do not need to listen carefully to what you say!
For citations of material on the Web: Give the full URL,
eg <falcon.arts.cornell.edu/~prh3/disclaimer.html>.

But always date your citation. Websites are much less stable than publicly printed books and articles. They change as their "authors" develop them. Sometimes they disappear. (The Falcon server through whose good graces you read this crashed over the summer, and was not backed up! so the same URL someone keyed in last Spring may bring him the same now, or something very different, or nothing at all where I have yet to replace the files! "Falcon" is after all just one more box under a desk in a campus office.) Always consider too how far and why you should trust the information offered, just as you would a book or a con artist. See further below under "Source Criticism".

Why bother with citations anyway? Good question. In my former life, I never expected students to provide footnotes and bibliographies. In North America they are, however, required, and we too must follow local rules. One quite common rationale says that you cite sources to establish that your work is your own, that you are not plagiarizing. I do not myself see the force of that. I know from experience (other people's!) that one can easily use the system to cheat. Ask me, and I just might teach you some of the tricks! No, technicalities do not keep people honest. But anyway, we are not like that, are we? Please cite your sources for more positive reasons. I cite mine so that a reader can if he or she chooses follow my footsteps and check my argument. Footnotes trace a kind of paper trail for future hunters to follow. Hopefully those who follow will feel that our work is solid enough for them to build on to it, for that is how knowledge advances.

Revisions: Once you have written the paper, read it through again. And again.

Read it aloud! You may be surprised to discover that your ear catches infelicities, such as simple grammatical errors, that "look" fine on paper, and so escape your eyes. You will also be so pleased when it sounds good, euphonious, persuasive, clear.
Get someone else to read it. Does it flow easily? Does it make sense? Can they follow your argument?
Please, please proof your work carefully. Check your spelling. Remember that Spell-Checker software will not tell you if you are usiong a word correctly or in the right place, only that it exists in its dictionary. Have both a Dictionary and a Thesaurus of your own to hand. If certain phrases are repeated often enough to seem boring, seek out accurate synonyms in the Thesaurus.
Vary your sentence structure from the usual Subject-Verb-Object, to make your paper more effective and to stimulate your reader's interest. (Variations in sentence structure can effectively indicate the relative importance of certain parts of your argument, too.)
Technical Desiderata: Provide a cover sheet with the course number and title, as well as your name and the date. Number the pages and staple them together. You are expected to include an accurate bibliography in one of the accepted formats at the end. (Accurate: It looks bad to mispell the title of a book you have used all the time!)

Answer 4

@LieutenantGeneral Thank You... But i was kind of needing a little more specific:/

Answer 5

You Welcome

Answer 6

What was the answer @Mason1234

Answer 7

What is the answear bc im on pleto and you know this stuff is hard. And also im always on so any questions that are answeared and you are doing algbre 2 or us history please let me be notified you can easily add my name in the question and Ill help you if needed because plenty of different questions that are answear Ill need help on please !!!!!!!!!