Geography and history complement each other, which can be described as a pain in the skin. Why should we teach separately? Teachers should run through it!
First, there is too much content for students to accept. Third, such neutralization is always not enough, and there is no such teacher. You are right, so there are liberal arts and comprehensive sciences, but the focus of each course is different, geography is relatively more objective, and there are some human intervention factors in history, which can better reflect the will of the ruling class. You are right, so there are liberal arts and comprehensive sciences, but the focus of each course is different, geography is relatively more objective, and history also has some human intervention factors. You are right to better reflect the will of the ruling class, so you have a comprehensive science of liberal arts, but the focus of each course is different, geography is relatively more objective, and there are some human intervention factors in history, which can better reflect the ruling class. You are right, so you have a comprehensive science of liberal arts, but the focus of each course is different, geography is relatively more objective, and history also has some human intervention factors. It can better reflect the will of the ruling class. You are absolutely right, so there are liberal arts and comprehensive sciences, but the focus of each course is different, geography is relatively more objective, and history also has some human intervention factors.