Answer:
Here is the link https://www.jstor.org/stable/3331052
Explanation:
Answer:
Audre Lorde quickly became the best known out-of-the-closet Black radical lesbian feminist. Lorde deeply politicized every aspect of herself, including her fight with cancer. She was an African-American poet who wrote poetry exploring the relationships between lovers, children and parents, and friends in both a very personal and a socially relevant manner. She was a feminist poet who challenged racial and sexual stereotypes.
Question- Why did the Constitution allow Slavery?
Answer- On Monday, Senator Bernie Sanders told his audience at Liberty University that the United States “in many ways was created” as a nation “from way back on racist principles.” Not everyone agreed. The historian Sean Wilentz took to The New York Times to write that Bernie Sanders—and a lot of his colleagues—have it all wrong about the founding of the United States. The Constitution that protected slavery for three generations, until a devastating war and a constitutional amendment changed the game, was actually antislavery because it didn’t explicitly recognize “property in humans.” Lincoln certainly said so, and cited the same passage from Madison’s notes that Wilentz used. But does that make it so? And does it gainsay Sanders’s inelegant but apparently necessary voicing of what ought to be obvious, what David Brion Davis, Wilentz’s scholarly mentor and my own, wrote back in 1966—that the nation was “in many ways” founded on racial slavery? If the absence of an ironclad guarantee of a right to property in men really “quashed” the slaveholders, it should be apparent in the rest of the document, by which the nation was actually governed. But of the 11 clauses in the Constitution that deal with or have policy implications for slavery, 10 protect slave property and the powers of masters. Only one, the international slave-trade clause, points to a possible future power by which, after 20 years, slavery might be curtailed—and it didn’t work out that way at all. The three-fifths clause, which states that three-fifths of “all other persons” (i.e. slaves) will be counted for both taxation and representation, was a major boon to the slave states. This is well known; it’s astounding to see Wilentz try to pooh-pooh it. No, it wasn’t counting five-fifths, but counting 60 percent of slaves added enormously to slave-state power in the formative years of the republic. By 1800, northern critics called this phenomenon “the slave power” and called for its repeal. With the aid of the second article of the Constitution, which numbered presidential electors by adding the number of representatives in the House to the number of senators, the three-fifths clause enabled the elections of plantation masters Jefferson in 1800 and Polk in 1844. Just as importantly, the tax liability for three-fifths of the slaves turned out to mean nothing. Sure the federal government could pass a head tax, but it almost never did. It hardly could when the taxes had to emerge from the House, where the South was 60 percent overrepresented. So the South gained political power, without having to surrender much of anything in exchange. Indeed, all the powers delegated to the House—that is, the most democratic aspects of the Constitution—were disproportionately affected by what critics quickly came to call “slave representation.” These included the commerce clause—a compromise measure that gave the federal government power to regulate commerce, but only at the price of giving disproportionate power to slave states. And as if that wasn’t enough, Congress was forbidden from passing export duties—at a time when most of the value of what the U.S. exported lay in slave-grown commodities. This was one of the few things (in addition to regulating the slave trade for 20 years) that Congress was forbidden to do. Slavery and democracy in the U.S. were joined at the 60-percent-replaced hip. Another clause in Article I allowed Congress to mobilize “the Militia” to “suppress insurrections”—again, the House with its disproportionate votes would decide whether a slave rebellion counted as an insurrection. Wilentz repeats the old saw that with the rise of the northwest, the slave power’s real bastion was the Senate. Hence the battles over the admission of slave and free states that punctuated the path to Civil War. But this reads history backwards from the 1850s, not forward from 1787.
The correct answer is D, as Ghana is thriving more than other nations in Africa because after Jerry Rawlings seized power in 1981, he introduced economic reforms in the country.
Rawlings attempted a failed coup d'état in 1979, which resulted in his arrest and sentencing to death. However, before the execution, he was released by a group of related military officers that, led by Major Boakye Djan, toppled the military government of General Fred Akuffo in the coup of June 4, 1979. That same year elections were held and the third republic was installed. However, Rawlings returned to lead a coup in 1981 and was installed in the government with the PNDC (Provisional National Defense Council)
The initial revolutionary measures, such as the control of prices and the nationalization of economic activities, proved ineffective in reducing inflation and overwhelming poverty. Thus, since 1984 Rawlings opted for a radical policy of structural adjustment and reforms in favor of the free market, which included privatizations in the key productive sectors of cocoa, gold and wood.
Very concerned about the agricultural development of his country, Rawlings gave maximum importance to small farming centers to achieve self-sufficiency in some staple foods, as well as industrial cooperatives and women's organizations. The economic growth of Ghana in these years was, however, similar to high unemployment and inflation, and, since the mid-nineties, to the financial crisis caused by the fall of the international prices of gold and cocoa. All this revealed serious uncertainties about the sustainability of sustained development.
<u>The west African kings:</u>
The Kings in Western part of Africa by controlling the stops which were on one of the most important trade routes which was on trans Saharan trade routes.
The three African kings on the western sides which were Ghana, Mali and Songhai became very powerful even beyond their belief.
Because they had got over the control of one of the most important trade routes on the trans Saharan which led to the accumulation of their wealth. Gold and salt were the major commodities that were exchanged on this route.
