The answer is:
The following options benefit African consumers but not African farmers.
I. Subsidies to keep crop prices low
IV. Availability of imported grains
<em>Explanation:</em>
<em>If you were to subsidize to keep prices low, consumers would benefit exclusively because the would pay a fixed rate for their farm products. On the other hand farmers would be affected because we don't know many factors that would influence this decission. Some of these factors may be.</em>
<em>- Will there be a price fixed for certain products</em>
<em>- Will the grains be cash crops</em>
<em>- Will farmers be allowed to rotate crops</em>
<em>Without knowing these factors one can only assume that when you susidize a crop the conditions imposed on the farmers may or may not be ideal.</em>
<em>When it comes to the availability of imported grains, some of these grains may be even cheaper than local grains. This may have a negative effect on local farmers who cannot lower their prices at a loss. Consumers would definitely benefit by paying lower prices from imported crops.</em>
b.placed heavy restriction on the local population; direct control such as in southern Rhodesia
c. allowed the local population to participate in government; indirect control such as Kenya and Uganda,
d.gave the local population no rights; direct control ; such as in South Africa
e.did not give the local population any position in government; direct control
f.forced th elocal population to adopt new european cultures; direct control
a.offered some rights to the local population;indirect rule
Traveling to and from cities became easier. (I think thats correct)
Answer:
It was Kansas. Underlying it all was his desire to build a transcontinental railroad to go through Chicago. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed each territory to decide the issue of slavery on the basis of popular sovereignty.
Explanation:
