Answer:
Although African men had been required to carry passes for many decades, only in the 1950s did the government impose pass laws on African women. African women were not allowed to live in towns unless they had permission to be employed there, and extending pass laws to them made it more difficult for women without jobs to take their children and join their husbands in town. Across the country, dozens of protests against passing laws for African women took place before the Federation of South African Women (formed in 1955) and the African National Congress Women’s League organized a massive protest march in Pretoria.
On August 9, 1956, 20,000 women, representing all racial backgrounds, came from all over South Africa to march on the Union Buildings, where they stood in silent protest for 30 minutes while petitions with 100,000 signatures were delivered to the Prime Minister’s office. Many men in the anti-apartheid movement were surprised by the women’s militancy, and the protest contributed to women playing a bigger role in the struggle for freedom and democracy. August 9th now is celebrated as National Women’s Day in South Africa.
MPs
The main reason it took so long to abolish the slave trade was simply because the pro-slave trade lobby had too many important and powerful figures in the establishment. The plantation owners, the merchants and those living in Britain, some of them MP’s, were well organised, as well as being powerful and wealthy enough to bribe other MPs to support them.
Prime Minister William Pitt
William Pitt talks to the House of Commons about the French Declaration of Wars
William Pitt talks to the House of Commons about the French Declaration of Wars
The Prime Minister William Pitt had been a supporter of abolition, but the war with France changed his views. During the war he did not want to upset the cabinet ministers that were mostly against abolition. Therefore he withdrew his support for the abolitionists. Additionally the events in St Domingue convinced Pitt that to abolish slavery would be a disaster.
King George III
King George III was against the abolition movement, as was his son, the Duke of Clarence. Support for abolition in Parliament was now restricted to the committed few.
1806 Change of government
The new Prime Minister, Lord Grenville actively promoted fellow abolitionists to cabinet. More MPs had committed themselves to abolition during the 1805 election campaign.
1806 Parliamentary Bill
Poster advertising a meeting about abolishing slavery
The Foreign Slave Trade Abolition Bill of 1806 represented a change of strategy. Rather than have Wilberforce represent yet another straightforward abolition bill, the parliamentary abolitionists secretly agreed to pretend to 'ignore' a Foreign Slave Trade Abolition Bill, which was instead sold as an anti-French measure to the House of Commons.
The Bill was designed to prevent British merchants from importing slaves into the territories of foreign powers.
It was only on the third reading of the Bill, that the pro-slavery lobby realised what was really at stake behind the Bill. It would have been difficult to oppose it because the Government presented it as a way to win the Napoleonic war.
<h2>
<em><u>Al-Azhar</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>is</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>a</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>Islamic</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>cen</u></em><em><u>t</u></em><em><u>r</u></em><em><u>e</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>of</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>learning</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>i</u></em><em><u>n</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>Cairo</u></em><em><u>,</u></em><em><u>E</u></em><em><u>g</u></em><em><u>y</u></em><em><u>p</u></em><em><u>t</u></em><em><u>.</u></em></h2>
<em><u>HOPE</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>THIS</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>HELPS</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>U</u></em><em><u>.</u></em>
<em><u>IF</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>MY</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>ANS</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>WAS</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>HELPFUL</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>U</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>CA</u></em><em><u>N</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>FOLLOW</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>ME</u></em><em><u> </u></em>
Answer:
Bradstreet hated the Native Indian and Johnson believed in a friendly relation with them.
Explanation:
Sir William Johnson was an Irish military officer of the British army. He had a good relationship with the Native Americans in America after he arrived in the province of New York in 1738. Johnson becomes involved in trading with Indians especially with the Mohawk (the Six Nations of the Iroquois League). Johnson was given name Warraghiyagey and called him as sachem. After the French and Indian War, he was appointed as British ambassador to the Iroquois and became head of Indian Affairs for the northern colonies in America.
John Bradstreet hated the Native Indians as he calls them savages and brutes. Bradstreet did not want any relationship with the American Indians.