In the long history of European colonialism, some colonialists did better by their colonies than others, and the legacy is mostly one of still-enduring pain. For example, virtually no one save Newt Gingrich<span> thinks the Belgians did much of a job in Central Africa, where their mistakes included artificially dividing the population into Hutus and Tutsis, precipitating one of the continent's worst humanitarian disasters. But many historians generally consider the British presence in India, while </span>at times<span> horrifically </span>violent, to be one of the most benevolent and productive in colonial history. Was it a net gain for India? Or did it cause more harm than good? <span>India's democracy is truly extraordinary. ... India's political system owes much to the institutions put in place by the British over two hundred years ago. In many other parts of Asia and in Africa, the British were a relatively temporary presence. They were in India for centuries. They saw it as the jewel in their imperial crown and built lasting institutions of government throughout the country--courts, universities, administrative agencies. But perhaps even more importantly, India got very lucky with the vehicle of its independence, the Congress Party, and its first generations of post-independence leaders, who nurtured the best traditions of the British and drew on older Indian customs to reinforce them.
The type of leader who came to power in Greece around 600 BC was called an ephor. This was one of 5 senior Spartan magistrates. The correct answer is A, an ephor.
The National Assembly produced a document called, "the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen." It was about all the natural rights people had. Such as ;
Explanation: It would be A if it said the electoral college not the slate of electors because the slate of electos are people possible chosen to be in the electoral college not guaranteed
