Answer:
Here you go :)
Explanation:
LOS ANGELES -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today said it will represent Asia Yu, the organizer of the 1999 B-Boy Summit, who was charged by the police department here with inciting a riot.
Even though Yu and her organization, Eternal Two Creations, held the appropriate permits for the February 28 dance performance and exhibition held at Venice Beach, the Los Angeles Police Department is charging her with inciting a riot. The ACLU contends that it was the actions of the LAPD, and not those of the B-Boy Summit organizers, which caused the confusion along Venice Beach and the Boardwalk.
The events of February 28, including the disproportionate tactics taken by the LAPD, were captured on videotape by a number of participants and clearly support the B-Boy Summit organizers contention that the crowd was law abiding and orderly.
"One look at these tapes and it is clear that the LAPD reacted with fear and force to what was obviously a minor problem,"" said John Duran, an ACLU cooperating attorney representing Yu. "While hundreds of hip-hop fans enjoyed a legally permitted dance performance on the beach, the LAPD launched a tactical force to deal with a perceived threat that was, in fact, a figment of their imagination."
The events of that Sunday were in marked contrast to those of the two previous days of the Summit, which was held on the UCLA campus. More than 2,000 people from across the United States and from around the globe attended the 5th annual B-Boy Summit.
Seminars on a wide range of topics from 'Women in Hip-Hop' to 'Y2K: Urban Survival' drew record attendance and no reports of violence or vandalism.
"The hip-hop culture allows youth freedom to express themselves through dance, music and art and promotes a code of respect and understanding of all peoples and cultures," Yu said. "What the LAPD did that day, was directly contrary to the non-violent values that hip-hop advocates."
Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California, said that what happened on Venice Beach was a sweeping violation of free speech and basic civil liberties.
"There is no justification for LAPD officers training their rifles on innocent people, gathered at a peacable assembly," Ripston said. "We are calling on the LAPD to meet with us to make sure nothing like this ever happens again."
There are a good number of reasons why the British were able to do so, and in fact rule over India effectively for over a century.
Disunity among Indian princely states. India was more a collection of warring princely states, at loggerheads with each other. The British sucessfully used this to play off one state against another. Add to it there was no dearth of people willing to betray the kingdom for a few pieces of silver. Robert Clive succeeded at Plassey, because Mir Jaffar was willing to betray his master Siraj-Ud-Daulah in lie of being the Nawab. Mir Jaffar himself was betrayed by Mir Qasim later on.Tipu Sultan one of the most redoubtable fighters against the British rule, was finally defeated, as the Marathas, King of Mysore, Nizam of Hyderabad all joined hands with the British.
Superiority over other colonial powers. The other colonial powers in India competing for the share of resources were France,Portugal,Denmark, Holland. Of the 4, Denmark and Holland could never really be serious competitors to the British, they had their own trading posts, scattered around, but were never a serious threat. Portugal focussed primarily on the Western coast, Goa, parts of Kerala, Karnataka, and this left the British with vast swathes of unoccupied territory. That left France as the major contender to Britian in the race for colonialism. The British Army was more well equipped, more professional, more disciplined compared to the French army, suffering from indiscipline and corruption. This made the British win key battles all over the East Coast, as they effectively grabbed control.
Doctrine of Lapse. One of the most effective tactics, the British used to take over most of India. Instead of waging an all out war against some of the princely states, they signed a treaty with them, where in if the ruling king died without a heir, the East India company could take over that. And that is how Satara became one of the first states to end up under British rule. And that was also the main reason for the conflict in Jhansi.
Subsidiary alliance was also an effective instrument. According to this alliance, the kingdom which signs the treaty will have to maintain the following rules:
The British agreed to maintain a permanent and fixed subsidiary force within the territory of their ally.
In return, they didn't take money but took over a part of the territory of the ally.
A British officer called "resident" was placed at the court of the ruler.{he could interfere in the internal matters of the kingdom}
The ally could not maintain any relation with any other ruler without the approval of the British.{so,when the rulers wanted to revolt against the British they are alone.}
The Indian rulers felt a false sense of security but in reality they were losing their independence. On the other hand the Britishers maintained large forces at the expenses of the Indian rulers and also increase their area of influence. Some states brought under control through this policy are Hyderabad, Tanjore, Awadh, etc.
At the end of it all, the British had the advantage of better manpower, were militarily more powerful and stronger, and add to it they had some very canny strategists too. And the disunity among Indian princely states, their constant warring with each other, just added to the advantage.
The correct answer is democratic capital
In general, democracy is the political practice of dissolving, in some way, power and political decisions among citizens.
Democracies can be classified according to different types, based on the way they are organized, and they can also have different stages of development. Therefore, the term is broad and difficult to define, since the simple act of saying that “democracy is the power of the people” or of associating democracy with the practice of elections does not define the concept in its entirety
