The columbian exchange was ironic because a huge disease broke out when new settlers came to Europe
Answer:
It's to guarantee that the people have their rights that the government don't have the power to take away.
Explanation:
The condition of the U.S armed forces at the time the U.S entered the war is that the United States was not ready for World War 1 is that it only had around 200,000 men in service when the war was declared. Many troops had no combat experience. America's armed forces usually consisted mainly of "citizen soldiers," men and women who were picked from the civilian life. The "citizen soldier" came from each State in the U.S and all economic and social strata. Many troops were volunteers, but the majority joined the military through the draft. Most draftees were assigned to the army.
Colonialism in Latin America really did not have much of an impact, as the original natives were either exterminated outright( the Mayas,Incans, Aztecs) or retreated into remote areas( native Indian tribes), so the population that came later were mostly of European or mixed European-Indian ancestry origin. Also the region became independent earlier than Asia or Africa, most of the nations breaking away from Spanish/Portugese rule. But even after independence most of the Latin American nations, still suffered from another kind of colonialism, economic.Corrupt,dictatorial rulers, crony businessmen, the armed forces, created a ruling elite, which saw the rich benefiting, while most of the ordinary people remained dirt poor as ever. Add to it most of the Latin American nations depending on a single crop(Coffee/Sugar in Brazil) or mineral( Silver in Argentina), their economies often took a hit, due to market factors.
Countries in Asia, Africa began to throw off the colonial yoke post World War II. There was a difference, in Asia, the colonial powers created territories on basis of economic consideration. So you had larger nations with more diverse populations, esp places like India, Indonesia, Malaysia. So it was possible for Hindus,Muslims,SIkhs to co exist in India inspite of the bitter experiences of Partition here or Malays,Chinese, Indians existing in Malaysia together. In Africa however, colonial powers however redrew boundaries based on tribal divisions, and played off one tribe against other. Case in point Rwanda, where the Belgian colonial power, deliberately favored the Tutsis over the Hutus, with disastrous results later on.
Also I feel European colonialism was much worse in Africa, than in Asia. It had to do with the way they looked at the natives. While Europeans had no love lost for the "uncivilized natives" of Asia, there was a significant section that felt Asia had a lot of contribute in terms of philosophy and culture. Many European scholars, translated ancient Arabic, Sanskrit,Persian scriptures and texts, and that showcased a region, which had a rich culture and history. While Asia was seen as a backward nation, the Asians were generally seen as "intelligent,cultured" people who could be civilized( read Westernized). On the other hand Africans were seen as a barbaric, uncivilized species, who needed to be dealt with in the harshest manner( read most brutal). British took the trouble of introducing railways, Parliamentary system of Governance to India, they did not even bother building such things in their African territories. The French were even worse, they just used their colonies as raw material resource pits, it's not surprising that most of Sub Saharan Africa was under French rule. Africa really did not have the institutions to build on, unlike nations in Asia, when most of the countries became independent. I hope it helped!!!
