A factor which didn't lead to decolonization movements in Africa would be Greed - b. Greed was actually the reason why there was colonialization in the first place in Africa. The people at the time saw this as an excelllent opportunity to make a lot of money.
1) 1
2)the slaves have to work harder picking more cotton but at least they don’t have to pick the seeds
I’m not too sure what your trying to day
The Dust Bowl, which happened during the 1930´s originated in the South and its devastation and effects moved on to affect not just the Southern Plains but also the Great Plains. The absence of rainfall, the intense movement of strong winds and continuous dust were part of the factors that affected everything in life, from the economy of families to their welfare and even comfort, to their health. It was a time of great drought, which coupled with the Depression of the 1930s, increased the poverty levels, especially in rural areas. In response to the need for food and income to be generated, many farmers decided to replace the natural grasses that grew in the plains for winter wheat and this action, coupled with the lack of rainfall, led to a furthering of the drought problem and also to land erosion. In the end, it was very difficult, if not almost impossible, to grow any crops and the lands turned to dust. This is why the correct response is C: Replacing natural grasses to plant winter wheat led to topsoil erosion.
I can't really answer your question (as I don't really know enough about 18th century France), but I just want to clear up an (understandable) misconception about Feudalism in your question.
The French revolution was adamant and explicit in its abolition of 'feudalism'. However, the 'feudalism' it was talking about had nothing at all to do with medieval 'feudalism' (which, of course, never existed). What the revolutionaries had in mind, in my own understanding of it, was the legally privileged position of the aristocracy/2nd estate. This type of 'feudalism' was a creation of early modern lawyers and, as a result, is better seen as a product of the early-modern monarchical nation-state, than as a precursor to it. It has nothing to do with the pre-nation-state medieval period, or with the Crusades.
Eighteenth-century buffs, feel free to chip in if I've misrepresented anything, as this is mostly coming from my readings about the historiographical development of feudalism, not any revolutionary France expertise, so I may well have misinterpreted things.
