The economic value of having colonies in the first place was for 3 main reasons
1) attain cheap labour from the native peoples
2) acquire cheap raw materials to bring to the homeland (Europe)
3) open up new markets to trade with
the first two were vital in Britains industrial revolution. Without cheap raw materials, and cheap labourers, the factories and refineries in Britain would have costed far more to maintain and keep supplied. This, in turn, would have slowed down production considerably. There is no doubt in my mind that the industrial revolution would still have taken place in Britain with or without the colonies, but WITH the colonies the process was sped up considerably.
Overall, cheap labour and raw materials attained through Britains colonial interests sped up the industrialisation of the UK.
The freed men's Bureau did redistribute large amounts of land to freedmen in some areas from wealthy southern planters and from abandoned plantations. Southern planters began to return and demand their land back, and vey few republicans wanted to live where the government could arbitrarily confiscate land from people, so much of the land was given back to its original owners
United states, France, Great Britan and, Japan
a danger of assimilation is that Assimilation forces us to erase or hide who we really are and chase an illusion of success.
<h3>why can assimilation be negative?</h3><h3 />
assimilation means that a person is being indoctrinated and accepted by another culture that is not their original culture.
this can be negative because it often leads to the person erasing or hiding their original culture and who they are in order to fit into the cultural requirements of their adopted culture.
find out more on cultural assimilation at brainly.com/question/2284694.
#SPJ1
