Answer:
I do not agree.
Explanation:
The arrival of the British in sub-Saharan Africa is part of European Colonialism, widespread in various parts of the world, with the aim of exploring and dominating a region and all the resources available in it.
It is common to hear that colonization was a blessing for the life of the colonies because it took culture, religion and modenity to a region considered "wild" and "inadequate". However, we can say that colonization was not a blessing anywhere, since in these regions the adoption of European culture and religion was imposed in very violent and authoritarian ways.
All colonies, including sub-Saharan Africa, already had a population established and organized according to their customs and religion. This population was different from what Europeans considered "civilized", but we cannot deny, that the natives had their own type of civilization that functioned efficiently between their citizens and their territory.
However, Europeans considered themselves the owners of the truth, and the only ones endowed with knowledge and education. They totally ignored native civilizations and their cultures, considering them wild and impure, which needed European society to put them in what was right. They used this concept to justify all the violent exploitation and acculturation that the natives went through, because they believed that God had given them the mission to "fix" the peoples and end the civilization that was established in the place, without any consideration.
Answer:
Eventually the plebeians were allowed to elect their own government officials. They elected "tribunes" who represented the plebeians and fought for their rights. They had the power to veto new laws from the Roman senate. As time went on, there became few legal differences between the plebeians and the patricians.
Explanation:
BRAINLIEST???
Thomas Jefferson bought Louisiana from France.
<span>How did the Russians defeat both Hitler and Napoleon?
</span>
<span>First
off, they started pretty well. When the Germans first invaded, the
people thought they were being liberated (tells you a lot about the
government at the time) and were treated pretty well. But then they
started killing people and things went downhill. Now, Hitler had this
grand idea to take over Stalingrad (mostly for its namesake, Stalin). He
thought it would be a massive blow to the Russian morale. But instead
of basing his military strageties on logic, he did on feelings (he
wanted to beat Stalin); which is never a good thing. Unforunately, he
didn't anticipate Russian winter (which, luckily for the Russians, came
early that year and ironically the same year for Napoleon). So the
German army was stuck in Summer gear, rather then the proper Winter gear
(which was promised but never came through). AND look at Russia as a
whole: It's a huge country (I heard it takes around 8-10 days to just
get through Russia straight across). Now, to the other guy above me.
Russia isn't known for having the strongest armies ever. Actually,
compared to the Germans they were undisclipined, untrained and from all
types of backgrounds, and all ages, etc. Hardly sounds like an ideal
army. But the Russian people were stubborn and burned everything, so in
that way the German army failed. Plus, Russia had an endless supply of
men. Hitler was shocked to notice, there was always a fresh supply of
men waiting to fight.
So in conclusion, Russia's massive land(s) and brutal winters
contributed to both the fails of Napoleon and Hitler's conquer of
Russia. </span>
