Answer:
A.
It's the only one that makes sense
Explanation:
The Crown passed the Intolerable Acts as to punish the colonists for their disobedience
<u>Explanation:
</u>
In the year 1773 the British Parliament had enacted The Intolerable Acts as a penal action against the colonial insubordination after the incident of Boston Tea Party. This was a protest to resist the British Imperialism in U.S. and was majorly concentrated in Boston and Massachusetts.
The protest was staged to oppose the burden of taxes on tea by the Crown. The protest was carried out by entering the ship which was carrying the tea for East India Company and throwing the shipped containers of tea into the Boston Sea port.
Answer:
well they proboly had to clear cut the forest so the enviorment changed alot
Explanation:
It might be said George W. Bush did not win the popular vote in the 2000 Presidential elections. In fact, he won the election for a very small difference with the previous president Bill Clinton. He was accused of modification in the electoral process, it was a very controversial election as regards votes in Florida state, because it showed Clinton with more popular votes than Bush.
Answer:
The National Party was elected in 1948 on the policy of Apartheid ('separateness'). This 'separateness' put South Africans of different racial groups on their own paths in a partitioned system of development.
Explanation:
<h3>Effects of the Group Areas Act</h3>
The GAA had strange implications for governance and responsibility as it became more elaborate and amended. For example, the Coloured townships of Coronationville, Noordgesig, Newclare, Riverlea, and Western Township are administrated by Johannesburg City Council while Bosmont is the responsibility of the Department of Community Development (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1964: 216). The work of welfare organizations was made more difficult by the GAA, like Lunalegwaba House, a group home for African boys, in Johannesburg could not operate because the regulations of the GAA did not allow the White charity to own the property (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1967: 306). People attempted to use the courts to overturn the GAA, though each time they were unsuccessful (Dugard, 1978, 324). Others decided to use civil disobedience and other protests, like ‘sit-ins’ at restaurants, were experienced across South Africa in the early 60s. The 'sit-ins' were not ill-received by the average White citizen, which the South African Institute of Race Relations believed proved that they did not object to sharing restaurants with the other racial groups (1961: 183). There was also resistance from Cape Town City Council who voted before 1964 to keep District Six and the central business district not dedicated to any one racial group; they had the support of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce on this decision (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1964: 213).
