Africans resented colonial rule for numerous reasons. One was that their land and resources were being exploited which destroyed the land. Another was that they were being enslaved by the white people. Another was that there was an oligarchy where the few rich white people ruled over a vast majority of Africans and exploited them in every possible way.
The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was a federation of African territories which was a semi-independent British colony. Nowadays, the countries are known as Malawi and Zambia and Zimbabwe. It was ruled by white people even though the most white people ever that were there constituted only 3 percent of the population.
The arguments for federation were that they stabilize economy and help the land prosper which wouldn't be possible without things like trade and economic advancements and technological development. They also helped Britain through trading since they would be a colony that worked with them often.
The arguments against it are mostly revolving around the general anti-imperialist ideas. They were exploiting the people in mines and getting wealthy at the expense of the population. They were also destroying the area through heavy exploitation of the land and stripping the people of the natural resources while at the same time violating human rights.
As the time passed on, the sentiment of African nationalism started spreading more and more and people form the area started fighting for independence. They eventually managed to win it and turn it into the three countries that were previously mentioned which would be governed by the locals.
Answer:
the farming is very productive in the South as well. ... as the region become dependent on farming and crops, huge textile mills and plantations were built, and the new factories attracted businesses which began to build down South, starting the growth of new cities.
Explanation:
Answer:
Okay, so the government philosophies of the United States and the Soviet Union could not have been more different. The United States was a democracy which means that its citizens have freedom of speech and have many liberties. The Soviet Union on the other hand was Communist which means that citizens have no rights and the federal government controlled everything. This difference led to a conflict between the two nations on how to rebuild Germany and Berlin after WWll and spearheaded events such as the Berlin Airlift and the building of the Berlin Wall. Back in the United States, Communist was a big no-no and suspicion ran high, especially after Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed he had a list of over 200 government officials who have Communist sympathies. This event was the first time Americans started to have a distrust in the government and later would lead to troubles in the 1960's.
Explanation:
<span>The Framers feared tyranny from the judiciary more than from the other two branches, so they placed deliberate limitations on the judiciary.</span>
I think D: Northern legislatures had already passed the Emancipation Proclamation is your best bet. Lincoln didn't have the right to give the executive order in the states that had congressional representation which was strictly the Union . However, in the rebellious states (the south) he was able to impose his authority over them because they were technically looked at as having committed treason against the Union. Does that make sense?
Hopefully this helped and good luck.
