The event that Kimani is explaining by saying that Africans did not draw their own borders is <u>colonialism</u>.
<h3>What was colonialism?</h3>
Colonialism was a process that the Europeans engaged in when in Africa that allowed them to take over African lands and territories.
When they took over these lands, they drew up boundaries that would separate the different lands that were taken amongst the various colonial powers. These boundaries were used by Africans at independence.
In conclusion, this is colonialism.
Find out more on colonialism at brainly.com/question/8048490.
Answer:
A) he believed governments created unequal societies
Explanation:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a French-speaking Swiss polymath. He was at the same time a writer, pedagogue, philosopher, musician, botanist and naturalist, and although defined as an enlightened one, he presented deep contradictions that separated him from the main representatives of the Enlightenment, winning for example Voltaire's fierce spite and being considered one of the first writers of pre-Romanticism.
His ideas printed a Copernican turn to pedagogy focusing on the natural evolution of the child and on direct and practical matters, and his political ideas influenced to a large extent the French Revolution and the development of republican theories, although it is also considered one of the precursors of totalitarianism; It incorporated to the political philosophy incipient concepts like the one of general will (that Kant would transform in its categorical imperative) and alienation. His legacy of radical and revolutionary thinker is probably best expressed in his two most famous sentences, one contained in The Social Contract, "Man is born free, but everywhere is chained," the other, present in his Emile, or education, "Man is good by nature."
Explanation:
Credit goes to @likableadvisers
<span>Confucianism, Buddhism
would be my best guess... but out of the answers you listed they probably want Daoism and Confucianism.
Since Shinto is Japanese and Hinduism is Indian... those two are completely out of the question.
_____
</span>Daoism<span> isn't really a government influence... it embraces the philosophy of yin and yang. Good and Bad, without one the other cannot exist. Natural influences of a good and bad government doesn't really make a good governing philosophy. Confucianism was really based on good and virtuous, people live life in harmony and proprietary. He's missing the rules and laws of the Legalist system of government. Where it assumes all people are bad and without laws and rules everything would be in chaos. The First Emperor established the Legalist system in China, he was said to have buried alive hundreds of Confucian scholars and burned Confucian books... His reign was short lived, only 14 years. The next dynasty... the Han, governed with a combination of Legalist and Confucian type of government, lasted 426 years. This pretty much continued till the Tang dynasty when Buddhism a larger influence in society.</span><span />
Cause he is <em><u>PERFECT</u></em> in all ways, and he died for all the people on the earth, to die for their sins, even thou<u>g</u>h he was <em>Jesus, Son of God</em>. So he should have the right to be king. Hoped this helped. And I'm Sorry if I offended anyone. Just answered a question according to my opinion. Have A Great Day Everyone!
Answer:
Yeah bro im in 11th, so ask away man.
Explanation:
