Mostly because people want their independence
This question refers to the text "Jean Barbot, French Protestant and agent of the chartered Senegal Company (Compagnie du Sénégal), book describing his travels in West Africa, written circa 1682." In this text, Jean Barbot gives us some insight into how trading in West Africa operated during this time period.
A) In the 17th century, Africa was being explored and colonized by various European powers, such as the French, the Portuguese and the Dutch. In these early years of colonialism, these powers fought for dominance in Africa, and borders and areas of control changed frequently.
B) In the text, Barbot shows how the development of the Atlantic in this century was constant. We learn about elaborate constructions that the European colonists established along the Atlantic Coast of Africa. We also learn about the importance of trade in this region and of the competition between different European powers.
C) According to this passage, Jean Barbot was a French Protestant and agent of the chartered Senegal Company. Barbot seems incline to speak well of the Dutch, and negatively of the Portuguese. It is possible that this is a consequence of him sharing Protestantism with them, as opposed to Portuguese Catholics.
This is certainly a sensible topic and I'm afraid there's no easy answer as it's very dependant on context.
The criteria for rejecting or accepting certain immigrants will vary depending on the cultural and political relationship between the country where each immigrant comes from and the country they intend to relocate to.
Every nation should aspire to generate conditions of tolerance in which ethnic or racial differences don't represent a threat to the safety of their communities. To achieve this, it would require governments a sustained effort to educate its people in favor of diversity and apply policies that encourage freedom and protect civil liberties. <u>However, </u>t<u>his is a long and arduous process that history has shown sometimes may take several centuries</u>.
In many cases, the tensions between different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds are so high at the present time, that there's no other way to ensure safety than limiting specific types of immigration in certain regions. That is why to me, it is legitimate for a country to take nationality, race and religion into account when deciding who they let in, as long as the government keeps moving towards tolerance in the long-run.
Hope this helps!
The correct answer to number 1 is C) Nullification Doctrine
Federalism is a political system in which federal, state, and local governments share power. Since this is the definition of federalism, the answer choice needs to be one where there is a problem between the state and federal government. A perfect example of this is the nullification doctrine, as this argued that states had the right to nullify (void) any federal laws they thought were unconstitutional.
The correct answer to number 2 is B) Nullification doctrine.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were developed as a result of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798. The two states, Kentucky and Virginia, felt this new law violated the rights of citizens (especiall their first amendment right of freedom of speech). This is why they wrote a document trying to nullify (void) this federal law.
