In the long history of European colonialism, some colonialists did better by their colonies than others, and the legacy is mostly one of still-enduring pain. For example, virtually no one save Newt Gingrich<span> thinks the Belgians did much of a job in Central Africa, where their mistakes included artificially dividing the population into Hutus and Tutsis, precipitating one of the continent's worst humanitarian disasters. But many historians generally consider the British presence in India, while </span>at times<span> horrifically </span>violent, to be one of the most benevolent and productive in colonial history. Was it a net gain for India? Or did it cause more harm than good? <span>India's democracy is truly extraordinary. ... India's political system owes much to the institutions put in place by the British over two hundred years ago. In many other parts of Asia and in Africa, the British were a relatively temporary presence. They were in India for centuries. They saw it as the jewel in their imperial crown and built lasting institutions of government throughout the country--courts, universities, administrative agencies. But perhaps even more importantly, India got very lucky with the vehicle of its independence, the Congress Party, and its first generations of post-independence leaders, who nurtured the best traditions of the British and drew on older Indian customs to reinforce them.
hope this helps
</span>
Answer:
energy
Explanation:
Just trust me on this! this is the right answer.
Answer:
B.central government could not settle trade disputes between states.
C.central government could not enforce its own laws.
D.central government could not coin and borrow money.
G.central government could not raise taxes.
Explanation:
Option B, C, G, and D were the weaknesses of the central government under the Articles of Confederation. The central government had numerous weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation. It could not enforce any laws without the consent of 9 out of the 13 thirteen states. In other words, it had no real executive power.
The central government was prohibited from participating in trade and commerce affairs and, therefore, could not settle trade disputes among states nor negotiate any treaties. Moreover, the central government had no power in matters regarding to taxation and coining of money.
Answer:In rhetoric, a rhetorical device, persuasive device, or stylistic device is a technique that an author or speaker uses to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading them towards considering a topic from a perspective, using language designed to encourage or provoke an emotional display of a given perspective or action. Rhetorical devices evoke an emotional response in the audience through use of language, but that is not their primary purpose. Rather, by doing so, they seek to make a position or argument more compelling than it would otherwise be.
Explanation:
One thing that happened in Iran during the Carter administration was Iranians seized the American embassy.
<h3>What happened in Iran when Carter was president?</h3><h3 />
When Carter was president, the Iranians revolted against their U.S. backed government and seized the American Embassy.
The Americans inside were held in what was known as the Iranian Hostage Crisis which severely undermined the Carter administration.
In conclusion, the Carter administration saw Iranians seizing the American embassy.
Find out more on the Iranian Hostage Crises at brainly.com/question/11886417
#SPJ1