The English objectives of colonization depended on which sector of the population was defining them.
For the government in general, the advantage of colonization was having more land, and in particular, fertile, productive land. Another advantage of having more land is the fact that land gives extra power. It allows you to have a larger army and navy. It also provides prestige. Finally, wealth in the form of natural resources and trade was a powerful motivator.
Priests, educators and the upper classes involved in charity work believed colonization to be humanitarian. They wanted to educate "savages" so that they could be more cultured, lived in a more civilized way, and followed the "correct" religion.
For many individuals, the main objective of discovering and acquiring new land was adventure, and discovery. Colonization came with exploration, and many scientific advancements were produced due to the enormous territories that the United Kingdom acquired and studied.
As for whether this enterprise was successful in achieving those goals, for the most part it appears like it was. Wealth greatly increased in England, and they did become a superpower. The empire also "reeducated" millions of people around the world and achieved great feats of adventure and discovery.
Answer:
D. All of the above
Explanation:
southerners didn't trust the federal government because they just finished a war against them, African Americans were struggling still because they were discriminated against, and after the war the south needed new roads because it was the usual battle grounds and also after the North won they came through and destroyed everything
Answer:
In the first place, it must be said that despite his immense intellectual contributions and his deep analysis of 19th century capitalism, Charles Marx didn´t leave any book or writing outlining how a communist society would look like. He only wrote once that in communism, every person will go from receiving according to their capacity to receiving according to their needs. This is a very vague idea. So, is Cuba true to Marx? It´s hard to say. Paramount leader Fidel Castro built a Communist Party and a communist state following the Soviet model. In orthodox Marxist practice, the government is the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the workers. What we have actually seen in Cuba is a dictatorship of Fidel Castro and his brother Raúl Castro, in which they and a small elite of top party, state and military officials hold power exclusively.
Prosperity in Cuba? Definitely no. The Cuban experiment is a failure after 60 years of communist rule; the Cuban economy is not dynamic, it is dominated by the higly ineffective state-run mammoths, many Cubans live in nearly-poverty, food rationing continues, it is tecnologically backward. No democratic freedoms. Most young people want to emigrate and settle in the US or elsewhere. The traditional Soviet-like economic model, a command economy, is a system that can´t create wealth and can´t lead to prosperity because its ideological foundations are wrong; only an economy based on a free-market and private enterprise can generate and sustain wealth. The American embargo is usually blamed by Cuban leader as the main reason for this situation, but Cuba can import technology from other countries, trade with them and get investments. So, why does it continue to lag behind?
Explanation:
Do you have answer choices to choose from?
