“Grabbing territory” in this context means colonization. Colonization is when a mother country (a country who controls other countries, such as Great Britain) creates a colony in a different settlement for reasons like imperialism. Imperialism is the ideology of spreading your power to other nations to control, so you can increase territory, resources, military presence & strategies, etc. So to answer your question in the picture, the Scramble for Africa (through the Berlin Conference) was ultimately not worth it because...
1) Human rights were violated as a result with events like the Moroccan Crisis, etc. The slave trade was started as a result creating slavery (“white mans burden”).
2) Indigenous groups to different regions were not consulted during the Berlin Conference, which divided up African territories for colonization. As a result indigenous regions and tribal areas were broken up without the consult of those involved.
3) In present day most of the colonies have broken up into independent countries, making the conflicts that occurred irrelevant.
4) Ethnocentric views changed the culture and diversity in the effected regions where colonies were developed.
However you could also argue it was worth it if you had ethnocentric views...
For example
1) This allowed the expansion of colonial empires to gain wealth for the economy in the mother countries economy, as well as expand resources and trade needed at this time.
Hope that helps!!
Answer: Economically speaking the expansion costed countries large sums because of war and conflict caused like the Moroccan Crisis. This caused tensions between countries effecting national trade, however countries expanded their natural resources with expansion to Africa.
:)
The nobleman allows himself to go into debt as nobles felt that they had a certain position of <u>living that was anticipated of them, and they did their</u><u> stylish to eat,</u><u> dress, and conduct themselves Ike </u><u>nobility</u><u>, indeed if they ran themselves</u><u> irretrievably into debt</u><u> doing it.</u>
<u />
<h3>What were nobleman allowed to do?</h3>
This position of vassalage was called lords, nobles, tenants in- chief, or tycoons. Within their own businesses, lords were the absolute authority. They established and administered their own legal systems, gathered levies, designed their own currency and managed how crops were grown.
<h3>What was a nobles life like?</h3>
Life was extensively better for nobles than peasants. Nobles ate veritably well from especially set foods, spent social rest time, and trained in the fighting trades. Peasants and nobles lived a teary life of constant work for veritably little gain with which they substantially bought food.
Learn more about nobleman :
brainly.com/question/3382372
#SPJ13
<u />
The best answer is: Lords. Lords are noble (of high rank) and rich or else important in some way.
Peasants are the farmers, among the poorest. Merchants are the once who are engaged in trade and Artisans were skilled workers who produced specialized goods.
Answer:
C also known as (He did not support the forcible removal of American Indians from their homes)
Explanation:
Answer:
512,804
Explanation:
We know that in 2000-2001, there were 547,867 students enrolled. We also know that this was a 6.4% increase from the previous year. To figure out how many students were enrolled in the year before, we need to first convert 6.4% to a decimal...
6.4% ---> 0.064
Now we simply multiply 547,867 by 0.064
(547,867) x (0.064) = 35,063
Our next step is to subtract 35,063 from 547,867 to figure out the students enrolled from 1999-2000...
547,867 - 35,063 = 512,804
Our answer is 512,804.
