Maybe it means that there’s a difference between how much land they own or something. It says there was a difference between the amount of land they occupied and the amount of land they couldn’t control. So maybe they didn’t own/have a lot of land but there was a lot of land they couldn’t get to/take over etc. or maybe this situation could be vice versa so they have a ton of land but only a little isn’t “controlled” let me know if this helps sorry if it’s confusing I’m just guessing based on the context clues :)
Colonists moved onto American Indian lands and expected the American Indians to obey colonial law.
Answer:
I'm a Christian and believe on praying until something happens
Answer: A main cause of the trade was the colonies that European countries were starting to develop. In America, for instance, which was a colony of England, there was a demand for many labourers for the sugar, tobacco and cotton plantations. As a direct result of the transatlantic slave trade, the greatest movement of Africans was to the Americas — with 96 per cent of the captives from the African coasts arriving on cramped slave ships at ports in South America and the Caribbean Islands.
Another difference between transatlantic and modern slavery is related to profitability and disposability. In the transatlantic slave trade, the focus of slave traders was on Africa and the high cost of transporting these people meant that once they were enslaved they were often maintained and reproduced.
