The partitions within India of the various parties made coming to an agreement on independence even more difficult as the Indians, (consisting of predominately the Indian national congress and the Muslim League) could not come to an agreement within the country as to who would be in charge. British Imperialism held no strength next to the “fight” going on amongst the various Indian divisions. However the British did see this as a point where they could strengthen their hold on India by arguing that if they could not settle things amongst themselves how could they possibly think to run the country without difficulties. Sources 15 and 17 support the statement, both arguing that the Muslim community would have to be taken into account for true Independence to be achieved. However source 16 states that the British themselves were reluctant to grant India independence.
With Roosevelt believing that Great Britain was their key for America’s security the U.S. policy started to change. He started to remove the neutrality acts to help Great Britain. Since Great Britain still controlled the seas Roosevelt ended the arms embargo so it could only
This source is not reliable because it seems that Lord Lansdowne is using his opinion and his status/authority to try and get the public to agree with him wanting the war to end which suggests it is not a genuine concern of Lord Lansdowne which may affect the usefulness of this source. Source 2 also agrees to a far extent because it is a letter from Vera Brittan to her brother saying that she wanted the war to continue even though she was against war and condemned it. This source is very reliable because the letter is from Vera Brittan whose fiancé died of wounds from the war which means the British public could relate to her emotionally. In addition Source 3 also agrees to an extent because it was a reply to a letter from a common soldier which entailed the support from women to the soldiers in the war. This source may not be reliable because it is only one person’s opinion.
Although the author was working as a police officer for the British Emperor, he strongly opposed the idea of Imperialism. His opposition is expressed throughout the story. I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I checked up my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically- and secretly, of course- I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British.
They are merely taking advantage of us. Finally, Locke establishes that “the power the every individual gave the society when he entered into it can never revert to the individuals again.” Even though Locke’s writing supports the dissolution of the British government, Samuel Johnson does not agree. For example, Johnson explains that in a very large part of every community the people only care for themselves, and by only caring for themselves, it can blind them of seeing what is actually in the “nearest good.” Johnson is stating that being connected to the British government is America’s “nearest good”, and by disconnecting from their rule, the community will be disconnecting from what is actually good for them. This however is not true because the control of the British on us is getting out of hand and we must rebel. In agreement with Samuel Johnson, Samuel Seabury also states that getting away from the British will not be beneficial to us.
Explain the main tactic of warfare used by the English against the Indians. - The English tactic of war against India during the age of the British Empire has been known as "Company Rule" rather than relying on typical battlefields; a cultural system was enforced to allow British companies free control of the territory. 9. According to Roger Williams, how did the English usually justify their attacks on the Indians? - According to Roger Williams, the English justified their attacks on the Indians because they were barbarians, and they did not really matter to anyone.
Hamilton created his Federalist party to help promote his goals for the United States. Jefferson’s opposition party, the Republicans, “opposed Hamilton's urban, financial, industrial goals for the United States, and his promotion of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain.” Their interpretation of the Constitution also was very different. Hamilton interpreted it very loosely and used the elastic clause to get what he wanted out of it, while Jefferson read and followed if very strictly. This is a reason Jefferson was against Hamilton’s plans. Thomas Jefferson didn’t like the idea of building a National Bank in the United States.
The labour party even declined invitations into the European Union. The government preferred to maintain faith in the Commonwealth and the British-USA relationship. This, again presented the resistance of the Attlee government in moving forwards by creating relationships on the world stage. Joining the
Our founding fathers fought for a separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to avoid conflict and rise of power in one or more branches. In that aspect I believe the government works in a constructive manner to ensure equality between the branches, however, in the matter of working in a constructive manner for the good of the people is less certain. This country is facing an economic crisis and there are members of both parties that would tell the general public they would like the war in Afghanistan and Iraq to come to an end when in reality an economic recovery is the last thing they want to happen in a foreign country. The Republican Party, for example, would have liked to see a higher unemployment rate towards the end of 2012 in hopes of decreasing the chances of the President’s re-election. Higher unemployment rates lead to a more devastating economic crisis resulting in the failure to re-elect a democratic President or more precisely, our current President.
Is it possible to rule the state without the use of violence? Max Weber believed that if violence is justified, then it is possible to use it. He defined state in terms of violence, but emphasized on the fact that violence is not necessarily, but rather an extreme measure. However, Gandhi suggested that state should not use violence in any form, and promoted Satyagraha. He used this idea to present a non-violent resistance against the British colonization and for Indian independence movement.