<span>A sudden influx of wealth from military action would throw off the balance of wealth in that, while other non-military people may have previously been wealthy, they would now no longer be wealthier than the soldiers who served them. With too much wealth, the value of money would also go down, causing the economy to actually decline. Also, with such an influx of wealth to the already wealthy, a larger rift would be created between the wealthy and the poor. That this wealth was accrued through military action would encourage more military action and more violence.</span>
I agree with the claim that "The experience of colonialism has contributed to social and political conflict in developing countries after they achieved independence."
Even though the experience was not the same in settler colonies like Canada and invader colonies such as those in Africa, the result was pretty much traumatic in every case.
In former British colonies like West African countries or the West Indies, the process of colonialism included the erasure of local cultures through violence, imperial education and seprating children from their families to send them to boarding schools. The impact of this in the mind of the colonized has been studied by scholars like Franz Fanon and Homi Bhabha.
The European colonial settlers also draw their own frontiers and reorganized the countries as seen in The Scramble for Africa (1881-1914), so different tribes or ethnic groups that were enemies now are forced to coexist in the same region or country. This has favoured ethnic conflicts in African countries after decolonization.
After these countries achieved independence, they are left with a different culture resulting from the erasure of their own and the imposition of a colonial one, they are left with different geographical space coexisting with enemies and they are also left with few resources, so the social and political conflict is a previsible outcome of such a traumatic process.
I'd say lowering the prices per acre of land because it made it more affordable for people to buy land.
The client suffered an unwarranted police invasion and this is outrageous because it disobeys the Fourth Constitutional Amendment.
We can reach this conclusion because:
- The defense attorney could claim that the home invasion without filing a search warrant violates the Fourth Constitutional Amendment.
- This amendment states that no search or seizure of evidence of a crime can be carried out in the suspects' homes, without a search and seizure warrant being presented.
- In this case, the lawyer could claim that the police violated a client's citizen's right by breaking into and searching the house for drugs.
While this is true, there are some cases where the Fourth Amendment can be ignored and law enforcement officers can break into homes looking for evidence of serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, for example.
Therefore, even using this fourth amendment to defend the client, he could not claim that the police acted incorrectly.
More information:
brainly.com/question/15026474?referrer=searchResults
Answer:
Slavery would not spread into the new territories gain by the United States in the US Mexico War
