When did the British invade Africa? What were the effects of the invasion? What countries did they conquer?
"The British" did not "invade Africa." To use that form of words implies that there was, at an identifiable historical moment, a collective invasion of the continent from Britain. That is not so. Nor is it true that at any time there was a consensus in the British electorate or the British political class about the desirability of extending British rule or influence. There was at all times a sizeable anti-imperialist group whose feelings were summed up in the memorable (and true) words: "Those damned colonies are a millstone about our necks." Yet, certainly, we ended up with a large part of Africa, though not usually as a result of concerted action. Very many British people at different times, sometimes with and sometimes without the backing of the British government, made their homes in parts of Africa, settled there, invaded bits of the place and colonised them. It was not a simple picture. Sometimes the motive was military (the annexation of the Cape Colony in the Napoleonic War), sometimes imperialist, with or without wishing to rule bits of Africa, e.g. the purchase of the Suez Canal to safeguard the route to India, and Rhodes' annexations in the South. Sometimes (e.g. in Kenya) the settlers wished to farm, and sometimes they simply wanted to trade with local rulers - as in the case of the slave traders and 19thC ivory traders, whose activities led to longer-term influence and ultimately annexation. The effects were, obviously, not the same everywhere. At least in the short term (though this effect is fast eroding) concepts of democracy and the rule of law were introduced. Technical advances were brought within the reach of the countries. Local systems of government were subverted: under British rule, tribal loyalties became less important, though they never died out, and are now enjoying a resurgence. The main effect, long-term, was to open up the continent to global trade and global economic importance. Now that the Cape route between East & West is obsolete, most of Africa has lost its strategic significance apart from the approaches to the Suez Canal which are currently under threat from piracy and might at any moment be threatened for political/military reasons. Hope this helps.
What year had the most important effect on politics in US history? Why?
1932 - This is the year Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) was elected into office. FDR was behind the change in the Democratic party’s ideologies, and also responsible for the “New Deal”. The “New Deal” subsidized banks, agriculture, welfare, etc., and essentially solidified into law the oligarchy we have to day. It also laid the foundation for future subsidation of industry, private interest groups, and collectivism.It could be argued the Dred Scott case had a lot to do with this, because it led to the 14th amendment which put all Americans born on US soil “citizens” opposed to individual sovereigns. We are bound by contract at birth, which affords the government the right to enforce these institutions such as the new deal created, but even so, the “deep state” as it is referred (where agencies are regulating and enforcing law rather than legislators) began with the “New Deal”, and FDR has everything to do with said implementations, and he was elected in 1932. So, 1932, final answer.
What are the defining moments in costume design history?
i am doing an essay on costume design and just need a basic understanding of history and background. were there any significant turning points in history? can you reccommend any good sites i have searched for hours and can only find really complex histories on all eras.
What themes in American History are present in the movie Forrest Gump?
I acctually just finished a paper about this type of thing in my AP US History class, i would love to be of some assistance. Forrest is an example of the American Dream, because he rises above the oppressor, and makes something of himself, in the end achieveing everything any normal person would want, fame, help for his country, a large house, a small family, and meeting the presidents. Forrest is symbolic ESPICALLY in the part where he is playing ping-pong because at the time nixion was putting into effect the ping-pong dipolmacy. Jenny shows how the social conflicts changed from decade to decade, she was a sexualy abused child, became a hippy, got into drugs, because a yippy (more of a family person) and then in the end got aids which was the uprising problems of the 80's where the film ended. It was one of the most important parts of the movie, it showed not only what a solider when through, but how they were treated once they returned home and how little support they got for what they were trying to do for their country. it appels to so many people because we all know someone who was in one of those places and so we easily identify with the moive, not only so but it helps us learn and be more prideful about our pasts and our realtives and realize that things are not always as they seem. hope that helped some.
Which is one crucial moment in world history that, if altered, can change everything as we know it today?
In my opinion, there is not one crucial moment that if altered would have changed everything. Many events would have happened differently, in different ways. For ex., if East India company had not won the Battle of Plassey, they would have defeated a different ruler also and still British rule would have been established in India. Similarly, if British had not been allowed by Emperor Jehangir to set East India company, may be France or Dutch or other European powers would have tried and set up colonies in India. At a different time when the Indian rulers were politically and militarily weaker and disunited, they would have tried to defeat them and establish a European colony rule.In 1914, the assassination of the Austrian crown prince by a Serbian National terrorist triggered a series of events that resulted in WW I. If that assassination had not happened and the crown prince had escaped, I believe a different set of events would have still triggered a WW I. Because Europe at that time was having a lot of internal tensions and was waiting to explode. In fact such a similar situation did develop earlier in 1908 (Bosnian Crisis) but didn't lead to a world war at that time. But it happened in 1914.One event that I believe comes somewhat close to the question asked:In Nov'39 an assassination attempt was made on Hitler by Johann Georg Elser. It would have almost succeeded in killing Hitler and a few Nazi leaders, but for a change in Hitler's schedule by about 13 minutes. I believe even if Hitler would have been assassinated, Germany would have still had war with a few countries. The WW II may not have happened as it did, but still a war between Axis countries (Germany, Italy & Japan) and Allied countries would have happened differently because the underlying tensions did exist. May be the killing of 6 million Jews might not have happened as it did. Because Hitler and only some of his henchmen were the only ones keen to eliminate Jews from their countries. But even that is just a speculation. In my opinion, this assassination attempt on Hilter is one incident which might have changed the a considerable extent of course of history of WW II to a good extent, but the war would have still happened in a different way.
How does slavery effect the African Americans of today?
As an African American I think that it is important that we know our history and are educated, but I don't think that slavery should be used as an excuse to be lazy. Yes, we as a people have had a lot of hardships and struggles to overcome (so have other races) and there are still a few walls to knock down but slavery or "the white man holding you down" should not be the reason why you don't work or do anything conducive to your development as a productive member of society. But I don't think it should just be forgotten or swept under the rug as if it never happened as so many white people and others would like to do. Yes it was a long time ago but the effects of it are still prevalent in some people. It should be talked about and taught to see how we can grow from it and better ourselves. When I think of slavery, yes it upsets me, but I don't use it as my excuse to not talk to white people or be antisocial. I use as learning tool, like a stepping stone to a better life and more appreciation of what I have than a mil-stone (not sure of spelling) as some people do to stay in the same situations and not do anything about it. We should use it to band together and help one another.
Has the modern instant gratification culture and special effects in movies undervalued the importance of story telling, character development and characterization? Why? Why not?
As a screenwriter I agree with you wholeheartedly. Many of the movies you see today are overly long, due to lots of time spent on big special effects set pieces and the fact that with shooting on digital, it no longer costs much more to film a long movie. As a consequence they scrimp on the screenplays. It is a very frustrating time for any writer trying to flog original material. There is far less dialogue in modern movies than in movies from the 1940s for example and more importance placed on imagery nowadays. I find we are in a similar historical moment to the time when cinema was first invented, in that spectacle trumped story and characterization. It was more about wowing the eyes. When sound was introduced, because of the cumberson sound equipment studio shooting was required and so what you could show in the picture became limited to what could fit in the carefully controlled environs of the studio. With CGI anything can depicted and at the moment people are a bit drunk on all the new possibilities. If George Lucas's revisions to the original Star Wars films are any indication though, just because a certain effect is possible, doesn't mean it is necessary to the advancement of story or character. Often it just distracts from the story. That is why television shows seem much more intelligently written than movies now. The smaller budgets and smaller screen, mean more time spent on dialogue and character development. With hundreds of millions of dollars spent on individual movies there is less risk taking on unproven comidities that don't already have a popular video game or comic book following, because there is far more at stake. As a result in cinema there are only ultra-low budget films and mega-budget films. There are fewer mid-budget adult dramas of the kind that would win Oscars in the 1970s and 1980s on screen today. This type of character driven story-telling is more present in HBO TV shows like "Breaking Bad" "Downton Abbey" and "The Wire." At the moment I notice episodic one hour dramas on specialty TV networks are having a serious renaissance. I feel more anticipation for new episodes of certain well-written tv shows than I do for any upcoming movies.