Why did colonial rebellions of the seventeenth century not demand for political idependance

Starting in the mid-1500s, changes in thinking started to develop in two major areas. This time period would collectively be known as the "Age of Reason". First came the Scientific Revolution, in which thinkers began to challenge old scientific theories that had been accepted for hundreds of years. These challenges in the scientific realm eventually spread to other areas of society, specifically politics and government. In the late 1600s and early 1700s a time period known as the Enlightenment Era began. During the Enlightenment, thinkers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Baron de Montesquieu began to question the old ways of government and began to develop new ideas on how government should work.
Before the Enlightenment Era, government, especially in Europe, was limited primarily to monarchies. Rulers of this time may have had some restrictions or limits placed on their power but ultimately political freedoms of their subjects were quite limited. The limits on freedom included restrictions on freedom of speech, particularly in regards to criticisms of the government. This meant that during the 1600s there weren't as many revolutions aiming to establish political independence because speaking on such issues could lead to swift punishment.
When we consider colonial revolutions of the 18th centuries that demanded political independence, the American Revolution quickly comes to mind. When we examine the motivations for rebellion by the American colonists against the British Empire, many of the motivations are closely linked to the theories of Enlightenment thinkers. Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the Declaration of Independence that highlight ideas of the Enlightenment:
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson states the following regarding the rights of citizens:

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It was originally the Enlightenment thinker John Locke who stated that all people were born with three natural rights, life, liberty, and property (altered slightly by Jefferson to be more encompassing). Locke also stated that it was a responsibility of a government to protect those rights, something that Jefferson believed the British government was failing to do.
Jefferson also includes the following statement in the Declaration of Independence which closely reflects the values of Enlightenment thinkers:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form...

Here Jefferson argues that governments are created by and receive their power from the people they govern. He also states that if a government is destructive and fails to protect the rights of the people, it can be replaced and a new government can be instituted in its place. These statements are closely aligned to the theory of social contract that developed during the Enlightenment.
Through examining excerpts from the Declaration of Independence and comparing them to thoughts and theories developed during the Enlightenment, we can draw a conclusion that it was the Enlightenment Era of the late 17th century and early 18th century that led to a change in the nature of colonial rebellions. The ideas of the Enlightenment gained favor in places like the American colonies and served as a motivation to seek political independence through revolution.
https://fee.org/articles/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

How is marriage presented in the novel The Vendor of Sweets?

The Vendor of Sweets is very much a piece of writing where the theme and concept of marriage plays a central role. This piece of writing cleverly shows both modern and traditional views of marriage. Jagan and Ambika represent a traditional form of marriage where Jagan, is the male head of household and has complete control. This is viewed by his child, Mali, as contributing to the death of her mother. In this way, the author is trying to make the case that a patriarchal form of marriage will literally kill people and is dangerous.
The reader then sees a more modern form of marriage, where both people are seen as equal partners, although the wife could also be in control. Mali ends up meeting a woman named Grace, but unlike his father, does not believe he needs to actually be married to her. They are partners and they have intimate relations, but they never are actually married. As can be assumed, Jagan is upset by this, because it goes against his notion of what marriage should be about, including an actual commitment to each other. This shows how just one generation can make a difference in the views towards an institution such as marriage.

What rule or rules of law did Chief Justice Taney rely upon when making his decision?

The most famous case that Taney ruled on was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1857; in answering your question, I will reference that case. Scott sued for his freedom in Missouri after his master took him to army postings in Illinois, Wisconsin, and the Minnesota Territory. According to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, these areas were supposed to be free. Also, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 ruled that slavery above the southern border of Missouri (Missouri excepted) was illegal. Scott sued for his freedom in Missouri based on the precedents that if one lives in a free territory, one therefore is free. The trial court freed Scott, but upon review by the Missouri Supreme Court, Scott was returned to slavery. Scott appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Writing for a 7-2 majority that ruled that Scott was still a slave, Chief Justice Roger Taney, a slave owner from Maryland, stated that Scott, like free blacks in the North, was not a U.S. citizen and he was barred from suing in court. He also ruled that the Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional as it placed limits on one's personal property rights. He also claimed that neither Congress nor territorial governments could ban slavery. Popular sovereignty, a hot issue at the time, was therefore rendered moot in the eyes of the court as a territorial government could not legislate on slavery. Also, black people of any social class had no legal rights in the United States.
This case would go on to become one of the tipping points which led to the Civil War. Abolitionists were outraged that a slave-holding judge was able to rule on a slavery case. Some Southerners viewed the case as the Supreme Court defending their right to their slaves.
https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/dred-scott-v-sandford-1857/

According to Plato, what was the central question of The Republic?

In The Republic, Plato is outlining the ideal society. He grapples with many difficulties in the ideas of how to make the society truthful, just, and upright, and my personal favorite is the belief that poets should be excluded. However, that is not the main point of this text.
Justice, Plato reasons, is the centerpiece of the ideal society, so the main question throughout this book is this: what is justice, and how do we act justly in our lives? Plato presents the argument that justice is in our best interests in every situation, something that is not always self-evident. This is a contradiction of the idea of doing whatever it takes to get ahead, without regard for others. If everyone acts justly, the perfect society will practically build itself, and it will be utopian in nature, Plato reasons. An understanding of what justice is, which is a major theme in this work, is fundamental to acting justly in everything we do.

Discuss the concept of "Fetishism."

Because it is so unstable, for the capitalist system to continue to function, it needs to be constantly moving, constantly adapting, and constantly justifying. Thus, it requires systems of justification, which are these instruments of social production. In Capital, Karl Marx describes a component of this system as commodity fetishism. Louis Althusser builds Marx’s ideas, forming a theory of ideology that expands on this explanation of the system. A cornerstone of Marxist theory is the requirement of explanation of how ruling ideas are understood in the capitalist system. Marx’s idea of fetishism and Althusser’s idea of ideology are clearly interrelated, but there are important differences between the two concepts.
In the section of Karl Marx’s Capital, entitled “The Fetishism of the Commodity and Its Secret,” Marx develops his idea of the fetishism of the commodity in capitalism. As soon as a commodity is produced, “fetishism” attaches itself to the products of labor, which “arises from the peculiar social character of the labour which produces them.” Fetishism is a characteristic of the commodity which comes from the social relations of the labor that produces it. It “transcends sensuousness” and hides the true nature of the commodity, which is its social production. It describes the mystification of human relations when social relations are changed into relations between products of labor. The social aspect of the commodity cannot be expressed because the human labor gone into making the product is obscured while the monetary price of the product is emphasized. “They do not appear as direct social relations between persons in their work, but rather as material relations between persons and social relations between things.” Thus, the worker who created the product is alienated from his own product, as well as from other workers. Fetishism illustrates a process of abstraction. All diverse forms of human labor are equalized as quantities of labor time, and thus abstracted. It is a mystical stand-in for the social labor that goes into making a commodity, turning products of labor into “social hieroglyphics” and changing the way value is understood in purchased commodities In this system, people undergo a phenomenon in which, “by equating their different products to each other in exchange as values, they equate their different kinds of labour as human labor.” Essentially, social relationships then express themselves as object relationships. In capitalism, this is necessary to hide the exploitation of wage labor.

Describe Sonny's relationship with Hannah?

In the novel My Son's Story, written by Nadine Gordimer, the relationship that forms between the characters of Sonny and Hannah is not defined by the notion of love at first sight or the cultivation of a union based on the grounds of matrimony. Rather, it is defined by the harsh realities of racial relations that pitted whites and blacks against each other in apartheid-era South Africa. Before delving into the relationship between Hannah and Sonny, it is important to provide insight into the backgrounds of both characters in order to aid understanding of the circumstances that bring these two individuals together.
Sonny is a black man who combats the discriminatory measures taken to keep South African blacks from acquiring equal status with their white counterparts by protesting alongside the student body of the school where he teaches—and where he eventually loses his job as a consequence. Afterward, he dedicates his time to further participation in establishing full civil rights for blacks in South Africa. In doing so, however, he creates friction within his own family unit, as he moves them into a neighborhood occupied by white individuals who harbor prejudiced views toward blacks. Eventually, Sonny is imprisoned for his contributions to black liberation in South Africa. It is at this time that he meets Hannah.
Hannah is a white woman, but she does not share the same racist sentiments as other white people in South Africa. She bonds with Sonny by supplying updates on the current status of the black liberation movement, and she and Sonny eventually become romantically involved. Sonny begins to neglect his duties to his wife, Alia, along with their two children, Baby and Will. It is clear that Hannah and Sonny are pulled together due to their shared mindsets regarding the position of black South Africans. One could argue that their relationship is meant to serve as a foreshadowing of the end of apartheid and the integration of whites and blacks that would emerge in the future; it certainly highlights Sonny and Hannah's shared sense of idealism with regard to what kind of country they want South Africa to become.

What is some interesting critical analysis on A Raisin in the Sun?

Lorraine Hansberry touches on a number of themes that provide for an interesting discussion of the play. You could discuss one or two of these themes and explain their significance within the context of the times. A Raisin in the Sun premiered in 1959, just before the civil rights era and the women’s liberation movement. In the story, issues are brewing and tensions are rising among marginalized groups. The characters exhibit an increasing sense of restlessness and desire for change, which appears to foreshadow the uprisings of the sixties.
This restlessness is evident in the struggles of both African Americans and women in the play. Both struggle to come to terms with their identities. Hansberry highlights the conflict between embracing one's African heritage or abandoning it. She questions women’s traditional roles as wives and mothers, and she challenges conventional ideas of gender. You could discuss how the characters yearn to break free from the boundaries that keep them from achieving the American Dream. You could also discuss the idea that, by highlighting the characters' personal struggles, Hansberry anticipates the massive changes in society that will take place in the upcoming decades.