In your opinion, was it inevitable that violence and open warfare would eventually break out between the colonist and the british? why or why not?

If it an opinion question then you should probably write it yourself, but I think one of the easiest answers would be yes

“Inevitable” when? Certainly not in 1765 or 1768 or 1770. Nobody – not Samuel Adams or anyone else –spoke of independence in those years. (Myth alert: the notion that Adams did was trumped up by a Tory trying to frame him.) After the Tea Party, colonists differed over paying for the tea – and still no talk of independence. But when Parliament disenfranchised the people of Massachusetts, those people, in August-October 1774, threw off British rule everywhere outside of Boston, and these were the folks who first advocated independence – but Samuel and John Adams cautioned them to slow down so they wouldn’t scare off other colonists. Only after King George declared the colonies in open rebellion late in 1775, hired foreigners to shoot at Englishmen in America, and burned coastal towns was the idea of independence mainstreamed. Finally, at that point, I’d say declaring independence became inevitable, but Americans still needed to win a war to defend it.

currancy

explanation:

"the sepoy rebellion was the result of many, many influences and stressors on the cultures of india living under british rule. in britain, it's called the sepoy mutiny on the indian mutiny, but in india, it's called the first war of independence.

the main reason is concerned to the british paramountcy , the belief in british   dominance in india political, economic and cultural life had been introduced in india about 1820."

"they were forced to grow crops that benefited the colonizing nations instead of feeding their own people."