Why is the historical and cultural context of "civil peace" important to understanding and appreciating the story?

The cultural context of the story “Civil Peace” by Chinua Achebe is that the story is told from the point of view of an Igbo Nigerian civilian.

People have the ability to sympathize whenever they know the background of a certain story.  Knowing the background and recalling the true events when reading the story can make it more captivating,

The historical and cultural context of "Civil Peace" is important to understanding and appreciating the story because Achebe is an author that writes with a specific purpose. In this story, his purpose is to show the aftermath of a violent war (the Nigerian Civil War). Although the war is over, violence does not end, especially for the civilians. Since I know the historical context of the story, I know that over a million civilians died during the war. Having this knowledge helps me understand why Jonathan is so happy and glad that five members of his family have survived. It also makes the ending of the story meaningful; despite all that they've been through and despite Jonathan's happy-go-lucky resiliance, there is still violence. Understanding the cultural context helps me understand why the writing style and the dialects in the dialogue are so different. It encourages me to put myself in the shoes, speech patterns, and mindset of a Nigerian of the Igbo tribe.

here are some major conflicts i found. maybe pick one and do more research on it. (cause i ain't writing 6 paragraphs)

in 1877, the nez perce war took place.

1881 - president james garfield was assassinated.

1882 - the chinese exclusion act was passed.

1883 - a decision in the civil rights cases legalized racial segregation in the united states.

1887 - the dawes act was passed.

1893 - the panic of 1893 took place. (what a creative name)

and there are probably other topics you can find if you just search up "united states timeline," or "conflicts in the 19th century for america."

then once you find a topic you like find out how it affected the people of america and what not. (sorry if this feels a bit short changed, history was and never will be one of my strong topics)

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is