The story of you

America was changing in many ways. Man was searching for relation with his environment and nature, while a slave born into bondage would go on to be an extreme representation of an American success story. However America was not without its judgmentally cruel and mistreating side, as people were outcast from their hometown, and sent to their death under the misinterpretation that they were “bad seeds”. Nature by Emerson is drastically different from both My Bondage and My Freedom, and The Outcasts of Poker Flat.

Nature deals with a man’s spiritual enlightenment searching for his place in nature and in life. The other two literary pieces deal with the maltreatment of individuals and their struggle for survival and a sense of companionship. Emerson deals with an understanding of Nature and praise of individuality where in The Outcasts of Poker Flat, individuality is condemned to exile. Emerson, a divine intellect reflecting on “the occult relation between man, and vegetable” fails in comparison to the hardships faced by Douglas in his time as a slave.

Although we have these differences, there is a common thread throughout these American literary works. Nature by Emerson does compare to My Bondage and My Freedom by Frederick Douglas as they both are very well written by extraordinary intellectuals. They both delt with a mans desire for connection and importance in life. While Emerson was searching for a part in the universe and nature, Douglas was searching for a way to be free and become part of American society and the free.

Gun Control in America

On March 24, 1998, firing from the woods overlooking their school, 13-year-old Andrew Golden and 11-year-old Mitchell Johnson shot and killed four middle school students and a teacher and injured ten other students in Jonesboro, Arkansas. The two boys had a semiautomatic M-1 carbine with a large ammunition magazine, two other rifles, seven handguns and more than 500 rounds of ammunition which they took from the home of one of the boys grandfather, who had a large arsenal of weapons left unsecured.

Officers arrested the two boys as they ran through the wooded area near the school, and they were convicted on five counts of capital murder and ten counts of first-degree battery in September 1998. I want to inform people what I have learned about gun control in America. Firearms and their consequences are so pervasive in our society that they seem to be standard fare. Each day newspapers in major cities report injuries and deaths from guns and show photographs of their bereaved families. Movie advertisements scream titles that promise plenty of bloodshed, illustrated by guns and though characters who flaunt them.

A casual flip through several television channels often reveals a succession of handguns, automatic riffles, and murders. Facts are much more sobering and dont reflect the justice weve grown accustomed to seeing on televisions and in movies. The fact is that 22,000 people die each year because of firearms. Annually 12,000 people commit suicide with handguns and another 1,000 die from unintentional fatal injuries. Every year, there are about 9,000 handgun homicides in this country. In addition, there are more than 200,000 injuries due to firearms annually (Anderson 26).

Handgun Control works to enact sensible gun control legislation in the United State but does not seek to ban guns. The Brady Bill, which was signed into law by President Clinton and took effect February 28, 1994, establishes a national five business day waiting period and requires local law enforcement to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers, but our nation’s primary gun law is the 1968 Gun Control Act: MAJOR PROVISIONS: Established categories of prohibited firearms purchasers and possessors:

Convicted felons, fugitives from justice, illegal drug users or addicts, minors, anyone adjudicated mentally defective or having been committed to a mental institution, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, illegal aliens, anyone having renounced U. S. citizenship. Licenses and set standards for gun dealers: Establishes licensing fee schedule for manufacturers, importers, and dealers in firearms; sets record-keeping standards; requires licenses to be obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury; requires serial numbers on all guns. Prohibits the mail-order sales of all firearms and ammunition

Prohibits the interstate sale of firearms: A handgun purchaser may only buy a gun in the state in which he/she resides; Sets age guidelines for firearms purchased through dealers: Handgun purchasers must be at least 21. Long gun purchasers must be at least 18. Prohibits the importation of non-sporting weapons: Sets penalties for carrying & using firearms in crimes of violence or drug trafficking.

Prohibits importation of weapons covered in the National Firearms Act and extends NFA restrictions to machine gun frames and receivers and conversion kits (i. , parts to make machine guns). Prohibits importation of foreign-made military surplus firearms. Prohibited the sale and manufacture of new fully automatic civilian machine guns: Prohibited the sale of parts or conversion kits – used to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic. Classifies silencer parts and kits as weapons falling under the National Firearm Act.

Over the past several years, a series of important studies have provided evidence of the efficacy of gun control; the paper by Colin Loftin etal. the December 5, 1991 New England Journal of Medicine describes one such study. He found that there was a significant, sustained decline in gun related homicides and suicides in the District of Columbia after a law was adopted that banned the circulation, purchase, sale, transfer, and possession of handguns. There was no parallel increase in mortality from causes other than guns, suggesting that other lethal weapons were not being used as substitutes. Other data also suggest that suicide rates depend on the availability of handguns.

In particular, states with relatively stringent handgun laws have lower suicide rates (Block 23). To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them… – George Mason A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 2nd amendment. Americans ascribe several benefits to the personal ownership of firearms. Many believe they protect us against those who might harm us.

They give personal satisfaction to others pleasure in the sport of target practice and in the hobby of gun collecting, a feeling of control, and perhaps social status. Some believe that possession is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and regards this benefit as an inalienable right. Guns also appeal to our American pride in individuality and independence. Lastly, the manufacture and distribution of firearms by American companies produce economic benefits. However the risk are somewhat more concrete. Firearms are often used impulsively against oneself or others.

They produce unintentional or intentional injuries and deaths in peoples homes and at various sites of criminal activity. When more than 30,000 people are killed annually by firearms and another 200,000 are injured, it is clear to most individuals that a serious problems exists (Holmberg and Clancy 12). Thus, several conclusions emerge from the benefits of firearm availability are almost entirely intangible, the risks are substantial, and the efficiency of restrictive laws in influencing deaths from firearms seems established.

Objective observations such as these would predict that threshold levels of deaths necessary to convince us that ownership of handguns and automatic riffles tightly should be quite high, while others feel this is a restriction on their personal rights. While Handgun Control and the NRA, two of the most influential organizations for their causes, are frequently on the opposite sides of the debate on guns, they do agree on one issue: America should vigorously enforce the gun laws already on the books and punish criminals who use guns.

Chinese Immigration

Every person who lives in America is either an immigrant or a descendant of an immigrant. Though we may not consider it, it is a fact that everyone here has come from some other place. The majority of immigrants have come to America voluntarily. Seeking a change they envisioned America as country thriving with different opportunities. For the immigrants it was a chance at a better life, not only for themselves, but for their children. It is estimated that over sixty million people have immigrated to America and it is this immigration that has built America into a “melting pot.

America is a country thriving with varies ethnic, cultural, religious, and economic identities. It is this “melting pot” that makes America so unique and cherished by those who live here. On the other hand there are unpleasant aspects of immigration, which include the hardships faced in order to reach America and the struggle to gain acceptance. During 1850 to 1930, immigration was increasing and was welcomed in order to supply the demands of the Industrial Age. Chinese immigrants came to America in search of labor, thus proving to be hard, diligent laborers, only to be discriminated against and treated unjustly.

The reason for immigration is commonly referred to as the push-pull theory. It says that certain factors must be present at both sides in order for immigration to occur. The factors present at the homeland must push immigrants to leave, and factors present at the other end must attract immigrants and pull them to a new place. For the Chinese it was the need to provide for their families that pushed them and the gold and labor that pulled them. The Chinese were the first Asians to immigrate to America.

Most Chinese immigrated as sojourners, immigrants who from the beginning intended to return to their homeland. In the mid 1800’s many unskilled Chinese began their journey to the West, particularly California, arriving in vast numbers just after the discovery of gold in California in 1849. Between 1850 to 1882 more than 300,000 Chinese immigrants, mostly impoverished peasants crossed the Pacific and headed for America, the promise land. The majority of Chinese immigrants were from the same region, Canton, which is located in South China.

More than ninety percent of those who left China were male, mainly because of Chinese social custom, which instructed women to remain at home with their families. A number of Chinese immigrants were unable to pay for their voyage to America, therefore, they acquired the help of a work broker in order to immigrate. Just like the African slaves, the immigrants signed contracts guaranteeing that they would work for a certain amount of years in exchange for paying their way to America. These arrangements enabled thousands of Chinese to have a chance at a better life in America.

The immigrants under this contract were known as “coolies,” a Hindu word meaning “unskilled laborer. During the 1850’s a vast majority of “coolies” chose to immigrate to California. Between 1840 and 1900 about 2. 4 million Chinese left their homeland. Many Chinese entered America through an immigration station at Angel Island in San Francisco Bay. From Angel Island the majority of Chinese immigrants set out in search of the gold in the West, which included California, Nevada, and Oregon. This discovery of gold was the main attraction of Chinese immigrants.

It was a factor that set off the voyage to America among the Chinese. Even though a large percentage of Chinese immigrants became miners, it was a difficult job for them, because of the hostility from White miners. The White miners forced the Chinese into working mines that were already picked over and left abandoned. However, with hard work the Chinese still managed to remove what gold remained from the mines. Their determination and diligence only seemed to evoke even more hostility from the Whites amongst the Chinese.

The Whites soon frequently and continually harassed and attacked the Chinese. Resulting from this escalating violence was a series of discriminatory laws passed by the State of California. It reduced the Chinese to second-class status and purposely put them under legal penalties that no other group encountered. When the Gold Rush ended in 1860, many Chinese immigrants found jobs with the nations railroad industry. When the Union Pacific Railroad began its construction of its western part in 1864, thousands of Chinese laborers were hired.

It was the Chinese who the Central Pacific Railroad Company hired to build a railroad over the harsh western land that would eventually link America’s east and west coasts together. The Chinese were extremely hard workers, conquering the granite mountains and gorges of the Sierra Nevada and Rockies. They also encountered dangerous working conditions, such as being lowered from mere rope held baskets, suspended between earth and sky, and sustaining the harsh winter of 1865-1865, which was recorded as one of the worst winters.

The Chinese were meager in their way of life, dressing poorly and having simple living quarters. They also were willing to sacrifice less pay than White workers in order to earn a nominal amount of money. Thanks to the work of the Chinese the railroad was completed in an incredible amount of time. The United States government signed the Burlingame Treaty with China in 1868, in order to guarantee that Chinese immigration would continue to America. This treaty supplied the railroad company large amounts of workers, however, resulting was the growing movement to keep the Chinese out of America.

White workers resented the Chinese because they were willing to work for a less amount of money as opposed to the White workers even though they performed the same tasks. Angry Whites blamed the Chinese immigrants for lowering wages and raising unemployment among the rest of America. Outraged men and women formed anti-Chinese groups and supported politicians who pledged to deport Chinese workers. For example in 1870 a nominee of the California Workingmen’s party ran for office with the campaign slogan “Chinese must go. ”

The anti-Chinese attitudes forced Chinese immigrants into enclaves. In California there was a small section where Chinese immigrants established an enclave in which their culture could be preserved and flourish. This enclave was known as Chinatown in San Francisco. Other immigrants established enclaves in different parts of America, however not any of them were as precise as Chinatown. Almost all of Chinese workers lived in Chinatown, including both the rich and the poor. Even when an immigrant was gaining economic status they still did not move out of this particular enclave.

The Chinese did not want to leave the enclave because the hostility that Whites held towards them made it impossible. Ironically it was this separatism that was held against them as the Whites claimed the Chinese were excluding themselves from the rest of society and not properly assimilating into society. During the 1870’s anti-Chinese attitudes increased in America. Those who were against Chinese immigration made unfathomable and outrageous charges against them. They claimed that they were foreign invaders and were unable to assimilate into the mainstream society.

In Rock Springs, Wyoming, Los Angeles, California, and Tacoma, Washington, angry groups of Americans destroyed Chinese neighborhoods by burning them to the ground. They killed a numerous amount of people and forced the survivors out of their homes, trying to save their own lives. In 1870 the Federal Naturalization Act was established. This act limited naturalization to only Whites and Africans, which in turn meant that out of all the immigrants to America, it was only the Chinese who were prohibited from becoming a citizen. All prejudices demonstrated in America reached the highest levels of the United States government.

In 1882 Congress and the President passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was the first and only act to prohibit a certain ethnic group from immigrating to America. The Chinese Exclusion Act banned Chinese from immigrating to the United States for ten years. This act also denied naturalization to all Chinese in America and refused to allow Chinese to return to America if they left to visit China. The Exclusion act however was biased, allowing only economically privileged Chinese, who were mostly merchants and students, into America.

In 1982 the Gentry Act extended the Chinese Exclusion Act by another ten years. Finally in 1904, the Chinese Exclusion Act was extended until further notice. During this time the United State government was becoming increasing suspicious of all Chinese who desired to enter the country and especially of those who were claiming to be the sons of American citizens. Immigration inspectors held thousands at Angel Island for weeks, sometimes even months until they thoroughly satisfied to the officials that they were in fact belonging to America.

In 1888 Congress passed a law, which regulated the falsification of a birth certificate from the United States. This act was the Scott Act, which prevented re-entry into the United States by any Chinese who returned to his homeland of China even just for a visit. This act also prohibited any Chinese from receiving citizenship. Despite the passing all of these laws there was still a strong reaction in the United States between 1917 and 1965. It went so far as to federal commissions recommending that the country restrict immigration and enforce certain qualifications for entry into the America.

For instance, in 1917 the Dillingham Commission suggested that immigrants should be literate and that no eastern Asian countries be permitted into the United States, from countries such as China, Japan, and Korea, which were commonly referred to as the “barren zones. ” Resulting in 1917 was Congress passing a law that required a literacy test for immigrants, over President Woodrow Wilson’s veto. As a result of all these laws, the number of Chinese legally entering the United States fell from 22,781 in 1876 to 10 in 1887.

Until 1940, a few thousand Chinese immigrants continued to come to the United States every year, either as immediate relatives of United States citizens, or they immigrated illegally. Some came as traders, who were not excluded from all of the laws. Others came as United States citizens because their Chinese parents had been born in the Unites States. Though Chinese immigrants were in search of a new beginning and a chance at a better life, they found that it was a lost search. They came to America as diligent hard workers, only to face the prejudices and unjust treatment of the people.

The Democracy In America

The democracy we have in America today is very complex. This democracy starts out with political parties whose main purpose is to gain control of the government by winning elections Appelbaum and Chambliss(1997:366). In the United States, unlike in most other democracies, there are only two political parties with any substantial influence over government policies Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:366). Third parties are also apparent in elections.

These third parties are often successful in smaller elections, but when we are dealing with national elections it is very difficult for the third party to survive the igger two due to the lack of funding and publicity of the PACs and other interest groups. However, third parties serve a very good purpose. They provide us with more candidates giving us more choices which is what democracy is about. According to my class notes (lecture on government) third parties are sometimes chosen when people are opposed to the candidates from the other two parties.

Third parties stand as a sign of choice as well. Voting for a third party is also seen as voting for a better selection of candidates rather than voting for the usual two candidates from the other parties. The president of the United States is not chosen on the popular vote of the people alone but on the Electoral College whose vote is determined by the popular vote of each state Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:367). This Electoral College is in a sense a vote of the people but at the same time it keeps bigger states from becoming to powerful overwhelming the smaller states.

The United States also has three branches of government the legislative, judicial and executive branches. The constitution of the United States provides a system of checks and balances Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:369). This system of checks and balances puts a limit on the amount of power a single branch may have which protects both the people and the individual branches government from one another. I believe that the United States has a very efficient form of government. It has many rules sewn into the constitution to keep things running efficient and fairly.

Democracy is a form of government in which citizens are able to participate directly or indirectly in their own governance, literally means the rule of the people Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:366). According to my class notes (lecture on emocracies) this does not seem to be the case. It seems in some cases that the rich or the elite have more influence than do other citizens in the governing of out country. For example, funding moneys and interest groups. The elite are able to donate funding to their particular candidate or party in the form of interest groups.

They give money to interest groups, which is then given to candidates for campaigning purposes that help the candidates funds for president. For the most part this money is not freely donated. The elite want to make sure that if their money is donated to a candidate that their ideas and beliefs will e supported in office if they do become president. With these kind of issues in mind many others especially the poor will often refrain from voting because they feel that their vote will not This idea is very much a reality.

The cost of campaigning has gone up significantly in recent years, and today candidates spend vast sums of money on political campaigns Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:370). As said by Phil Gramm, people who give money are the best friends a politician can have and the one that spends the most money wins. So the impact of spending through interest groups and PACs are very important. There are many differing opinions on the issue of changing families in the last forty to fifty years.

I believe that if someone were to look at todays families in the same way as one would have forty to fifty years ago they are going to be in for a surprise. We have to realize that not only family has changed but our culture and economy too have also changed. The idea of family is a group of people who identify themselves as being related to one another, usually by blood, marriages, or adoption, and who share intimate relationships and dependency Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:390).

Our societys language and definitions have changed so much over the last forty to fifty years. For example the meaning of nuclear family has also changed since then Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:391). According to my class notes (lecture on family) we used to classify a nuclear family as a family with two biological parents and their children usually more than one. Now in todays times we classify the nuclear family as a social group consisting of one or two parents and their dependent children Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:391).

Our society has changed so much in the last fifty years that ingle parenting is very common and is often looked at as a norm. Another example of the changing times would be that of marriage. Fifty years ago marriage was an acceptable relationship between two people of the opposite sex. Now the definition is so basic that marriage pretty much just has to be between to people If we are to look at todays families as we did of those forty to fifty years ago it would seem that America had lost its sense of values. Families would also be looked upon as immoral based on these same ideals.

On the other hand if we look at family today as in relation to our society as a whole I dont hink that there would be to many surprises when it came to When comparing both functionalism and conflict perspectives on education they seem to be in no way the same. From a functionalism perspective education seems to be explained as preparing and educating people with basic skills to survive in todays world. As said by Emile Durkheim, emphasizing the function of formal education in socializing people into the norms and values as well as the skills that are needed for the society to survive (Appelbaum and Chambliss 1997).

The functionalism theory is broadcasted as the functions and transmission of eneral knowledge and specific skills Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:453). On the other hand we have the conflict theory of education. According to the conflict theory children are taught at an early age to define their academic aspirations and abilities in keeping with the social class of their parents. The lower ones social class, the less likely one is to value higher education as a plausible avenue to upward mobility, and the less likely one is to work to excel academically Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:455).

So in most cases the conflict theory states that the class you are in is the one that you will stay in hroughout your life. Also as an example of my class notes (lecture on education) most lower income families children will receive a lower or less able education than would a person who is of a higher class that would go to a private school for instance. When comparing the two theories it seems that both functionalism and conflict theories have some faults and some merit. Education is a double edged sword. For some, it helps to reduce inequality by opening up new possibilities for social mobility.

For others, it reinforces existing inequality by providing unequal educational opportunities according to ones ace, ethnicity, social class, or gender Appelbaum and Chambliss Emile Durkheims The Elementary Forms of the Religious life (1965), written in 1912, propounded what has prove to be one of the most influential and enduring theories in the sociology of religion Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:480). According to my class notes (over religion) Durkheim based his studies on Aborigines whos religion had been the same for many years.

He found that the aborigines divided their world into to groups which are profane and sacred Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:480). Profane being a sphere of routine daily life according to my lass notes (lecture on religion) and sacred as a more important sphere with a spiritual background. Durkheims bold theoretical conclusion was that, in all societies, the realm of the sacred serves an important social function for the societies, the realm of the sacred serves an important social function for the society as a whole Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:480).

Marx on the other hand did not systematically study the nature of religion in society, although he clearly recognized its central importance Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:481). Through a Marx view, societies are divided into classes. For example Marx, divided eligion into hostile and opposing classes in his explanation of religion (Appelbaum and Chambliss 1997). In one of Marxs most famous statement he says, Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people (in McClellan, 1997,p. 4).

I believe what Marxs is saying here is that religion is based mainly around a higher class of people oppressing the poor and keeping them from becoming involved. Like most theories Durkheims and Marxs seem to have strengths and weaknesses. According to my class notes (lecture n religion) Durkheim seems to have many strong arguments that seem to be logical but we also have to take in effect that his studies were done on a Australian hunting and gathering tribe and would not carry as much weight while looking through his perspective in the twentieth century.

Marx on the other hand has a more modern approach which would appeal more to todays times but seems to put to much emphasis on what the elite can put over on everyone else. For example, One of these problems is that Marxs notation that religion is a mystification enabling the ruling class to pull the wool over everybodys eyes is clearly implistic Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:481). The separation of church and state is sociologically problematic for many reasons.

Sociology is the systematic study of human social relations, groups, and societies and when looked at Sociological stand point there seems to be no separation Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:6). Religion is not controlled by the states so it acts upon society as does the government and there seems to be know line drawn between the two so it is very difficult to study. Since there is no governing of religion it is also difficult to estimate reliably the number of people elonging to churches Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:491).

According to my class notes (lecture on religion) although it is hard to estimate the exact growth of religion we can tell that it has grown steadily since the United States were founded. Another reason this is problematic is because of the number of religious organizations. One reason so many people belong to religious organizations is that there are an enormous number of such organizations one can belong to Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:491). This also presents difficulty because of the number of people belonging to multiple religious groups.

The Problem of Poverty Welfare in America

For centuries, nations, cities, and individual families have dealt with the problem of poverty; how to remedy current situations and how to prevent future ones. For most of history, there have been no government controlled poverty assistance programs. The poor simply relied on the goodness of their families or, if they did not have a family, on the generosity of the public at large. In the United States, this situation changed in 1935 with the passage of the Social Security Act (Irwin 193). The Social Security Act has seen many successes, but it also faces many critiques of its structure and function.

In the past, most governments did little to actively aid their poor population. This duty was understood to fall on the families of the poor individuals, charity groups, and generous individuals. Some governments aided their needy in indirect ways. In ancient Israel, religious laws dictated the responsibility of both the religious establishment and the citizens of Israel to care for the “fatherless and the widow”, as well as other poor persons (Exodus 22:22). One of the first government-mediated assistance programs was passed by the English Parliament in 1601 as the Act for the Relief of the Poor.

This act set up local “parishes” that were responsible for taking care of the poor in their own district. However, the government provided no funds to facilitate this program—the parishes were responsible for levying and collecting taxes to finance their programs (Irwin, 192). Though it would be considered a very primitive form of welfare by today’s standards, it was a large step toward government-mediated welfare compared to the English system 250 years before that. In 1349, Parliament forbade charity on the grounds that it might encourage laziness.

Since then, public attitudes have changed about the responsibility of the citizens and the government to provide for the assistance of the needy. Limited federal assistance was given to war veterans and their families beginning during the Civil War, but large scale assistance to the general needy community was not available for almost 75 more years (Komisar 48). A large contribution toward the assistance of the poor in the United States came during the Progressive movement around the turn of the century.

Activist groups championed not only workers rights in the form of unions, but also the right of every citizen to have access to decent living conditions (Komisar 67). The Progressive movement slackened during the prosperous ‘20s, but the social welfare issue was forcefully placed back into the public consciousness with the advent of the Great Depression in 1929. With an unemployment rate as high as 25% and millions without sanitary living conditions, ignorance of the problem of poverty would have been disastrous.

In 1935, Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act which, among other things, provided for the financial, medical, and material needs of the poor (Komisar 125,128). Since then, there have many additions and reforms to the bill, none of which has served to quell the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of the welfare system in the United States. The main concerns of the distribution of welfare dollars and resources can be answered by the questions “Who gets assistance? ” and “How much do they receive? ”.

The U. S. lfare system is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, which attempts to answer these questions through a system of minimum incomes, government-calculated poverty levels, number of children, health problems, and many other criteria. This complicated system leads to one of the critiques of the welfare system—that it is too large and inefficient. President Lyndon Johnson declared a “War on Poverty” in 1964 designed to alleviate the burden of the poor and established the Food Stamp program the next year (Patterson 139).

In 1996, a major welfare reform bill was passed that placed time limits on welfare assistance, required able participants to actively seek employment, and implemented additional services for the needy (Patterson 217). The effects of this latest reform are still being studied, but one thing is certain; it has dramatically decreased the number of poor people on the welfare rolls. But is this a good thing? Or does it simply mean that many more poor persons have been shut out of government aid? The government’s inability to answer these questions has lead to many criticisms of the current welfare system.

As it is set up now, the welfare system is extremely complex and inefficient. Welfare programs operate at national, state, and even local levels. Each level has to coordinate the collection and allocation of resources with the other levels, with which it invariably overlaps. In other words, both federal and state welfare money will cover a certain state, but it is difficult to organize the even distribution of funds. In the county that contains San Francisco, the local government decided to return over $6 million in unused childcare assistance programs (Zoellner A1).

This unequal distribution is characteristic of a multi-layered organizational structure. This complexity also leads to inefficiency, as some programs overlap service areas and other areas are without adequate service. The federal money earmarked for the Department of Health and Human Services comprises over $350 billion dollars, or more than 20% of the federal budget (Almanac 108,109). This makes it the third most costly item on the budget, exceeded only by the Social Security Administration (another form of welfare for the elderly and disabled) and payments on the public debt..

The very high cost of welfare, combined with the questionable degree of its success, causes many objections among opponents of the current welfare system. Although only $14 out of every $100 is distributed directly as cash payments to the poor, much more is given out in the form of food, clothing, and other material handouts (Stahl 1). The complexity of the welfare system is also very costly. High numbers of participants require high numbers of administrators, caseworkers, and other behind-the-scenes government employees.

Some would argue that this money could be saved by implementing a simpler system with less overhead administrative costs. Some economists have argued that it is foolhardy to continue to increase spending on social welfare, because of the law of diminishing marginal returns. The more money that the government spends on welfare, the less obvious the effects are. Some would argue that the current costs of improving the poverty situation in America out weigh the benefits. Therefore, they assert, funding should be decreased in these areas and allocated to more needed locations.

The argument that welfare encourages idleness is more of a psychological issue than an economic one, but it is a valid concern nonetheless. Does giving out relatively free services and finances cause people to become dependent on them, rather than aid them in helping themselves escape poverty? Although there is no conclusive evidence that supports either side of this argument, both sides are very vocal about their reasons. Those who believe that welfare causes idleness and laziness might use domesticated animals.

Humans have taken away these animals’ need for various survival behaviors by giving them food and shelter whenever they need it. Domesticated dogs and cats would have a very difficult time surviving in the wild. Similarly, some believe that doling free handouts to the poor only compounds the situation by encouraging them not to work. This camp’s motto is “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime”. Others think that welfare gives the needed resources that people in poverty lack so that they might escape poverty.

These people believe in giving resources to people with the belief that they will be able to help themselves in the best way that they know how. The undeniable fraud that occurs both among the suppliers of welfare assistance (government agencies, healthcare organizations) and the receivers is another objection to the current welfare system. Doctors and insurance companies may purposefully charge higher rates for people on welfare, depending on the poor person’s ignorance and the government’s willingness to foot the bill for their success (Segalman 178).

Though this fraud is regulated, it has occurred and will occur despite regulation. Some also believe that welfare encourages a form of fraud among some of the poor who receive the aid. They believe that the guidelines and formulas set up by the government encourage poor persons to lie about there health and income, and even to have extra children in order to receive more money from the government. These problems are difficult to blame solely on the welfare system, and are also nearly impossible to effectively regulate and eliminate.

Another issue that some people take with the welfare system has nothing to do with how it operates, but simply the fact that it is allowed to operate at all. These people point to the constitution, which does not allow the federal government this right and gives all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The belief that social programs should be administrated by state and local, rather than federal government is not new. Some people agree with the conclusion of this group—that the federal government should not be involved with welfare—but have differing reasons.

They say that welfare should be administered by the states simply because it would be more efficient, not for any constitutional objection. The problems in setting up a welfare system are similar to the problems of running the actual program. These problems include the two previous questions—“Who gets assistance? ” and “How much do they receive? ”—and another one; “Who is going to figure out the answers to the first questions and apply those answers to the benefit of the poor? ”. Therefore, the problem in organizing a welfare system comes down to the question of the government’s role in welfare.

With all of the improvements in the standard of living that have been brought about by changes in welfare, social security, and other government programs, it would seem ludicrous to suggest that government should completely back out of the welfare system and leave that to private institutions. Because the improvement of the poor person’s lot producing positive externalities such as increased productivity and lower crime rates, the private sector would under-produce these services. Clearly, the government needs to have some role in administering welfare. Oddly enough, the solution to the problem of poverty may be found in our past.

Government at the national level is unable to provide for the good of every poor person in an economically and practically efficient manor, but individual people and smaller local organizations can. If the government subsidizes groups who help the poor, it would be less costly than creating and administering its own programs, and also more effective. By creating awareness in the public consciousness about the problem of poverty, and offering economic incentives to individuals and groups who are willing to help out, the government can facilitate the improvement of the standard of living of poor people in an effective, efficient, and cheap way.

The phenomenon of private replacement of government service has already been observed in some parts of the country as a result of the effects of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. In Arlington, Texas the number of welfare cases decreased by almost 35,000 from 1994 to 1999, while the number of people served by Arlington-area charity groups increased almost 20,000 during the same time period (Prince 2). But what of the 15,000 unaccounted-for cases?

It is not known whether these people are now employed or if they slipped through the cracks. At the current rate of increased reliance on private charity, Arlington food banks are finding it difficult to meet the need. With some government subsidizing, the food banks could meet the needs of the increased number of people who seek their services. Although it is probably impossible to achieve complete freedom from poverty, society need not sit idly by in the face of such a monumental challenge.

Indeed, it is the public duty of each individual to aid in the improvement of the lives of poor persons around the nation and around the world. Large-scale, complex systems such as the one now in place in America, only serve to create an inefficient, costly effort that could be achieved with less manpower and fewer dollars. Government oversight and subsidizing of private contributions toward the elimination of poverty is a far more efficient, adaptive, and economical way of working toward the eradication of the problem of poverty.

The American Revolution

The American Revolution was a great time of change for America as a nation. With this change new heroes and ideals of life, liberty, and freedom were formed. Spearheading these new ideals was General George Washington and his continental army, but the road ahead of Washington and his men was not an unproblematic one. The winter at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania proved this to Washington and his men. Yet the true American ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were never forgotten in their battle.

General George Washington gained command of the continental army in July 3, 1775 from the directions of General Artemus Ward who said, The Continental Congress having now taken all the Troops of the several Colonies, which have been raised, or which may be hereafter raised, for the support and defense of the Liberties of America; into their Pay and Service: They are now the Troops of the United Provinces of North America; and it is hoped that all Distinctions of Colonies will be laid aside; so that one and the same spirit may animate the whole, and the only contest be, who shall render, on this great and trying occasion, the most essential Service to the great and common cause in which we are all engaged. ”

In this speech General Ward summarized the task that had been bestowed upon General George Washington. Washington was given the task of instilling a new sense of spirit and pride in the continental army. Washington had quite a task in front of him. The continental army was worn, tired, and low on supplies. Somehow General Washington would have to find a way to unite his soldiers and help them take a stand for the ideals of America.

Washingtons calm, undivided, and determined sense of duty for his nation quickly took control of his men and turned them into a true army within weeks. Washington had done what none thought possible, Washington had assembled an army that could fight the British and possibly come out on top. While General George Washington is known for his great decision-making, during one fateful winter Washington made the worst mistake of his military career. During the winter of 1777-1778 Washington and the troops of the continental army resided in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. While from the standpoint of a military general Valley Forge was a military stronghold.

Atop a high plateau Valley Forge was protected from almost any type of attack, but the Washington and the continental Congress failed to anticipate the winter they were in store for. Valley Forge atop such a high plateau was near completely cut off from supply routes making food, clothing, and weaponry very scarce. Soldiers were treated to the worst conditions possible at Valley Forge. Many were near naked and many were starving to death. Also dieses such as Dysentery and Typhus ran rampant at Valley Forge. These conditions alone accounted for the lives of hundreds of American soldiers that winter. Yet in early spring at Valley Forge General Nathanel Greene was appointed quartermaster.

Conditions for the members of the continental army greatly improved. Food was in abundance as well as clothing and soldiers took full advantage of it. While the American soldiers were very valiant, they lacked the discipline and skills of a true army. This soon changed will the arrival of Baron Von Stueben. Von Stueben quickly turned the continental army into a true army. Leaving Valley Forge Washington and his men had a renewed sense of patriotism. They were now a united army with the skills to defeat the British although they had suffered great losses they had made great achievements and were now truly an army. The winter of Valley Forge exemplified the true will of General George Washington and his troops.

They were united and they were ready to fight for one cause life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the British rule Americans god given rights were taken from. As well as many unlawful taxes were imposed upon them. The British put into place a tea tax, as well as the stamp act. The stamp act taxed every printed material on paper including playing card, and important documents. The British rule was too much for the colonists. The Americans wanted their own government and were determined to have it. While the British were determined to keep them from having their own government. The Americans united against the British in the Revolutionary War and were able to defeat the British army.

Soon after the defeat a group of men including Thomas Jefferson came together to draft a Declaration of Independence. This Declaration of Independence listed what the Americans thought were their rights. These rights included the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These ideals stood for what Americans thought a country should be built upon. As well as what Washington and his men had suffered for. George Washington was a great leader and led the continental army into battle on many occasions. Often they were victorious and sometimes they werent. Yet Washington and his armys largest victory was during the winter at Valley Forge.

A great leader in Washington shined through more than it already had, as well as the continental army becoming a united fighting force for the cause of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every person, event, or ideal in the American Revolution is someway was connected to one of these topics. Thus showing the true importance of great leaders, hard time, and ideals that are set in stone. Patrick Henry once said, I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty of give me death! Patrick Henrys statement illustrate the true state of mind of Americans during the revolution, and display that the hardships Washington and his men suffered through at Valley Forge were not without great admiration by their fellow Americans. For Washington and his men had fought for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Cultural Diversity in Corporate America

The expanding conflict over cultural diversity in corporate America may present as many opportunities and problems as affirmative action. Today, cultural diversity is an important fact of life and business, due to the changing face of society, and therefore, the work place. It is growing ever more essential for people to interact with others outside of their racial, ethical, religious, regional, social, etc. boundaries.

To stay on top of their competitors, especially in the 1990s and going forward, corporations must change their approach, and see diversity not as a necessary evil or mere threat, but as a source of enrichment and opportunity that may bring a wealth of benefits to the In an examination of the U. S. workplace and specifically looking at management positions, it is clearly evident that minorities are “under” represented. The reasons behind this seem to vary depending on which point of view it is looked at.

Some argue that minorities “haven’t been in the labor pool long enough to work [their way] up”. It is ridiculous to believe this because there are plenty of qualified minorities for any of those jobs. (1) Others argue that “minority employees don’t know the ules that allow one to ‘win’ in the corporate ‘game'”. If this is true, then what is keeping them from learning these “rules” and what can be done to teach them? (2) While these reasons may hold some truth, it is also, as proven time after time in this country’s media, a matter of race and/or gender.

There is an inherit distrust on the part of today’s managers (typically white males who grew up with little exposure to people from other cultures) in the abilities of others outside of the white, male work-force. At the time many of today’s leading CEOs were in school, they were taught “that blacks had maller brains than whites” and that women were not as smart and were overly emotional. The attitudes and beliefs of these men have “undoubtedly [been] influenced by such training”.

They have a deep seeded belief that women, blacks, and in effect, all others than themselves are less competent, and they believe it to be true to a biological, molecular level. (3) At least this is true of the older generation, but what of the younger, civil rights, generation? It seems that “. . . the younger executives coming in now are worse they’re less tolerant, high on their big M. B. A. ducation. Their attitude is that the laws will take care of everything. They have little personal concern with doing what’s right”. 4)

The training received by most of these managers have usually been “based on the assumption that ‘managing’ means managing a homogeneous white, male work force” and not on managing any type of With this in perspective, is it any wonder why minorities are leaving organizations to open their own business? Their corporate managers can’t relate to them – not as employees, co-workers or people. When promotion time comes around, the managers promote only hat they know – other white males. “People are comfortable with others who look, act, and think like themselves.

So the people in power bring in others like themselves”. (6) This means that as a minority, a person can only go so far in an organization. No minority to feels comfortable in such an atmosphere, which is why so many of them are leaving the corporate scene and starting their own businesses. A person can be their own boss and not have to deal with the issue, at least at that level. It is unfortunate to note, however, that 65% of minority owned businesses fail in their 1st year of operation.

To combat these problems and help alleviate tensions among the different ethnic groups, many organizations are integrating cultural diversity into the workplace. They have many means by which to approach this. Some companies offer management courses dealing with racial and gender related issues. In others, the focus is placed on coaching women and minorities how to be successful in the white, male, dominated business environment. Still others have developed means of ensuring the “upward mobility” of women and minorities on an executive level.

Many of these organizations also celebrate the different ultural holidays. This serves a dual function in that it not only makes minorities fell welcome, it also serves as a way of exposing white America, and specifically the white, male mangers, to part of what this person is. It introduces to them something that they more than likely would not have gone out and discovered on their own. It shows them that different doesn’t mean bad and that there is nothing to fear. With this exposure, managers and their minority employees can at least begin to share some common knowledge and stand on common ground.

America has always been called a great “melting ot”, but it is only true in one sense. What no one seems to realize is that this phrase only held true for the European immigrant experience, not those from Africa, not those from Asia, nor those from South America. Although people of European decent still hold the “majority” position, it clear and quite frightening to some, that the same people that were excluded from the “melting pot” are becoming the “majorities” in major cities all across the country. It is estimated that by the year 2020, the “minorities” of today will be the majorities of “tomorrow”.

America an no longer “ignore the demographic trends in our society; we hire society into our workplace . . . we are society”. (7) The laws, as some believe, will not take care of it; the law can barely take care of itself. “We, the people of these United States . . . ” have to take care of it by ourselves. According to the constitution, “[w]e, the people of these United States . . . ” are the true leaders of this country. It is in the hand of these people to shape what the outcome of this issue, and others like it, will be for their children and their children’s children. We, the people f these United States . . . ” have to take the initiative.

“We, the people of these United States . . . ” have to get into action and do for ourselves what “we” are waiting for the “government” and the “law” to do. “We, the people of these United States . . . ” are, regardless of the outcome, the masters of the fate of this society and this country. “Understand that over the long term, the successful manager is going to have to deal with large numbers of minorities and women in business, and [it is] presume[d] most managers want to be successful, want their company to be successful.

An Outline Of American History

At the height of the Ice Age, between 34,000 and 30,000 B. C. , much of the world’s water was contained in vast continental ice sheets. As a result, the Bering Sea was hundreds of meters below its current level, and a land bridge, known as Beringia, emerged between Asia and North America. At its peak, Beringia is thought to have been some 1,500 kilometers wide. A moist and treeless tundra, it was covered with grasses and plant life, attracting the large animals that early humans hunted for their survival.

The first people to reach North America almost certainly did so without knowing they had crossed into a new continent. They would have been following game, as their ancestors had for thousands of years, along the Siberian coast and then across the land bridge. Once in Alaska, it would take these first North Americans thousands of years more to work their way through the openings in great glaciers south to what is now the United States. Evidence of early life in North America continues to be found.

Little of it, however, can be reliably dated before 12,000 B. C. ; a recent discovery of a hunting lookout in northern Alaska, for example, may date from almost that time. So too may the finely crafted spear points and items found near Clovis, New Mexico. Similar artifacts have been found at sites throughout North and South America, indicating that life was probably already well established in much of the Western Hemisphere by some time prior to 10,000 B. C. Around that time the mammoth began to die out and the bison took its place as a principal source of food and hides for these early North Americans.

Over time, as more and more species of large game vanished — whether from overhunting or natural causes — plants, berries and seeds became an increasingly important part of the early American diet. Gradually, foraging and the first attempts at primitive agriculture appeared. Indians in what is now central Mexico led the way, cultivating corn, squash and beans, perhaps as early as 8,000 B. C. Slowly, this knowledge spread northward. By 3,000 B. C. , a primitive type of corn was being grown in the river valleys of New Mexico and Arizona.

Then the first signs of irrigation began to appear, and by 300 B. C. , signs of early village life. By the first centuries A. D. , the Hohokum were living in settlements near what is now Phoenix1, Arizona, where they built ball courts and pyramid-like mounds reminiscent of those found in Mexico, as well as a canal and irrigation system. The first Indian group to build mounds in what is now the United States are often called the Adenans. They began constructing earthen burial sites and fortifications around 600 B. C.

Some mounds from that era are in the shape of birds or serpents, andprobably served religious purposes not yet fully understood. The Adenans appear to have been absorbed or displaced by various groups collectively known as Hopewellians. One of the most important centers of their culture was found in southern Ohio, where the remains of several thousand of these mounds still remain. Believed to be great traders, the Hopewellians used and exchanged tools and materials across a wide region of hundreds of kilometers.

By around 500 A. D. he Hopewellians, too, disappeared, gradually giving way to a broad group of tribes generally known as the Mississippians or Temple Mound culture. One city, Cahokia, just east of St. Louis, Missouri, is thought to have had a population of about 20,000 at its peak in the early 12th century. At the center of the city stood a huge earthen mound, flatted at the top, which was 30 meters high and 37 hectares at the base. Eighty other mounds have been found nearby. Cities such as Cahokia depended on a combination of hunting, foraging, trading and agriculture for their food and supplies.

Influenced by the thriving societies to the south, they evolved into complex hierarchical societies which took slaves and practiced human sacrifice. In what is now the southwest United States, the Anasazi, ancestors of the modern Hopi Indians, began building stone and adobe pueblos around the year 900. These unique and amazing apartment-like structures were often built along cliff faces; the most famous, the “cliff palace” of Mesa Verde, Colorado, had over 200 rooms. Another site, the Pueblo Bonito ruins along New Mexico’s Chaco River, once contained more than 800 rooms.

Perhaps the most affluent of the pre-Columbian American Indians lived in the Pacific northwest, where the natural abundance of fish and raw materials made food supplies plentiful and permanent villages possible as early as 1,000 B. C. The opulence of their “potlatch” gatherings remains a standard for extravagance and festivity probably unmatched in early American history. The America that greeted the first Europeans was, thus, far from an empty wilderness. It is now thought that as many people lived in the Western Hemisphere as in Western Europe at that time — about 40 million.

Estimates of the number of Native Americans living in what is now the United States at the onset of European colonization range from two to 18 million, with most historians tending toward the lower figure. What is certain is the devastating effect that European disease had on the indigenous population practically from the time of initial contact. Smallpox, in particular, ravaged whole communities and is thought to have been a much more direct cause of the precipitous decline in Indian population in the 1600s than the numerous wars and skirmishes with European settlers.

Indian customs and culture at the1 time were extraordinarily diverse, as could be expected, given the expanse of the land and the many different environments to which they had adapted. Some generalizations, however, are possible. Most tribes, particularly in the wooded eastern region and the Midwest, combined aspects of hunting, gathering and the cultivation of maize and other products for their food supplies. In many cases, the women were responsible for farming and the distribution of food, while the men hunted and participated in war. By all accounts, In1dian society in North America was closely tied to the land.

Identification with nature and the elements was integral to religious beliefs. Indian life was essentially clan-oriented and communal, with children allowed more freedom and tolerance than was the European custom of the day. Although some North American tribes developed a type of hieroglyphics to preserve certain texts, Indian culture was primarily oral, with a high value placed on the recounting of tales and dreams. Clearly, there was a good deal of trade among various groups and strong evidence exists that neighboring tribes maintained extensive and formal relations — both friendly and hostile.

The first Europeans to arrive in North America — at least the first for whom there is solid evidence — were Norse, traveling west from Greenland, where Erik the Red had founded a settlement around the year 985. In 1001 his son Leif is thought to have explored the northeast coast of what is now Canada and spent at least one winter there. While Norse sagas suggest that Viking sailors explored the Atlantic coast of North America down as far as the Bahamas, such claims remain unproven.

In 1963, however, the ruins of some Norse houses dating from that era were discovered at L’Anse-aux-Meadows in northern Newfoundland, thus supporting at least some of the claims the Norse sagas make. In 1497, just five years after Christopher Columbus landed in the Caribbean looking for a western route to Asia, a Venetian sailor named John Cabot arrived in Newfoundland on a mission for the British king. Although fairly quickly forgotten, Cabot’s journey was later to provide the basis for British claims to North America.

It also opened the way to the rich fishing grounds off George’s Banks, to which European fishermen, particularly the Portuguese, were soon making regular visits. Columbus, of course, never saw the mainland United States, but the first explorations of the continental United States were launched from the Spanish possessions that he helped establish. The first of these took place in 1513 when a group of men under Juan Ponce de Leon landed on the Florida coast near the present city of St. Augustine. With the conquest of Mexico in 1522, the Spanish further solidified their position in the Western Hemisphere.

The ensuing discoveries added to Europe’s knowledge of what was now named America — after the Italian Amerigo Vespucci, who wrote a widely popular account of his voyages to a “New World. ” By 1529 reliable maps of the Atlantic coastline from Labrador to Tierra del Fuego had been drawn up, although it would take more than another century before hope of discovering a “Northwest Passage” to Asia would be completely abandoned. Among the most significant early Spanish explorations was that of Hernando De Soto, a veteran conquistador who had accompanied Francisco Pizzaro during the conquest of Peru.

Leaving Havana in 1539, De Soto’s expedition landed in Florida and ranged through the southeastern United States as far as the Mississippi River in search of riches. Another Spaniard, Francisco Coronado, set out from Mexico in 1540 in search of the mythical Seven Cities of Cibola. Coronado’s travels took him to the Grand Canyon and Kansas, but failed to reveal the gold or treasure his men sought. However, Coronado’s party did leave the peoples of the region a remarkable, if unintended gift: enough horses escaped from his party to transform life on the Great Plains.

Within a few generations, the Plains Indians had become masters of horsemanship, greatly expanding the range and scope of their activities. While the Spanish were pushing up from the south, the northern portion of the present-day United States was slowly being revealed through the journeys of men such as Giovanni da Verrazano. A Florentine who sailed for the French, Verrazano made landfall in North Carolina in 1524, then sailed north along the Atlantic coast past what is now New York harbor. A decade later, the Frenchman Jacques Cartier set sail with the hope — like the other Europeans before him — of finding a sea passage to Asia.

Cartier’s expeditions along the St. Lawrence River laid the foundations for the French claims to North America, which were to last until 1763. Following the collapse of their first Quebec colony in the 1540s, French Huguenots attempted to settle the northern coast of Florida two decades later. The Spanish, viewing the French as a threat to their trade route along the Gulf Stream, destroyed the colony in 1565. Ironically, the leader of the Spanish forces, Pedro Menendez, would soon establish a town not far away — St. Augustine. It was the first permanent European settlement in what would become the United States.

The great wealth which poured into Spain from the colonies in Mexico, the Caribbean and Peru provoked great interest on the part of the other European powers. With time, emerging maritime nations such as England, drawn in part by Francis Drake’s successful raids on Spanish treasure ships, began to take interest in the New World. In 1578 Humphrey Gilbert, the author of a treatise on the search for the Northwest Passage, received a patent from Queen Elizabeth to colonize the “heathen and barbarous landes” in the New World which other European nations had not yet claimed.

It would be five years before his efforts could begin. When he was lost at sea, his half-brother, Walter Raleigh, took up the mission. In 1585 Raleigh established the first British colony in North America, on Roanoke Island off the coast of North Carolina. It was later abandoned, and a second effort two years later also proved a failure. It would be 20 years before the British would try again. This time — at Jamestown in 1607 — the colony would succeed, and North America would enter a new era.

What is America and what is an American

Americans. What are they? Who are they? What exactly is an American and what exactly is America? These are questions people rarely contemplate. These two words are axioms to almost everyone. People have a variety of interpretations of these two seemingly simple words. America and being “American” actually mean many things. “America” is an area. It is a mass on the Earth. As it happens, two continents on Earth are named North and South “America. ” Therefore, “America” consists of these two landmasses.

In turn, the people that live on these two landmasses should be considered “Americans. ” This is one very common and also very simple interpretation. Another interpretation is that “America” is a belief system. This belief system is basically called the U. S. Constitution. This Constitution is what “constitutes” America. Americans are the people that believe in these beliefs and follow them. This is a rather quaint way of looking at it because, since the laws always change, America is always changing also. Other people look at America as a place of democratic values.

They see America as a place where there is equality, a place where everyone gets their fair share of everything, a haven if you will. They see it as a place where people are free to do almost whatever they want. When they think of America, they see the word: fairness. America is a place where the truth is told. America is a place where promises are kept. America is a place of loyalty and a place where you can voice your views without consequence. America is a place where there is a freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All Americans live in this haven.

America is also a place of diversity. American music is an example. American music is made up of classical music (Copeland), Mexican music (La Bamba), Hawaiian music, country music, pop music, and others. Americans are also a very diverse group consisting of people that have various ethnic backgrounds. The group known as “Americans” is also a variant group as immigrants move into and out of America. Americans is a loose term in many cases. It may mean people that live in America, people that were born in America, people that have lived in America for 5 or 10 years, or even people that speak English.

In this sense, America and Americans have a lot of diversity. Historians may see America as a country that has been through many difficult struggles from the Revolution to the assassination of JFK. They see the many wars we have fought in, and the heroics of the American men and women who have died for our country. They also see the transformation from being a farming country to the industrial giant of today. Americans are the people that have fought and struggled in order for America to live to this very day. However, shouldn’t the true Americans be the Native Americans?

Everyone that lives in this America at some point immigrated here while the Native Americans were the first to come from Siberia. Therefore, the title of “American” should be given to the true ones, the Native Americans. America and being American can be interpreted in many ways. They are terms used quite often in the world and also quite loosely. People can see America as a place, an idea, or even as a dream. Everyone has a sense of what America and what Americans are, but there is no exact definition. America and Americans are part of everyone’s perspective. Things are never what you think they are, but to you they are whatever you think.

The Populist Party

The Populist Party, a third political party that originated in America in the latter part of the nineteenth century, derived as a result of farmer discontent and economic distress. This was caused by the country’s shift from an agricultural American life to one in which industrialists dominated the nation’s development. The public felt as if they were being cheated by these robber barons, a term given to those who took advantage of the middle and lower classes by boldly stealing the fruits of their toils (Morgan, 30). These corporate tycoons’ conduct was legal, however ethically dubious it was.

Cornelius Vanderbilt, a well-known railroad baron, reportedly once said, Law! What do I care about the law? Hain’t I got the power? (Morgan, 30) The change from agrarian to industrial had a profound effect on everyone’s life. Ignatius Donnelly, a leader in the Populist Party wrote, We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench . . . A vast conspiracy against mankind has been organized (Tindall, 957).

As a result of this significant transformation, along with several different perspectives of peoples’ mores, several reform movements were commenced, such as prohibition, socialism, and the Greenback Labor Party. Each of these movements was launched by different coalitions in hopes of making a difference either for themselves or for the good of the country. The farmers, specifically, were unhappy for four particular reasons: physical problems, social and intellectual concerns, economic difficulties, and political frustrations.

The physical concerns the climate of the time period. Following 1885, there was a large drought on the American prairie, thus causing this land to become known as the Dust Bowl. Furthermore, there were extreme blizzards resulting in innumerable deaths of cattle and livestock. Also, farms were very isolated causing the women and children to lead a life of solitude and boredom. They demanded change. In fact, the women were the ones to start libraries and other meeting places for themselves and their children. This isolation made schooling for children quite difficult.

Most kids who lived on the farm did not receive a proper education, or one of any kind for that matter. Farmers’ economic problems are more intricate. Events baffled the farmer. They believed that deflation was the cause of their problem. The farmers produced more at a lower price due to improved fertilizers and new machinery, yet was making less than previously. In fact, in 1894, growers received less income from 23 million acres of cotton than from nine million in 1873. The exorbitant prices of shipping their goods to markets worsened their situation.

The railroads overcharged farmers so that they were able to grant large rebates to large industrialists to ensure the continuance of their business. These railroads united to form trusts that raised farmers’ prices. One Kansan said in 1891: At the age of 52 years, after a long life of toil and self-denial, I find myself and family virtually paupers. With hundreds of hogs, scores of good horses, and a farm that rewarded the toil of our hands with 16,000 bushels of golden corn we are poorer by many dollars than we were years ago.

What once seemed a neat little fortune and a house of refuge for our declining years, by a few turns of the monopolistic crank has been rendered valueless (Morgan, 157). Lastly, farmers are outraged at their own victimization by businessmen who utilize their wealth and influence to secure unfair fiscal advantages. As politicians increasingly paid more attention to industrial interests, the agrarians’ resentment intensified. They recognized that their influence was dwindling. The politicians were ignoring them and their pleas for help.

The Populist Party was the result of a movement that begun with the Granger movement, which was, in fact, a social movement. It organized various activities for women and children, established a mail-order program, and took an interest in education. The Grange united the farmers, who started to participate in politics through different independent third parties. As the Granger Movement fell apart, the Farmers’ Alliance was established. This, unlike the Granger Movement, was a political movement. There were two branches of this alliance, a southern one and a northwestern one.

The southern alliance, in contrast to the northwestern one, held back from plunging into politics. The members did not want to be deemed outcasts and traitors by their neighbors, who continued their support of the Democratic Party. As a result, they decided to meet in secret, along with the Colored Alliance, at which time they would agree upon a Democratic candidate that held views most similar to their own. These candidates, however, if elected, quickly abandoned their sympathies for the farmers. The northwestern alliance took a more radical approach; they were thinking about starting a third political party.

These members supported inflation and Macune’s sub-treasury plan. The sub-treasury plan allows farmers to store their crops in government warehouses and receive government loans for up to 80% of their crops’ value at one-percent interest. This does two things: gives them immediate credit and the opportunity to hold their crops until the market improves. Both the Grange and the Alliance endorsed social and educational programs, but the Alliance did two things differently; it was a political, rather than just a social movement, and it proposed an economic program, the sub-treasury plan.

The Populist Party, although concentrating on a few issues, adopts several others to improve their chances of winning an election. They expected by endorsing these issues, they would receive support from the northeast. Their platform included: free and unlimited coinage of silver at the 16:1 ratio; inflation at a rate of $50 per capita; transportation, telephone, and telegraph; implementation of the sub-treasury plan; wanted excess lands given to railroads; direct election of senators; child labor laws; mandatory education; eight-hour work day; one-year terms for president; and an income tax for the middle and upper class.

Populists wanted the government to take over the railroads, telephones, and telegraphs and regulate these services. The industrialists who owned and ran these services were cheating the public and overcharging. Populists wanted to reduce special privilege. Also, the farmers wanted the government to take back all the land the railroads were given that it doesn’t need. These lands should then be given, or sold at very cheap prices, to farmers. The Populists ran James Weaver in 1892. Weaver polled over 1 million votes and received a total of 22 electoral votes.

The Populists expected to do well in the 1894-midterm elections due to the devastating business panic under Cleveland’s administration in 1893. However, the Populists were disappointed as they emerged from the elections in 1894 with six senators and seven representatives. They looked forward to the 1896 presidential election with great optimism. However, when the election came, the lines between Democrats and Republicans were clearly drawn. Republicans chose McKinley, who supported the gold standard. Democrats nominated Bryan, a silverite who made the famous Cross of Gold speech that ensured him the spot on the democratic ticket.

The Populists, instead of splitting the silver ticket with the Democrats, decided to support Bryan. McKinley won, meanwhile crushing the hopes of the Populist Party. Populism continued on the edge of politics until the turn of the century, but it took a fatal blow from the election of 1896. It died out for several reasons. One, the voters preferred the soundness of the two major political parties. Voters identified the party with the violence caused by Coxey’s Army, which was a protest group lead by Jacob Coxey that demanded the federal government provide jobs for the unemployed.

And the: Voters’ repudiation of Cleveland’s party opened the way for new Democratic leadership that would neutralize or enfold Populist appeal . . . Cries for free coinage seemed dangerous to both property owners and wage workers. Populists’ disinterest in tariff protection, which Republicans used brilliantly, also unnerved voters seeking prosperity. And the income tax, sub-treasury and other economic panaceas seemed illogical and dangerous amid depression (Morgan, 169). The party also dies out because it does not win any elections.

One noted historian declared, A number of important Populist leaders . . . sought something that no American political party has achieved before or since: a political coalition of the poor whites and the poor blacks of the south (Hart, 266). The Populists appealed to a low class in society, which made it nearly impossible to have a successful party. It is also hard to accomplish anything when a political party resembles that of a labor union and its formation arises because of economic despair.

A prosperous period would immediately cause the party to split up, which was the case with the Populists. The Populist movement was the most dramatic reform movement of several late nineteenth century reform efforts, and although it did not last long, it had a profound effect on the country. Populism became so influential quite rapidly because the country was in a transitional phase, which included major industrialism and overproduction and a large influx of immigrants. The lower class was fighting for a cause they felt very passionately about, their lives and their well being.

It is hard to imagine farmers, known as being very conservative, could endorse a platform so radical, but it was their quick fix solution to their problems. The Populists movement was quite successful, even though it did not prevail in a presidential election. It caused the fissures in the two major parties to widen, and in so doing, helped solidify the two major parties, and made their differences obvious. The other parties adopted many of their programs as well. The Populist Party signaled the passing of an agricultural American life, and it is often agreed that their ideas helped in the formation of the Progressive movement.

Should America Close the Golden Door

America has, is, and will always be a nation of immigrants: the great melting pot. In the years that have passed since Emma Lazarus poem was inscribed on the Statue of Liberty the golden door has seen times when it was open wide and times when it was closed shut to almost all immigrants. Many people tend to look at the present immigration problems as a purely modern dilemma. The truth is America has always struggled with the issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. Changing times however make it imperative that our government re-examine and adjust todays immigration laws to todays standards.

Those standards however are not easily defined. All too often the issue of immigration is used as a political tool or is lost in heated moral debates. In any discussion about immigration you will have those who claim it is good for our nation and those who claim it is ruining the nation. More often than not the bottom line in any debate of this sort is money; will more or less immigration mean more or less money for those already in America. The moral debates come down to a question of who we are as a nation and how we want the rest of the world to perceive Americans.

If this great country was forged and built by mmigrants passing through the golden door , then how can this same country turn away new immigrants. The inscription on the Statue of Liberty invites all to enter, yet not all are allowed to enter. Immigration has become a selective process with many gray areas. Now Americans are faced with a new dilemma; the nation must decide not whether it is willing to accept new immigrants, but whether it can afford new immigrants. All new immigrant, both legal and illegal must be considered in this equation.

Congress can attempt to ease the burden of legal immigration by passing restrictive laws and only allowing n those who they believe will become self-sufficient. Congress must also find a way to slow the flow of illegal immigration by enforcing the laws already in place. What this paper will attempt to do is bring the immigration issue into perspective. America most certainly has immigration problems but they will not be fixed by eliminating immigration all together. In fact, America will never totally eliminate immigration, because no matter how tightly the door is closed some illegal immigrants will get through.

As long as America continues to be seen as a nation of prosperity, pportunity, and freedom there will be those who wish to come to America. Immigrants have always come to America looking for a better life and Americans are always forgetting that their forefathers were once looking for that same life. As a nation there must be a decision on whether immigration is an issue of conscience or economics. Though most Americans see immigration as a modern problem it has been heavily debated since the 19th century.

Throughout most of Americas history immigration was seen as a natural process that benefited the nation (Divine 2). Until the 1890s there were no clearly defined policies on immigration. During this time the country started questioning the economic benefits of more immigrants, so things have note changed in that respect. In May 1921, the first bill in American history restricted European immigration and created the quota system (Divine 5). This turn toward restriction could be justified by the downward turn in the economy.

Who could argue for more immigrants when the nations own citizens couldnt find work. The slowing economy and the spirit of intense nationalism in the United States at this time made immigration a hot After the depression hit everyone was in agreement that there was a need to limit mmigration, of course the extent of those limits were not easily agreed upon (Divine 77). World War II brought with it a new set of immigrants, and eventually the passing of the Displaced Persons Act of 1947. This allowed immigrants, displaced by the war to enter the country above quota limits (Divine 128).

Since then our legislators have been faced with numerous proposals concerning immigration, too many in fact to mention. Those mentioned above are significant in the fact that they show a definite shift in Americas attitude toward immigration. Since the 1920s mmigration has not been seen as a natural process, but a process that could overwhelm a nation if As of this time there are no less than fifty proposed bills in Congress that can affect immigration, which proves that this is an ongoing battle with little chance of ending.

In recent years the immigration policy has found itself in a state of flux; going back and forth between pro and anti immigration. The Immigration Act of 1990 is one of the more current policies to regulate immigration. This policy sets a flexible annual limit on immigration at a rate of 700,000 immigrants per year until 1994 when the number will drop to 675,000. This number of course does not include refugees and those seeking asylum (Immigration… ). If these numbers seem staggering one must take into account the estimated 300,000 to 400,000 illegal immigrants added to the nations population each year (Suro 8).

In the mid-90s there was a shift in Americas immigration policy to close the doors and end the current era of immigration (Suro 8). In fact in President Clintons 1995 State of the Union Message he said: It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it. Immigration… ) This attitude led to the Immigration Enforcement Improvements Act of 1995, which was meant to secure our borders, make deportation of illegal easier, and discourage the employment of illegal aliens.

In essence this was a proposal to enforce the laws already in place. This was a strong attempt by the government to limit illegal immigration while facilitating legal immigration. As of now, due to the lack of credible data, it is unclear if this legislation worked. What is clear is the continuing struggle to find a balance in the immigration system. Many itizens are concerned with such issues as overpopulation, lack of jobs, and the cost to tax payers if this mass wave of legal and illegal immigrants continues (Castro 198).

America has established such an inherent open heart/open door policy that it seems the melting pot may be about to boil over. Some estimates put the United States population over capacity by as much as one-hundred million (Amselle 60). Americas lax attitude toward overpopulation may have turned to one of danger that must be avoided (Amselle 60). In the past immigration was somewhat balanced; a good economy meant more immigrants and a slower conomy saw a decrease in immigration (Amselle 60). There are those who feel the United States has absorbed all the people it can (Amselle 60).

Then you have those like Joel Kotkin of the Progressive Policy Institute who feel that the large numbers of immigrants are working age adults, that America needs to offset the growing number of pensioners (Amselle 60). Even if the immigrant population can offset the number of pensioners, the number of resources in the country will still be divide amongst a much larger population. One must also take into account the number of illegal immigrants added to the population. They will also be replacing those retiring pensioners at a lower wage with no taxes or social security payments.

America has a large population of baby boomers and will need working-age persons to fill the void left by their retirements, but there must be a limit to the number of immigrants we become dependant upon and a dramatic decrease in illegal immigrants. During the 1980s when all other industrialized nations were making restrictions on immigration Americas doors were open and now the nation begins the daunting task of closing those doors (Briggs 5). There is some concern that closing the oors could heighten the feeling that the nation is under siege (Suro 15).

Overpopulation is in itself a world wide issue but is not undisputed as a cause for concern in America. A lack of jobs is a major concern for most. Will there be enough jobs for everyone? Can our economy support its own citizens, immigrants, and illegal aliens. America is experiencing a period of economic health, but history shows that this upward economy will not last indefinitely. The working poor are concerned that illegal immigrants may be holding down wages and taking the few unskilled jobs that are available in some areas (Kirschten 16). These are legitimate fears that call into question the governments ability to regulate immigration.

Tax paying citizens are also concerned that the tax dollars they pay each year are being used to help educate illegal immigrants and not those who are rightfully in this country (Amselle 60). When there is a large population of immigrants in an area citizens tend to view them in a hostile manner because of the perceived notion that illegal immigrants are using resource meant for legal residents (Bean 204). In reality illegal immigrants have never been eligible for welfare and other public services (Castro Immigrants help to relieve our nations labor shortage.

The truth is that due to a decline in the fertility rate in the United States some leading demographers predict that without substantial immigration America will have a shrinking population (Briggs 127). A shrinking population would mean a higher cost of living and a slow decline in the economy. This alone does not diffuse the alarm of overpopulation but it does give a different view of the situation. Take into account the agricultural sector of American society which is heavily dependant upon immigrant workers, because non-immigrants are less willing to work on the farms (Mont 12).

In terms of legal immigrants, America must find a way to make immigration work for the good of the nation as well as the best interest of the immigrants (Briggs 240). In the end a young immigrant population may very well save such programs as social security by increasing the number of workers in the market (Mont 18). These are all economic benefits, but the diversity the United States gains is a priceless commodity that future generations of Americans will need to succeed in a growing The United States immigration policy does not allow people to immigrate if they are expected to be dependant on public services.

Yet in 1993 approximately 12% of the 5. 9 million recipients of Supplemental Security Income benefits were immigrants, even though they only account for about 5% of the population (Mont 15). Statistics such as these add to the growing anti-immigrant sentiment among American citizens. This anti-immigrant attitude was clearly reflected in 1994 with the passing of Californias Proposition 187. Actions such as Proposition 187 can create a very hostile and possibly dangerous atmosphere for all immigrants.

What it really boils down to is a belief among Americans that immigrants simply cost too much. Immigration means increased job competition, more money spent on welfare, and increased competition for educational funding. Although Proposition 187 was aimed at curbing the health care cost of illegal immigrants, most Americans simply see it as an immigrant issue and pay little attention to details concerning the status of those immigrants actually receiving benefits. Many believe that immigrant workers, both legal and illegal, hold down wages in low paying jobs.

Especially in areas such as Californias Central Valley where most of the workers are immigrant and up to 40% are believed The main concern with illegal immigration is the strain it can place upon the economy. There are also concerns about the nations sovereignty, if America cant control its borders then America may not be perceived as a sovereign nation (Mont 16). Illegal immigration is not only bad for the nation, but for the illegal immigrant as well. The fact that illegal workers have no recourse in the law makes them susceptible to unscrupulous business people who will exploit them simply to make money.

The supply of illegal workers has created a part of the United States business economy that works outside of government regulations (Suro 34). Illegal immigrants face lower wages, unsafe work environments, and a lack of benefits. This in turn keeps wages low and makes it difficult for legal residents to get these jobs. Most employers are looking at the bottom line and illegal immigrant workers mean less wages and benefits cost, which add up to more profit. The government of course passed laws in 1986 making it unlawful to hire illegal immigrants; then they failed to fund the enforcement of these same laws (Suro 32).

In reality illegal aliens make up less than 2% of the population, but what seems like an insignificant number of people has had great impact on our nation (Suro 50). The irony of the entire situation is that while the nation is calling for an end to illegal immigration, no one is forcing illegal immigrants to leave (Suro 35). While illegal aliens violate the law with their presence, we guarantee their children access to public education and emergency medical care (Suro 35). This is just one example of the many contradictions in Americas immigration policies.

These contradictions are what lead to the frustration many people feel toward a system that is no longer in control. Many citizens, especially the working poor, feel that illegal immigrants sometimes receive more benefits. The reality of illegal immigration is that it has been an increasingly difficult problem to solve. For three decades now our government has been trying to find ways to alleviate the number of illegal immigrants in the nation. One attempt was the Amnesty program in the mid-90s for those who had been in the country since 1992 (Suro 40).

Suro states that this covered only about 60% of the illegal population and drew much debate from California. Which is ironic seeing as how California is often at the forefront of the campaign against illegal immigration. Illegal immigration has become a familiar part of American society nd will not likely see much improvement in the next millenium. INS has published a booklet called Strategic Plan: INS 200, Accepting the Challenge, which outlines their mission and objectives for the coming year.

Most of these objectives are the same as they have always been: facilitate compliance with the law, create disincentives in the workplace, increase the security of INS documentation, and work with other agencies (U. S. Immigration… ). This isnt the first time the INS has had good objectives, but it isnt likely that they will receive the necessary funding to implement these plans successfully. Our government has ried to curb the flow of illegal immigrants with such actions as the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA], which is expected to reduce illegal migration from Mexico (U.

S. Immigration… 5). The problem is the timing of such policies; NAFTA is expected to work only after a decade in which Mexico can produce the jobs needed. The INS also reports that by the year 2000, the population of prime labor age in America will drop by 8. 5 million. That is a large loss of labor and can only be offset by the immigrant population. The key is to make sure that this decrease is offset by a legal immigrant population. That is what the government attempted to do with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Marley 880).

The intent was to cut back on crime, terrorism, and welfare fraud. They fell short of their intent because the inadvertently clumped all immigrants together, both legal and illegal (Marley 885). America will continue to allow immigrants to enter the country for numerous reasons; such as those who take up a common cause against a foreign foe, as a gesture of shame after some foreign debacle, for economic reasons, and for purely humanitarian purposes (United ecently we saw our government agree to accept 20,000 Kosovar refugees, and financially help with 20,000 more in Albania.

Now 20,000 is a tiny gesture in the big picture, but in a world of crises how many times can our government afford such gestures. Can America continue to play the role of the last true hope for the huddled masses of the world? Illegal immigration must be curbed. If nothing else it is unfair to those who wait for years to come to America legally. Currently illegal immigrants can choose to leave on their own meaning they can come back legally if they choose. Our laws say that we can formally deport these illegal immigrants and bar them from legal entry.

Why does our government continue to create loopholes in the laws they pass. I dont feel that those enter the country illegally should have a right to return; if they are willing to break immigration laws they are more likely to break other laws. What does this policy say to those who lawfully await entry? That in America youre only guilty if youre caught and then only if you dont agree to leave quietly. The lack of punishment for illegal migration is one of the reasons behind its increase.

That however is just my opinion and the would not disappear even if strict punishments were the norm. It is clear that the debate and controversy over immigration will not go away anytime in the near future. What is not clear however is how the nation will fare in the midst of such debate. In the past Americans were proud to be that one shining hope in the world. They were willing to accept the tired and poor, but America has changed and immigration must change also. To those in underdeveloped countries the Statue of Liberty and her invitation to a better life must be hard o resist.

What they dont see is what lies beyond her golden torch; a country teeming with people in fierce competition for that elusive dream of a better life. As a student of history and someone who is proud of my heritage I want to say let them come. Let all who need a better life come to America and try to build it here. As a realist I know that our country can only support so many people. There are only so many jobs, so much land for housing, and so forth. Maybe someday in the near future there will be a balance found between the economics and the humanitarianism.

The myth of a classless American society

The myth of a classless American society coupled with social stratification impedes race relations in the U. S. far more than any racial differences. The never ending struggle of the have-nots to become one of the haves produces a frustration and feeling of oppression that acts as a catalyst for spawning racial tensions. Minorities see the majority of wealth in the hands of the white population and feel that the wealth is unevenly distributed. Whites hear of government programs for minorities and feel as if they are lazy or just looking for a handout. This occurs and stereotypes are formed.

Combine all of this with the United States system of dual welfareand the perfect environment for racial strife is created. In our classlesssociety of false hope the working class and poor are continually seeking opportunities to excel that just aren’t there. They have been led to believe that intelligence and ambition are key contributors to one’s success. This belief lays blame on the unsuccessful themselves, even if they do possess ambition and intelligence. These people are in a never ending cycle of struggle, followed by minimal rewards, which eventually produces a frustration that sometimes leads to desperate measures.

Cornell West expands on this with the following statement : . . . homicidal assaults by young black men on one another are only the most obvious signs of this empty quest for pleasure, property, and power (Race and Racism p. 123). This statement shows the extremes one will go to in his empty quest for a better life. This is not only happening 2 to blacks by blacks. It is happening to all races by all races. People hear of events like these and categorize them as a racial crime or a racially motivated crime just because the victims may be of a different race.

As West’s statement demonstrates the killings ccur as a means to an end, the end being a better life. In our ever diversifying melting pot of a country, same race victim and criminal crimes are becoming less and less statistically likely anyway. Events such as these don’t occur because of race. They occur because of the frustration and desperation bred by the false hope that hard work and determination leads to success. It is no mystery that most of the wealthy people in America are white. West again points out (Race and Racism p. 124) that 86% of the wealth in the United States is owned by only 10% of the population.

In this 10% the number of minorities is minute. The wealth owned by this few is there because they have kept it in their families throughout the generations. These are the same super-rich bloodlines as that of 150 years ago. These families were rich when no minorities (and hardly any whites for that matter) were. Almost everyone was working class or poor besides them. Minorities are aware of this uneven wealth distribution and this leads to resentment. Our government tries to compensate for this through special programs for minorities.

When this occurs whatever groups are not receiving compensation see the other as lazy or as taking a handout. In 3 turn this leads to resentment. Different groups begin stereotyping each other due to the resentment which evolved through unequal wealth distribution, which itself is a product of our classless system. So in turn stereotypes that Mexicans are lazy, African Americans steal, Whites cannot dance and White men have small penises, Jews are ultra- thrifty, Lesbians are men haters, Gay men all like antiques, and Asians are shrewd at business and all stick together, are in all probability (definitely) unfounded.

Despite the fact that these stereotypes are unfounded, much of the resentment may not be. Here in the United States as much, if not more, money is spent on programs for the rich as is spent on programs for the poor. Donna Langston points this out with the following statement: We have a dual welfare’ system in this country whereby welfare for the rich in the form of tax- free capital gain, guaranteed loans, oil depletion allowances, etc. , is not regarded as welfare (Race And Racism p. 129). Here Langston compares the welfare of the poor (food stamps, w. i. c. edicaid, etc. ) with the welfare of the rich (tax-free capital gain, guaranteed loans, etc. ).

These few examples of welfare for the rich are just the tip of the iceberg. Before you come to any premature conclusions consider the following. The majority of corporations in the United States are owned by Whites. Each year these White owned corporations get $125 billion dollars in the from of corporate welfare. 4 This is money that could be used on the less fortunate, who are mainly minorities, but instead it is funneled into primarily White owned corporations.

People hear of this and once again assume that this is based on race, thereby making it a racial issue. It’s not, it is a class issue. Billions and billions of dollars are spent each year on national defense for the United States. Who really benefits from this the most, the wealthy or the poor? Of course everyone benefits somewhat, but the rich benefit considerably more. If the United States was invaded and taken over by another country the decrease in the quality of living for the rich would be far greater than that of the poor.

In all actuality the lifestyle change of the poor would probably be somewhat minimal. Consider the millions and millions of dollars that are spent each year on the United States Coast Guard (which is under the D. O. T. ‘s budget, and not the national defense budget) and the waterways that it protects. How often is it that you see a yacht traveling on the U. S. waterways filled with poor people or minorities? How many poor people even own a boat? These waterways are mainly used by the United States White upperclass. And what about the tax dollars spent on police and fire protection?

Of course these are necessities, but who benefits more? The rich have more material possessions that can be stolen or destroyed. And last but not least is our countries system of social security. Every race in the country pays the same percent of social security at about six percent. The only people 5 exempt from this standard six percent is the green minority. Once a person reaches the income level of $60,000 or more they top out, that’s as high as one can go. The higher the income above $60,000, the lower the percentage they pay.

If someone makes 50 billion dollars a year they pay the same amount as someone making $60,000 a year, or roughly about $3,600. So theoretically, if you were to take a husband and wife that each make $30,000 a year, the combined amount that they pay in is equal to the amount that Bill Gates pays in. There’s something about this whole system that just doesn’t seem proportionately correct. It seems like the percentage sacrificed should be the same across the board. All the examples I have given may seem like this paper is about the wealthy and the poor, and not about racial differences in the United States.

If it does there is a reason for that. The upper class or super rich, whichever you want to call them, receive more benefits than the poor. The upper class is mainly white and the poor and working class are a mixture of all races. This gives the appearance that assistance is based on race, when it’s not. It is based on class. People see these events and make generalizations and this in turn leads to racial tension. If steps are taken to make classless America a reality, then these racial tensions would ease.

Woodrow Wilson and American Diplomacy

Until early in [the twentieth] century, the isolationist tendency prevailed in American foreign policy. Then, two factors projected America into world affairs: its rapidly expanding power, and the gradual collapse of the international system centered on Europe . President Woodrow Wilson was the leader who would initiate the ideologies of American diplomacy in the twentieth century. Up until his Presidency, American foreign policy was simply to fulfill the course of manifest destiny, and to remain free of entanglements overseas.

Although he could not convince his fellow politicians on Capitol Hill of the probable success of his ideas, he did persuade the fellow writers of the Treaty of Versailles to use his Fourteen Points. Americas role as a political global superpower was established during his Presidency, as well as the modern policy that peace depends on the spread of democracy, and that national interest consists of adhering to a global system of law. The formation of modern American diplomacy can not only be attributed to Wilson, for the policies of Theodore Roosevelt are what initiated his diplomatic policies.

Roosevelt convinced Congress to strengthen the Army and Navy, and began major involvement in European affairs. His foreign policy regarding the Caribbean followed the policy of the Monroe Doctrine, that to maintain order in the Caribbean, foreign nations could not be involved, however Roosevelt did not follow the Doctrine to the extent of forceful evacuation of the Americas, he did use diplomatic means. He prevented European warfare in Venezuela, by negotiating with the involved nations. He found that it was Americas duty, just as all other powerful nations duties, to police the world and maintain order.

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was issued, and it stated that America would be the police force of the Americas, and that European intervention was not necessary. This major step showed that America had no goals in obtaining new territories in the Caribbean, and was a measure to protect the Panama region from upheaval. Wilson would follow Roosevelts ideologies but to an even greater extent as he created a modern Monroe Doctrine. National aspirations must be respected; peoples may now be dominated, and[may now] be governed only by their own consent.

Self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action Peoples and provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a game Every territorial settlement involved in this war must be made in the interest and for the benefit of the populations concerned. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. From 1913-1917, Wilson and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan had to deal with an unstable Mexican government.

Bryan was easily the leading opponent of imperialism and navalism and a pioneer in the movement to advance peace through arbitration and conciliation. The Wilsonian foreign policy was the start of the concept that war should be avoided at all costs. This policy, named New Freedom diplomacy, was seen in the ordeal with Mexico. Wilson only desired to see the Mexicans establish a constitutional government, and overthrow the new leader of Mexico, Victoriano Huerta. As soon as Huerta seized power from the unstable government, some of the northern states began anti-Huerta campaigns.

At first Wilson suggested that America would mediate the dispute between Huerta and the Governor of Coahuila, Venustiano Carranza, and his followers in the Constitutionalist movement. But to Wilsons surprise both parties utterly rejected any American interference. On October 13, 1913, Huerta arrested most of the chamber of deputies and inaugurated a military dictatorship. Wilson was so angered by the breakup of any democratic means in Mexico that he gave full support to the Constitutionalist movement. Wilson prevented a German merchant ship from delivering arms to Huerta, by taking the port at Veracruz.

Wilsons challenge was to avoid a war with Mexico, while having American troops on Mexican soil. Carranza was opposed to this acquisition and denounced the American government. Carranza and his armies eventually took Mexico City, and abdicated the dictator on July 15, 1914. After Carranza seized control, a split in the Constitutionalist movement plunged Mexico into civil war. Fansico Pancho Villa, Carranzas greatest general broke ties and led the revolt. Villa became very corrupt, and would seek nothing but full control of Mexico, and not negotiating at all, war was his only tool.

Villa declared war on Carranza, and a civil war had begun. Carranzas army swiftly removed the provisional government of Villa. Began attacking American citizens. Sixteen Americans were killed in a massacre as Villas men stopped a train at Santa Ysabel. Another nineteen were killed as Villa burnt Columbus, New Mexico on March 9, 1916. The actions by Villa tested Wilson in declaring war, but he refused, and instead tried diplomatic means. Instead of actual war, he sent a small battalion across the border to obtain Villa, but never to attack Carranza.

Carranza was upset by the American actions and demanded that they leave Mexico immediately. Wilson refused, and sent the National Guard to the border. There were two brief skirmishes with the Constitutionalists. Carranza and Wilson new that neither nation could afford a war, thus there was a peace settlement. There was a joint commission between the nations from 1916-1917, and no official treaty was written because there was no official war. Wilson had succeeded; he reformed the corrupt Mexican government into a democracy. Many presidents during the Cold War would follow this policy.

The spread of democracy has been the basis of American foreign policy after World War II; future presidents defeated communism in similar, more modern, ways. Prior to American entry in to World War II, Wilsons foreign policy with Europe was to try and maintain a balance of diplomatic relations between both sides of the conflict. Actions like this have been taken previous to Wilson, seen with Jefferson and Madison during the Commercial Warfare era with Britain and France. The events the brought America into the war, were very similar to those of the Commercial Warfare period.

Both involved the usage of international trade barriers, and a naval war. Wilsons policies at this time were very similar to those of Jefferson, neutrality was key, but in both situations involvement on one-side of the conflict could not be avoided. It is still Americas goal to open new foreign markets, and raw materials through diplomatic policies. The dominant American reaction in August 1914 was relief that America was far removed from the scene of conflict, coupled with conviction that the United States had no vital stake in the outcome.

Wilson new that the war might have a disastrous effect on the American economy had he not made actions to prevent a crash on Wall St. He closed the stock market on July 31, 1914 to prevent the deflation of European securities, causing a possible panic. Foreign ships were allowed to fly the American flag when transporting American goods to avoid seizure at sea. The government discouraged loans by American bankers to belligerent governments because they violated the spirit of neutrality. During the years of war without American military involvement, it was very difficult to have neutrality of trade.

At the start of the war Britain ruled the seas, and rarely allowed trade with Germany, but never issued a formal statement. In time German submarines would overthrow the British cruise ships, as the owner of the sea, but this was mostly a bluff. On May 17, 1915 the German U-boats sank the Lusitania even though it carried nothing related to the military whatsoever. Of the 1200 people onboard the ship 128 were American. The American sentiment was still peace; war would be too costly. Wilson would write three notes to the German government trying to maintain peace, and also prevent such occurrences in the future.

Germany paid no intention to the notes, even though Wilson used extremely diplomatic language to avoid the conflict, stating the any future attack as deliberately unfriendly. Germany would ignore the notes completely, and sank another non-military ship killing two Americans. Wilson was outraged, he and new Secretary of State Lansing demanded that Germany stop attacking commercial ships without giving warning, and proper safety to passengers, this became known as the Arabic pledge named after the sunken ship. This event elevated anti-German sentiment in a time of much conspiracy in German-American relations.

The American government would also denounce Britains blockade, as a prevention of neutral international trade. Maintaining neutrality became a hardship. During 1915 and 1916 America was on the brink of war, with any one enemy action against the United States, and war was inevitable. There was such tension in diplomacy, that when Wilson sent Colonel House to Europe to try and mediate a peace settlement, both sides refused without ridiculous opposing clauses. House would try numerous times in diplomatic missions only to fail. A major issue was the preparedness controversy.

It was Wilsons belief that having a large standing army and building munitions was unfavorable. In 1915 he would make a concession to allow the expansion by 400,000 troops, but they would serve very short terms. In 1916 he had to satisfy Congress, and he doubled the size of the military, but left the National Guard as it was. The preparedness changes set off debate throughout the government. Congress and the President would have to form a resolution on the expansion of the military. There was strong opposition from the agrarian society, but was favored heavily by the industrialists.

Many democrats of the south and west formed an anti-preparedness bloc in debate. The navy would rapidly expand as well with the authorization of the building of over 30 ships and 3 submarines during the first year of a 3-year plan. The Merchant Marine Act of 1916 was established with support from the president. The act called for the creation of a government run shipping system, and a new agency, the United States Shipping Board. The USSB had the power to own and operate merchant ships, as well as to regulate rates and service of all merchant shipping, interstate, coastwise, and foreign commerce.

The president had is way with the militarization. The future of the American military would follow the actions of Wilson. The National Guard would fall under the War Department jurisdiction, and America would have a large standing military at all times. During times of war the military would be enlarged with the use of reserves. Wilson changed the future of neutral military. In 1917 Woodrow Wilson brought America into the war, and one of the major reasons was to save democracy in Europe. The Germans were winning the war, and after Russia withdrew from the war, it was mostly a one front war for Germany.

They had irrational settlements for peace, and after France and England declined, the reopened unrestricted submarine warfare, and had thoughts of taking over the Western nations shortly. The Zimmerman Telegram was the validity of American entry. The German ambassador stated to the Mexican and Japanese government that if American entered the war in Europe, they declared war on the United States, their old territories would be returned to them. This shocked the American public, and when the German U-boats sank three more American merchant ships, the cabinet decided that they must go to war.

Congress overwhelmingly agreed with Wilsons sentiment and on April 6, 1917 the United States declared war on Germany. Wilson avoided war to the fullest extent, but the merchants could no longer take the beating at see that they were getting. Avoidance of war, and taking diplomacy to the fullest extent, would be used throughout the twentieth century. The Cold War is a perfect example, the presidents never allowed the United States to go into a state of war with Russia. The American War Dept. raised 3,000,000 men for battle and the Navy expanded its already great strength.

The Germans would get beaten back, and the Allies would win the war in the fall of 1918. It was time to establish a treaty to try and prevent another World War from occurring. The allied nations agreed to meet at Versailles, France, starting January 1, 1919. The major fault in the peace settlement would be that only neutral nations and allied nations were invited, and only the allies played a significant role. With the central powers not attending, none of their voices could be heard, this is believed to be a major reason for the failure of the settlement, a cause of the Great Depression, and the rise of Hitler.

The name Woodrow Wilson seems to be synonymous with two words, Fourteen Points. The Fourteen Points were Wilsons major accomplishment in office. Wilson introduced his theory on what measures would be successful, in not only preventing Germany from beginning a war again, but to prevent all wars. After all it was the war to end all wars. His elaborate Fourteen points were outlined in two groups the obligatory, the must be fulfilled and six more specific nonessential, but valuable clauses.

The eight musts included open diplomacy, freedom of the seas, general disarmament, the removal of international trade barriers, impartial settlement of colonial claims, the restoration of Belgium, the evacuation of Russian territory, and Wilsons greatest thought, the establishment of an international organization, the League of Nations. The thought of an international organization based on the ideology of peace was not Wilsons original idea; many had found collective security valuable.

Theodore Roosevelt gave a speech in 1910 to the Nobel Prize committee in which he proclaimed it would be a master stroke if those great Powers honestly bent on peace would form a League of Peace, but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others. Roosevelt merely made speeches on the idea, whereas Wilson made the idea a reality. The League of Nations would fail, however the idea still burned on, and the United Nations would be formed after the Second World War. The immediate conception is that it wasnt Woodrow Wilsons doing that created the successful United Nations.

However, the idea of an international organization that Wilson proclaimed and it unsuccessfulness, can be compared with the Articles of Confederation; both were stepping stones on the path to success, and without Wilsons initiation of the League of Nations the triumph of the United Nations may never have occurred. Wilsons use of an international organization to benefit the peace and security of the world, and more importantly the United States, was an action that was taken by most presidents in post-World War II.

The other six points, which were up for negotiation, were the restoration of Alsace-Loraine to France, self-determination in the remains of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, evacuation of the Balkans, readjustment of Italys frontiers, internationalization of the Dardanelles, and the creation of Poland with access to the sea. Wilson went to the peace conference at Versailles to present the points himself. In a time when it took one week to travel across the Atlantic, this was a rarity. Future presidents would follow his lead.

Especially with the advent of modern planes, making voyages much more efficient. Now it is frequent that leaders meet at conferences and negotiations all over the world. This most likely would have occurred with or without Wilson, however leaving the US for 6 months, only returning once, was revolutionary. No President had ever been away so long. This greatly affected the way Congress, and their isolationist tendencies, would look upon the Treaty of Versailles, and more importantly Wilsons League of Nations.

Wilsons statement of a modern Monroe Doctrine (see p. ) is not referred to as the Monroe Doctrine was in stating American policy for the next century, however, the ideas conveyed in those phrases is what American diplomacy became in the twentieth century. Wilson avoided war with Mexico, he avoided war with Germany until any hope for diplomacy was destroyed, and he used diplomatic techniques in the most precise manner. Although the isolationist Congress did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, because of the League of Nations, Wilsons diplomatic spirit still lived on.

America would join the League of Nations, and be a global superpower in the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. America has become what Wilson dreamed of, the economic, social, and political superpower. All fourteen points were eventually established, with interpretation on the general disarmament clause. Government officials might not study Wilson, they might not realize that it was he who shaped modern American diplomacy, it was he who shaped the twentieth century.

The issue of American culture

The issue of American culture and its globalization has raised a lot of controversy. The era of globalization is becoming the preferred term to describe the current times. The term Americanization has been around for years. It was first used when the United States was being heavily immigrated into. The new Americans began to enjoy the freedoms associate with our country and gradually began to act less like a foreigner and more like a real American. Today we are able to witness an essence of American culture almost everywhere around the world by what we call cultural icons of our times.

Sneakers, blue jeans, burgers, Hollywood blockbusters are only a few. To many, globalization is synonymous with Nike, Levi’s and MTV. In fact, the most visible sign of globalization seems to be the spread of American burgers and cola to nearly every country on earth. It crowns the United States the king of pop culture. Globalization does more than allow businesses to operate in countries all around the globe. In addition to global commerce, globalization allows for social activism, journalists, academics, and many others to work on a global stage.

According to Keith Porter, a co-host and executive producer of a nationally syndicated radio program on world affairs globalization can be both a good and bad thing. He quotes, Thomas Friedman in saying Globalization can be incredibly empowering and incredibly coercive. It can democratize opportunity and democratize panic. It makes the whales bigger and the minnows stronger. It leaves you behind faster and faster, and it catches up to you faster and faster. While it is homogenizing cultures, it is also enabling people to share their unique individuality farther and wider.

Without the role of globalization it is not possible to speak of a term called American dominant culture. The dramatic effect of globalization has and will be strengthening this term. People around the world have become less like themselves and more like each other. The most common name that puts this in front of our eyes is McDonalds. When a McDonalds restaurant opens in a foreign country, it represents the penetration of a foreign symbol into a host country.

The adoption of that symbol invariably initiates a metamorphic transformation whereby that symbol is refined within the culture in question, including the use of the products in question and the role they play in the particular cultural setting. So with the introduction of a foreign symbol into a host country like a new McDonalds restaurant, the impact is not so dramatic and the host country does not fully take in the American culture but shapes it in a way to suit their lifestyle and tastes. For example, the food and names of the food at McDonalds in Tokyo is slightly different to those in America.

In India, it serves lamb burgers and in Germany beer is available. This shows that the American formula was not as international as had been hoped, and local cultural practices had to be acknowledged. That is to say, globalization is not determined in its effects; the cultures impacted upon are not without resilience and creativity. The American culture passes through so many filters as it crosses the ocean – filters of language, values, and references – that what East Europeans are receiving for example is far from what Americans think they are sending.

The term Americanization was originally used to describe the movement during the first quarter of the 20th cent, whereby the immigrant in the United States was induced to assimilate American speech, ideals, traditions, and ways of life (http://www. encyclopedia. com/searchpool. asp? [email protected]%20Americanization. ) The times have changed, but the process of Americanization is still happening only on a worldwide scale. Ambassador Cynthia P. Schneider gave a speech at Erasmus University on the topic of Americanization.

She believes that the reasoning behind the output of American culture is because the United States is a world leader, both in terms of economic and cultural influences. It is also the same country that experiences many of the changes we call modernism (http://globalization. about. com/gi/dynamic/offsite. htm? site=http://www. usemb. nl/051800. htm. ) The United States is very accepting. We dont have standard that are written in stone that tell us what is acceptable and what is not. We, for the most part, willingly agree to change and adapt our products for change.

The United States has a democratic government that allows for free speech and the same rights for everyone in its boarders. Although the United States has a relatively low dependence on international trade for most goods, the size of its economy its international is immense (Fu-chen Lo,76. ) Since the United States is more independent than many other nations, it capitalizes on its strengths. In addition to fulfilling Americans needs, the country has begun to meet the worlds too. By exporting American products, we are not only sending out the item for consumption but also our culture.

When the topic of Canada comes up among peoples, immediately the thought of ice hockey, the Mounted Police, and beavers comes to mind. In fact, Canada has truly lost its true identity that we once knew. It is slowly being assimilated and in fact Americanized in aspects of social identity, nationality and especially entertainment. Canada is an example of how much influence one country can have over another. Canada has a population of 30. 7 million. (http://www. infocan. gc. ca/facts/index_e. html) This number is fairly small when compared to the over 280 million people living in the United States.

For almost the past one hundred years the United States has used it size and power to overtake the Canadian entertainment industry. Since the 1920s the Canadians have struggled to evict Hollywood and the mega production-distribution complexes that control theaters in Canada (http://www. tv. cbc. ca/national/pgminfo/border/filmfact. html. ) In the past few years there have been very few popular movies, tv shows and musical acts from Canada. The most popular films have been Exotica, Black Robe and Jesus of Montreal. Most Americans would not recognize the titles of these popular Canadian films.

Although these films were more popular in their homeland than in the United States, Canadian films often have a difficult time finding a large audience in their country. Canadian films collect merely between four and six percent of the Canadian box office revenues (http://www. tv. cbc. ca/national/pgminfo/border/filmfact. html. ) To ensure the continuation of the dominance in the Canadian market many American studios have established distribution offices in Canada. In 2000, the major U. S. production-distribution houses control 80-94% of the theatrical film market (http://www. tv. c. ca/national/pgminfo/border/filmfact. html. )

A few of the major studios already with offices in the country include Universal, Warner Bros. and Disney. By setting up shop in Canada these companies are almost guaranteeing their success. They will receive the best advance publicity, the longest runs, and the best theatres. On the other hand, films made by Canadian films get few previews or press kits, and very little hype. Dominance of American movies is not limited to Canada. Another example of supremacy the United States film industry has over other countries is in Germany.

In this country imported popular culture from America is common. Almost 95% of films shown in theaters in Germany are films from Hollywood (http://www. rice. edu/projects/topics/globalization/movies-germany. htm. ) Just about all of the films are dubbed in German because the audience prefers to watch the movie in their native language. The power of American entertainment is not just limited to films produced in Hollywood. The television industry in the United States is huge. Throughout the years our selection has become larger.

Since the early eighties cable television has been added to public television, followed by the satellite dish. In the last five year Direct TV has becoming increasingly popular. Not only are programs produced in the United States popular here but in nations around the globe. Syndicated television is popular all around the world. It would be near impossible for a channel to have new programming that they created running twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Not only would it be hard to create that kind of volume but also production cost would be incredibly high.

Syndicated material is the answer for both of these problems. Syndicated programming is nationally produced programming that is supplied to stations (Folkerts, 188). The United States programming is used worldwide to fill in the needs of those countries that cannot provide enough material to fill the hours. It is not only popular because it fills in the gaps. Because of the expectations of the American public has about the standard of television the United States our programming is often of a higher quality than those produced internationally.

Even counties that have a strong domestic television industry have a high import rate of American television. Brazil, Mexico and Argentina import more than seventy percent of films and television series from the United States. These shows account for more than fifty percent of prime time (Thussu, 174). In countries where the television system is less sophisticated the numbers are even higher. In Latin America and the Caribbean more than sixty-two percent was imported from the United States. Thirty percent of the programming was from other countries on the continent.

Europe provided six percent of the shows while the rest of the world supplied only two percent (Thussu, 174). These numbers show the role that the United States plays in providing television for the rest of the world. Considering how much of the worlds entertainment the United States exports people may wonder why some individuals choose to complain about what they see. According to Daya Kishan Thussu, author of International Communication: Continuity and Change some countries are afraid that our programming promotes individualism and self-indulgence.

While these things are not considered to be bad or evil in the United States, other countries perceive these messages to be less than desirable. They fear that by watching American programming that often depict a people satisfying their every desire they will lose or damage traditional values such as respect for elders and the family. Many Americans, upon hearing this often scoff and say that we have a high moral system. While this may be true, the image most often projected by the entertainment industry does not suggest this.

Professor Kim Smith at Iowa State University lectured to his students that entertainment television does not represent the world we live in. It exaggerates, ignores and distorts the real world. The result is that television represents characters in a highly stereotypical manor. An excellent example of how true his beliefs are is the number one globally syndicated show is Baywatch (Thussu 168). This show hardly represents the typical American. Baywatch is not popular because of its high entertainment quality but rather because of the amount of promotion behind it.

Smith also stated that we watch these shows to be entertained and escape from the real world. The United States also portrayed as an extremely violent culture in television and film. Seventy-five percent of shows contain at least one act of violence. In these shows it is often the police, or another authority person, that is portrayed as being violent, not the criminal. In addition the majority of victims tend to be innocent random people (Smith). It is understandable that other cultures would be tentative about wanting to assimilate the United States, as it is portrayed on television.

Music Television (MTV) is one of the most flourishing world wise corporations. While most Americans think of the channel as strictly American, the company has gone global in a huge way. Think globally, act locally. The networks slogan could be the reason for their worldwide success. By targeting different areas and applying the regions individualistic music style to the channel MTV has been able to be successful all around the world. Although each channel is designed to appeal to a certain culture there is a large amount of English-language popular or rock music on all of the networks.

In 1999 MTV reached over 314 million households in eighty-three different countries and boasted that they were the most widely distributed network in the world (Thussu 172). Although MTV began in the United States, it has become amazing popular overseas. The networks biggest market is Asia that was launched in 1995. More than 107 million households in twenty countries watch MTV on a regular basis (Thussu 172). The channel broadcasts in both English and Mandarin.

MTV Asia has some real competition from its challenger Channel V. This channel is part of the star platform and claims to reach 72 million homes in Asia (Thussu 173). Europe is MTVs second largest market. Created in 1987, MTV Network Europe reaches eighty-three million homes in forty-one countries. This market has received a giant boost by the growth the increased usage of satellites and digital cable. MTV Europe is also broadcasted in English. In 1996 the channel split into four separate services. They are MTV in Britain and Ireland, MTV Central (includes Austria, Germany, and Switzerland), MTV Europe (35 counties), and MTC Southern (Italy).

A fifth service, MTV Nordic, was later added for the markets of Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland (Thussu, 173). The United States is the third largest market for the MTV network with a loyal following of seventy-two million. The network is so popular that it was able to split and form MTV2. This channel shows more music video, and often will preview new and less popular artists before their appearance on MTV. MTV is a true media powerhouse. As a symbol of what is popular not only in the United State but also all over the world the network has immense influence on its viewers.

Because MTVs power of influence on what is popular, advertising on the station is at a premium. By advertising on the network companies are able to reach an influential global audience. International advertisers, especially record companies, often want to use MTVs global reach and name to market their products. .. targeting youth throughout the world would be much sought after by advertisers seeking to expand their share of the world market for specific consumer goods of interest to youth, including jeans, designer clothes, watched and soft drinks (Thussu, 173).

Globalization sped up dramatically because of leaps and bounds made in communication technology in the past forty years. Today we are no longer limited by geography because of the technological society in which we live. In addition to having a having a two-way communications system, such as the telephone, we also have a advanced mass media system. All the new technologies have greatly accelerated the globalization process. The rate at which we can communicate with others half way around the world is mind-boggling.

The United States, as well as other countries, can now export ideas through mass media in seconds with the touch of a button. Cultural globalization implies a two-way relationship. However this does not tend to be the case. An Indian novelist commented, I have yet to hear that there is any writer in the West who is waiting with trepidation to hear what a critic in India has to say about her/him (Thussu, 181). This also tends to happen with the other forms of media. Occasionally shows will take on serious issues that are of global interest.

In Gilligan Unbound, a book written by Paul Cantor, it talks about how the American made television show The X-Files poses the questionWhat would the world be like without cell phones, modems, fax machines and all the other modern communication devises (210. ) For a show that usually includes vast amounts of high-tech global technology, this is quite a leap. Americanization has been around since the beginning the twentieth century. Since then the context of the term has changed but the expansion of American culture has exploded across not only boarders but also across thousands of miles of oceans.

The technologies that have made transcontinental communications possible has ensured that the world slightly conform and make very different cultures mesh into various ones that more resemble each other. As communication techonolgy continues to become better and more powerful it will be interesting to see the changes that it will lead to. Perhaps in ten years college students will no longer be writing about the topics of globalization and Americanization. Instead they will write about the time when cultures were so very different from each other.

The struggle for social and economic equality of Black people in America

The struggle for social and economic equality of Black people in America has been long and slow. It is sometimes amazing that any progress has been made in the racial equality arena at all; every tentative step forward seems to be diluted by losses elsewhere. For every “Stacey Koons” that is convicted, there seems to be a Texaco executive waiting to send Blacks back to the past. Throughout the struggle for equal rights, there have been courageous Black leaders at the forefront of each discrete movement.

From early activists such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and W. E. B. DuBois, to 1960s civil rights leaders and radicals such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and the Black Panthers, the progress that has been made toward full equality has resulted from the visionary leadership of these brave individuals. This does not imply, however, that there has ever been widespread agreement within the Black community on strategy or that the actions of prominent Black leaders have met with strong support from those who would benefit from these actions. This report will examine the influence of two “early era” Black activists: Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois.

Through an analysis of the ideological differences between these two men, the writer will argue that, although they disagreed over the direction of the struggle for equality, the differences between these two men actually enhanced the status of Black Americans in the struggle for racial equality. We will look specifically at the events leading to and surrounding the “Atlanta Compromise” in 1895. In order to understand the differences in the philosophies of Washington and Dubois, it is useful to know something about their backgrounds.

Booker T. Washington, born a slave in 1856 in Franklin County, Virginia, could be described as a pragmatist. He was only able to attend school three months out of the year, with the remaining nine months spent working in coal mines. He developed the idea of Blacks becoming skilled tradesmen as a useful stepping-stone toward respect by the white majority and eventual full equality. Washington worked his way through Hampton Institute and helped found the Tuskeegee Institute, a trade school for blacks.

His essential strategy for the advancement of American Blacks was for them to achieve enhanced status as skilled tradesmen for the present, then using this status as a platform from which to reach for full equality later. Significantly, he argued for submission to the white majority so as not to offend the power elite. Though he preached appeasement and a “hands off” attitude toward politics, Washington has been accused of wielding imperious power over “his people” and of consorting with the white elite.

William Edward Burghardt DuBois, on the other hand, was more of an idealist. DuBois was born in Massachusetts in 1868, just after the end of the Civil War and the official end of slavery. A gifted scholar, formal education played a much greater role in DuBois’s life than it did in Washington’s. After becoming a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Fisk and Harvard, he was the first Black to earn a Ph. D. from Harvard in 1895. DuBois wrote over 20 books and more than 100 scholarly articles on the historical and sociological nature of the Black experience.

He argued that an educated Black elite should lead Blacks to liberation by advancing a philosophical and intellectual offensive against racial discrimination. DuBois forwarded the argument that “The Negro problem was not and could not be kept distinct from other reform movements. . . ” DuBois “favored immediate social and political integration and the higher education of a Talented Tenth of the black population. His main interest was in the education of the group leader, the man who sets the ideas of the community where he lives. . . To this end, he organized the “Niagara movement,” a meeting of 29 Black business and professional men, which led to the formation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

The crux of the struggle for the ideological center of the racial equality movement is perhaps best exemplified in Mr. DuBois’s influential The Souls of Black Folk. In it, he makes an impassioned argument for his vision of an educated Black elite. DuBois also describes his opposition to Booker T. Washington’s “Atlanta Compromise” as follows: “Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission… ” According to DuBois, Washington broke the mold set by his predecessors: “Here, led by Remond, Nell, Wells- Brown, and Douglass, a new period of self-assertion and self- development dawned…. But Booker T. Washington arose as essentially the leader not of one race but of two–a compromiser between the South, the North, and the Negro. ”

DuBois reported that Blacks “resented, at first bitterly, signs of compromise which surrendered their civil and political rights, even though this was to be exchanged for larger chances of economic development. DuBois’s point and, according to him, the collective opinion of the majority of the Black community, was that self- respect was more important than any potential future economic benefits.

Before Washington’s conciliatory stance gained a foothold, “the assertion of the manhood rights of the Negro by himself was the main reliance. ” In other words, DuBois resented what he saw as Washington “selling” Black pride: “… Mr. Washington’s programme naturally takes an economic cast, becoming a gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely to overshadow the higher aims of life. ”

The compromise included, in DuBois’s words, “that black people give up, at least for the present, three things,– “First, political power, Second, insistence on civil rights, Third, higher education of Negro youth,–and concentrate all their energies on industrial education, the accumulation of wealth, and the conciliation of the South. ” The final point comprised the centerpiece both of Washington’s strategy for the ultimate redemption of Black Americans and of DuBois’s condemnation of that strategy. Indeed, Washington backed up his assertions by founding the Tuskeegee Institute as a trade school for young Black men.

DuBois could not abide this type of appeasement. In his mind, this step was tantamount to the Black community telling the white community that, henceforth, Blacks would cease pretending to be equal to whites as human beings; rather, they would accept an overtly inferior social status as being worthy of maintaining the white majority’s physical world, but unworthy of true equality, of conducting socio-cultural discourse with the mainstream society. The paradox must have been maddening for both men, especially Mr. Washington.

He no doubt understood that, as a group, Blacks could never hope to progress to the point of equality from their position of abject poverty. Moreover, without skills, their hopes of escaping their economic inferiority were indeed scant. Washington’s plan for blacks to at least become skilled artisans and tradesmen must have seemed logical to him from the standpoint of improving the economic lot of the average Black man. At the same time, he must have realized that, by accepting inferiority as a de- facto condition for the entire race, he may have broken the black spirit forever.

In considering this matter, the writer is reminded of more recent events in American history–the affirmative action flap that occurred after Clarence Thomas’s appointment to the U. S. Supreme Court, for example. Mr. Thomas, clearly a beneficiary of affirmative action, announced that he was nonetheless opposed to it. His argument was that if he had not been eligible for benefits under affirmative action programs, he would have still achieved his current position in the inner circle of this society’s white power elite.

Similarly, Booker T. Washington enjoyed access to the power elite of his time, but one must wonder whether President Roosevelt, for example, in his interactions with Mr. Washington, was not merely using the situation for public relations value. “[Mr. Washington] was intimate’ with Roosevelt from 1901 to 1908. On the day Roosevelt took office, he invited Washington to the White House to advise him on political appointments of Negroes in the south. ” After all, he did not become a popular president by being oblivious to such political maneuvering. Perhaps Mr. DuBois was the more prescient visionary. Perhaps he understood what Mr. Washington did not, that after the critical historical momentum toward social acceptance that had been established prior to the late nineteenth century, if political pressure were not maintained, the cause of true equality would be lost forever.

Moreover, DuBois understood that equality would not be earned through appeasement. From our perspective of over 100 years, we must admit that he may have been right. For example, in the aftermath of the “Atlanta Massacre” of September 22, 1906 and a similar incident in Springfield, Illinois, “it was clear to almost all the players that the tide was running strongly in favor of protest and militancy.

For six days in August, 1908, a white mob, made up, the press said, of many of the town’s best citizens,’ surged through the streets of Springfield, Illinois, killing and wounding scores of Blacks and driving hundreds from the city. ” However, it later turned out that DuBois was considered to be too extreme in the other direction. For example, as the NAACP became more mainstream, it became increasingly conservative, and this did not please DuBois, who left the organization in 1934.

He returned later but was eventually shunned by Black leadership both inside and outside of the NAACP, especially after he voiced admiration for the USSR. In the political climate of the late 1940s and 1950s, any hint of a pro-communist attitude–black or white–was unwelcome in any group with a national political agenda. We can see, then, that neither Washington’s strategy of appeasement nor DuBois’s plan for an elite Black intelligentsia was to become wholly successful in elevating American Blacks to a position of equality.

However, perhaps it was more than the leadership of any one Black man that encouraged African Americans to demand a full measure of social and economic equality. Perhaps the fact that there was a public dialogue in itself did more to encourage Black equality than the philosophy of any one prominent Black man. After all, concepts such as equality are exactly that: concepts. As such, it up to each of us to decide how we see ourselves in relation to others; superior or inferior, equal or not equal, the choice is ultimately our own.

Events leading to the American Revolution

During the late seventeen hundreds, many tumultuous events resulted in Colonial opposition to Great Britain. The conditions of rights of the colonists will slowly be changed as the constriction of the parliament becomes more and more intolerable. During the Seven Years’ War England was not only alarmed by the colonists’ insistence on trading with the enemy, but also with Boston merchants hiring James Otis inorder to protest the legality of the writs of assistance (general search warrants) used to hunt out smuggled goods. let the parliament lay what burthens they please on us, we must, it is our duty to submit and atiently bear them, till they will be pleased to relieve us…. “.

This is a very strong dictum, that in 1764, the colonists were of a submissive nature, and were weakly pleading for self-autonomy. This small fire of anger will become a huge conflagration as the rights are slowly rescinded. On October 19, 1765 the Stamp Act Congress and Parliamentary Taxation committee’s passed some laws that attempted to strengthen the grip of the English crown.

“I. That his Majesty’s subjects in these colonies, owe the same allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to hat august body, the Parliament of Great Britain. ” This statement can be used as a summation of the entire document that the Stamp Act Congress had initiated. The statement depicts the colonists has having to be submissive and servile in the view of Great Britain, this policy angered the colonists very much, and was another component of the transition of the colonists’ rights and liberties.

When the Declatory Act was passed in March of 1766, many colonies were attempting to claim that they were “seceding” from England. “Whereas several of the houses of representatives in his Majesty’s colonies and plantations in America, have of late, against law, or to the general assemblies of the same, the sole and exclusive right of imposing duties and taxes upon his Majesty’s subjects in the said colonies…. be it declared …. , that the said colonies and plantations in America, have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial Crown and Parliament of Great Britain;”.

The Parliament of course denounced the attempt at independance and still dogmatilcally passed the following law to show that the colonists were still british subjects. Again, the colonists were infuriated and later will resist the british imperialism on the colonies. “All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve prpromote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empite””, yet those duties were always imposed with design to restrain the commerce of one part”.

This statement by the colonist (John Dickinson), shows that th sole rason for new taxes is just for the British gov’t to make money, at the expense of the economy of the colonies. Dickinson makes a important distinction between the rights of the colonies nd the authority of the parliament. Dickinson’s comments were ubiquitous among the colonists, and thus infuriated them to rebellion, and the seizure of basic democratic rights.

From necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British parliament as are bona fide restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country , and the commercial benefits of it’s respective members excluding every idea of taxation, internal or xternal, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America without their consent …. The continental congress had presented it’s colonial rights.

These rights enable the colonies to be more autonomous with exception to those several states who are under the british control. One important element of the document, is the idea of taxation without representation; the said that raising taxes without consent was illegal and that the commercial benefits of the colony should be shared within the colonies, instead of England becoming more and more economically prosperous.

The whole idea of mercantilism was about to be crushed, due to his idea, of self-autonomy with respect to colonial economics. “Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do, ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny…. “. This statement made by Thomas Paine shows the foreshadowing, of what colonists would do. The British are trying to prevent independence, and from doing so, they are being tyrannical. Again, the rights of the colonists are being questioned and rebellion shortly will be forthcoming.

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 it’s oundations on such principles and organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. “. What the declaration is really saying, is that a society who has no or little rights (such as the colonies) should be destroyed, thus separation from England.

A new society would follow, where the people of the society would have these rights necessary for self-autonomy. The Declaration of Independence was a strong justification for revolution. The Revolution follows the Declaration of Independence, where a transition occurs. The transition has to do with the rights of the colonists. The colonists acquire their rights through resistance to british imperial conformity, by resisting certain policies detrimental to the inalienable rights of a democracy.

The transitional period was from 1760’s to 1770’s. This is a crucial period of time, because this is where the center of power is transferred from the british government (Parliament) to the colonial citizens. A major component to this center of power was the rights of the colonists, the colonists gained their rights through resistence to an imperial power. This transition is depicted through the progression of time in the documents.

American Hawaii Essay

Hawaii is known for its beautiful beaches, its nice year-round weather, and its culture. Thousands of vacationers come to Hawaii each year to get away from the stressful city and relax. But do they know how cruel the Americans were to the natives? Do they know how we corrupted their culture and their religion? Do they know how Hawaii really became a state? Probably not. When most people think of Hawaii, they think of happy Hawaiian babes hula dancing and palm trees swaying in the warm breeze. Hawaii has still held on to many of their traditions although they were invaded by Americans.

But you have to go to a museum to see their old way of life. Hawaii is now populated mostly by Americans. Native Hawaiians have adapted to our American lifestyle and much of their old traditions and beliefs are lost in history books. America dominated over the Hawaiians just as they did with the Native Americans. The Hawaiians didnt even stand a chance against big brother. They probably feel the same way towards America just as a child does with stubborn parents. Now I will tell you about the history of Hawaii so you will see how the United States came to annex Hawaii.

Hawaii was first inhabited by the Polynesians. They came in canoes from other islands around the pacific. They called the new found island Hawaii, which means home in Polynesian language. Hawaii was their home until the white man came in and took advantage of these simple, happy aborigines. The corruption of this unique and fragile culture first started when Captain James Cook ran into the islands on January 18, 1778. After Cooks discovery, many other foreigners (mostly American) visited the islands. They brought clothes, livestock, orange trees, horses weapons and souvigners.

Foreigners also brought with them a handful of deadly diseases such as smallpox, measles, syphilis, tuberculosis, and whooping cough. During the time period of Cooks arrival in 1778 to 1820, the population of Hawaii dropped from 300,000 to 135,000 due to the diseases! Another problem was the introduction of alcohol. Like the native americans, Hawaiians were not immune to alcohol. Hawaiians were very sensitive to alcoholism. Hawaiians religion was a very complex one with many gods. They worshiped idols and they belived in many feared superstitions.

After king Kamehameha I died, the Hawaiians started to doubt their own belifes. Many Hawaiians broke the superstitions to prove they were fake. These religious radicals started a domino affect of the Hawaiian religion. The Hawaiians destroyed and burned their feared idols. The people who still held on the old belifes were murdered. This goes to show how a religion can either hold a society together or tear it apart. Henry Obookiah was born in Hawaii. His family was murdered in a war between neighboring islands. He decided to find a new life in America, so he hopped aboard a trading ship and landed in New England.

Obookiah stayed with a Christian family and went to a foreign mission school. Obookiah was taught to be a good Christian gentlemen. He told Americans about the religious chaos in Hawaii saying: Hawaii gods; the wood- they burn. Me go home, put em in a fire, burn em up. They no see, no hear, no anything. We make em. Our god, He make us(The Hawaiian Islands P. 30). Christian New Englanders were amazed by Obookiahs enlightenment in America. New England Christians were motivated to spread the faith into Hawaii. The first American settlers were Christian missionaries from New England.

The Missionaries came to the Hawaiian shores aboard the Thaddeus on March 31, 1819. The Americans were treated very well by the natives. They were eager to learn from the missionaries. Without the strict supervision of their former gods and superstitions, Hawaiians were celebrating new freedom. They drank, they partied, they carried firearms and lived like animals. The missionaries saw this anarchy and decided that things must be put under control. Without their religion, the Hawaiians were barbarians. The missionaries built houses and settled in at Hawaii.

Then they worked on converting the Hawaiians to Christianity. Most of the Hawaiians were easily converted to Christianity. But some of the old ones still wouldnt give up there beliefs. The missionaries set up schools and churches. They taught them how to read and write. They set up a printing press and printed copies of the Bible in Hawaiian language. From 1837 to 1843, 27,000 Hawaiians were converted to Christianity. Before the missionaries had come, they had no guilt wearing no clothes or having sex in public! Hawaiians lived in worry free. But Hawaiis culture was fading away.

America liked Hawaii for its location along the trade route to china and for its rich soil. Many American trading ships stopped at Hawaii on their way to Asia. Traders would use Hawaii as a rest stop on their way to China. The traders and merchants would have sex with native women and they would take advantage of their hospitality. Hawaii didnt have a very strong government or laws. So the Americans would come in and buy off land for cheap. The Hawaiians always shared the land and they hated the idea of owning private property. In 1835, Ladd and company was given some land for a sugar plantation.

In 1839, Hawaii made a bill of rights and a constitution. The bill of rights gave people religious freedom and protected peoples property. The constitution set up a new Hawaiian government. In 1848, King Kamehameha agreed to pass an American treaty called the Great Mahele. This treaty permitted land to be purchased by private persons. Americans rushed in to buy off the cheap land. They farmed on it, built houses and stores, sold it and bought it. One woman sold what is now the Waialae Golf course for a jug of wine! Hawaiian land was practicly given away as if it was the siharra desert.

French and British governments wanted Hawaii also. In 1843, England came to Hawaii and took it as their own. Unable to fight against to British navy, Hawaii decided they had to give up to the British. The Americans told the Hawaiians that they should try to achieve worldwide recognition of Hawaiian independence, so that foreigners would respect them as their own country. The United States dominated over the islands and left France and Great Britain without any power over the islands. With the help of white people, Hawaii drafted its first constitution in 1840.

The constitution called for an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a supreme court. The legislature consisted of a council of chiefs and an elected house of representatives. In 1842, the Hawaiian islands were seen as an independent government. Sugar production was Hawaiis largest buissiness. Tons of sugar was grown in Hawaii. Many of the Hawaiians worked on the sugar farms. Sugar was sold to the United States and large amounts of money flowed into Hawaii. Hawaiis economy grew and banks were built. Annexation Americas main goal was to overthrow monarchy and Annex Hawaii as the 50th state.

In 1887, the Americans forced king Kalakaua to sign a new constitutions that lessened the kings powers and limited the rights of native Hawaiians to hold office. After Kalakauas death, Queen Liliuokalani ruled Hawaii. She was stubborn and wanted Hawaiian independence. But the Americans took over the government and ended monarchy and set up their own government. They put up the American flag where the Hawaiian flag originally flew. So, in other words, Hawaii was stolen from its original owners. Defenseless, Hawaii couldnt do anything about United States control. Hawaii was then Annexed to the United states in 1898.

Buddhism In America

The stresses and intensity of modern American society have influenced many people to adopt and adapt the principles of Buddhism and other Eastern religions. Some recent statistics from the US department of Health and Human Services show that 75% of the General Population experiences at least “some stress” every two weeks (National Health Interview Survey). Half of those experience moderate or high levels of stress during the same two-week period. It is common knowledge that stress can lead to heart disease, high blood pressure, strokes, and other illnesses in many individuals.

Stress also contributes to the evelopment of alcoholism, obesity, suicide, drug addiction, cigarette addiction, and other harmful behaviors. It was reported that tranquilizers, antidepressants, and anti-anxiety medications account for one fourth of all prescriptions written in the US each year. With so many mental health problems, it is almost reassuring that Eastern religions are steadily growing. Buddhism On The Move Eastern religions have been practiced in Asia and the Subcontinent for thousands of years longer than Christianity. Buddhism, a main religion of Asia has been practiced in Tibet for Millennia.

Buddhism, Zen and Hindu were first introduced to the western world in 1893 at the World Religions Conference in Chicago. The Dalai Lama represented Buddhism and D. T. Suzuki represented Zen. However, Eastern religions went relatively ignored until 1959, when the Chinese invasion of Tibet left 1. 3 million Tibetans dead and 6,000 Buddhist monasteries destroyed. Tibetan refugees escaped to bordering countries and some fled farther to the US and Europe. Those who fled remembered how the Buddha taught his enlightened disciples to continue to spread his teachings.

“With the Chinese Invasion of Tibet, it was as if a dam had burst; suddenly Tibetan wisdom began to flow freely down from the roof of the world and to the West… and there to fulfill the prophecy come Westerners looking for guidance and eager to develop their own spiritual lives and transplant the flowering tree of enlightenment to their own lives. “(Das, 29) The first westerners to begin to adopt Eastern principles were often people on the fringes of society or in the avant-garde of the arts, literature, and philosophy. The beatniks in the 50s, the Hippies in the 60s and 70s.

Evidence of eastern thought in the writings of Jack Kerouac, Hippies George Harrison and the Beatles studying with the Maharishi Mahesh Yoga. Richard Albert turned his name to Baba Ram Das. In our society today, it seems like everyone knows someone into Eastern religion. From businessmen to politicians to celebrities individuals are joining meditating groups while still maintaining ties to their traditional faiths to “wet their feet” in more satisfying and less materialistic lives. “At retreats youre likely to find yourself sitting next to a stockbroker or a therapist or a retired social worker who may or may not claim to be Buddhist. (Wood, 3)

Unlike the rush of mostly younger Americans to Buddhism that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, the new ranks include a larger percentage of seekers over 50″(Wood, 2). Now in the West we see many variations of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Zen, such as Mahayana, Pali, and Vajpareena. Our new, multi-religious land that combines Eastern and Western religion can be described as “the scientific West arriving at something like the fusion of the Confucian cultivation of virtue through the bonds of family and community, Taoist laissez-faire and yearning for nature, and Buddhist compassion for mans need or Nirvana. (Layman, 80) We have adapted religions in many ways to fit our lives.

“Buddhism in America is characterized by great diversity, with both conservative and liberal trends within the same sect and denomination of course, differences in furnishings and hairstyles are superficial, and are either tangential or irrelevant to the Buddhist system of beliefs and basic way of life. But fundamental and widespread changes in American Buddhism are occurring. Its priests and adherents are recognizing that Buddhism must be shown to have relevant approaches to the problems which plague American Society.

Accordingly, sermons and lectures delivered by the clergy are making less use of illustrations recounted by ancient Buddhist saints and are becoming more applicable to everyday living in modern American society. “(Layman, 32) As a result, “The ancient religion of Buddhism grows even stronger roots in a new world, with the help of the movies, pop culture, and the politics of repressed Tibet. ” (Van Biema, 1) Because of the inroads that eastern religions have made in our country there is an increase in personal reform via retreats, “sanghas” a circle of friends who regularly meditate together, and elf-help groups.

We are also undergoing social reform, creating a more accepting society, and building upon an ancient religion. “The number of English language Buddhist teaching centers coast to coast has grown from 429 to almost 2,000″(Wood, 1). What makes Eastern Thought so different from Western Thought. What we currently have in the West, “which is a sort of anti-religious, psychological way of thinking… these psychologies often work against our spiritual side. Buddhism, on the other hand, can help by providing psychological bridges that will reinforce the spiritual side. Toms, 143)

Unlike Western religions, Eastern religions do not teach commandments, rather, natural ways of ordinary human practice. Nor do they teach right and wrong correct and incorrect or wise and ignorant. The Buddha is different from a God or Jesus in that Buddha became perfectly aware of the nature of reality and nature of the self, and he was then able to remove limitations on manifestation and could actually manifest whatever was most helpful to those around him. He was known as Shasta, or teacher, and his objective was to remove the cause of all suffering to find true happiness.

The Buddha can be perceived as omnipotent, he was enlightened and awakened, but he was not the creator. Hinduism, Brahma, Buddhism, Zen, and other Eastern religions are consistent in the belief that there are many gods and one creator, only, they are not sure of the true creator. There are no set areas where one must practice, however, quiet, natural places are encouraged and it can be practiced any time one feels necessary. It can be a daily, weekly, yearly or once in a lifetime act, there are no rules as to when a student must pray.

The basic tenets and ideas of Eastern religions are enerally very different from those of Western religions. Mindfulness the Zen practice of embracing the present, is being profoundly aware of each moment so that people can better appreciate their own lives, and being more compassionate about the suffering of others. Buddhism tries to make sense out of life without fear and guilt that some other religions induce. You find the way that you want to live, open up that way, and then pursue that way. The best way to live the life you want is to “actualize what you realize. ” In other words, make real your dreams.

Thich Nhat Hanh teaches in Zen that, “The other ay be a beautiful sunrise. The other may be your friend, your husband, your wife. The other is love. Mindfulness helps you recognize what is there that makes life real, that makes life possible. “(Toms, 19). Buddhism doesnt believe in God, but believes in the nature of god. They are theistic, only not sure of true creator. The Tibetan vision of reality is in a way, the most super-positive vision of human evolution that one could imagine. The Buddha regarded himself as an empiricist, only relying on that which is known and testable in experience.

What is new to Western thinking is the Buddhist idea hat ethics and spiritual development are also governed by universal laws. “In the West we have a clear sense of personal and group responsibility for the government and welfare of everyone, set forth by Locke, Rousseau, and others in the late 18th century and developed for the next 200 years in the democratic societies in Eastern Europe and the Americas. As Western Buddhists, we are building on one tradition of social responsibility that has been cultivated in monastic settings… ith such a synthesis of traditions, Buddhism in the West is sure to apply the precepts in a new way. (Aitken written by Tworkov, 53)

The forms of introspection that have, to date, been available to Western Philosophers as the raw materials of their craft, have been very limited in their scope and have consequently produced limited world views. What has made people turn to it. Eastern religions have become as accessible as Western religions, because they have spread to every corner of earth. If all else fails, the Internet is a wealth of information. One of the key elements in all of spiritual life is making ourselves available to others. What young men need is nitiation, someone to whom they can show their stuff and prove it otherwise they do it on the street. “(Toms, 849)

The main ideas and themes appeal to many, Buddhist belief in using the mind to change our lives provides practical methods and exercises that we can use every day to change our perception of reality. “Rather than turning us away from what is best in Western Culture, Buddhism can help us return to it, for the west today is in the grip of a major cultural crisis of confidence. (Kulananda, 210)

Buddhism has become so popular in the West, because it teaches one how to be happier and more aware by use of; eeing things as they are, living a sacred life, speaking the truth, loving, attention and focus on what is important to you, and meditation. These concepts work with us, because they are easily adaptable and understandable to the Western way of life. “Zen can be adapted to be useful I modern times. Like water it takes the form of the vessel that contains it without any change in its nature: water remains water whether it is held in a rice bowl or a coffee mug.

Many who seek enlightenment in this day and age may not be able to fulfill their destiny within a purely monastic lifestyle. “(Simpkins, p. 1) Another aspect of Eastern religions that attract Westerners is the ability to be independent in the search of enlightenment. Jakusho Kwong, Soto Priest and abbot of the Soto Zen Buddhist Temple in Genjoji, expresses, “Theres a lot to read, and theres a lot to learn. But for me, the most important thing is whats yours. What can you call your own? And to know that. Not what Suzuki Roshi said, or Maezumi Roshi said, or Katagari Roshi said. What you say. What it means to you.

Thats the only way. ” (Tworkov, 103) “In Zen terms, we are born alone, we die alone, and we have realization alone. “(Toms, 131) Maintaining a lear awareness of our feelings and sensations, we can open out the gap between feeling and craving. This experience strengthens our intuition of how things really are and a series of ever more intensely positive mental states therefore follow. Hindu promotes the ability to listen when people need to be heard. When asked “Whats your road man? ” Jack Kerouac answered, “Holyboy road, madman road, rainbow road, guppy road, its an anywhere road for anybody anyhow.

By saying this, Kerouac means that his path in life is to follow his Taoist religion, be free from others, seek happiness and peace, innocence of outh, and that the path he is on can be universally reached. This just shows how conclusive people can be with their words when they learn what the really important things are. Eastern religions seek to fulfill self and understand the nature of self. They teach the seeker to let “body and mind fall away” and look at the greater picture (Toms, 73). “In going for refuge to the Buddha one commits oneself to becoming more than one is now. (Kulananda, 72)

“In seeking happiness by clinging to a restricting, ego-identity, again and again we cause ourselves and others to suffer. “(Kulananda, 87) More and more public igures such as; Richard Gere, Michael Yauch, Steven Segal, Courtney Love, Oliver Stone, and more, practice the eastern religions and praise their effectiveness. “Yauch is slight and soft-spoken, he says Buddhism, felt real, not hokey. Two generations ago, given his milieu he would have been a curiosity, today he is something of a role model. “(Van Biema, 8-9) Eastern religions can be a cheap alternative to psychotherapy because they are very similar.

Given the sophistication of the Buddhist analysis of the mind and its preoccupation with the eradication of suffering, it is only natural that trong similarities have come to be seen between Buddhism and the contemporary Western Psychotherapy. “(Kulananda, 222) As Buddhism and psychotherapy become closer acquainted with one another, there is an emerging trend towards a kind of psychotherapeutic Buddhism, where the drive towards enlightenment is replaced with the overriding impulse to simply come to terms with oneself and feel better about oneself and the world.

Why has it become important to our society. “Anything infused into our world today about nonviolence can only help. “(Scorsesce) Most people in our society struggle to find the right views. Right views bring us in touch with some of the most important concepts in Buddhist philosophy. How do you perceive life, death, impermanence, suffering, dissatisfaction, and cause and effect? Do we really believe, and know, that we reap what we sow, or do we regard that as just another clich? In the west, we are typically conditioned to push these serious matters aside, and deal with them later.

Buddhism says deal with them now, and youll transform your life. “(Das, 95) Maintaining a clear sense of our feelings and sensations, we can open out the gap between feeling and craving. This experience strengthens our intuition of how things are and a series of ever more intensely positive mental states therefore follow. Two Buddhist ideas, that there is a natural hierarchy of values and that reality is perceived in the imagination, contain within them the seeds of Western Cultural renaissance.

What Buddhism most has to offer Western Philosophy is the notion that ways of conceptualizing are intertwined with ways of being and although one can go about philosophy as if it were a purely intellectual exercise, there is little value in that thought alone cannot apprehend reality. Dharma is timeless not culture bound. “(Das, 378) Dharma, the cosmic law underlying all existence; combines with the Buddha and the Sangha (the community of believers), to form the Three Treasures of the faith. It is one of Buddhisms great strengths that it has at its heart the ideal of spiritual fellowship.

Today, Buddhism is at a critical juncture as it encounters the West. It is no surprise that there have been formidable culture, linguistic, political, and material barriers to overcome in the transmission of Buddha Dharma from the East to the West and from the past on to he present and the future. This is a transition through time as well as through space, spanning continents and oceans, from a traditional Oriental world to a scientific postmodern Western Culture. “(Das, 378) “Modern Western culture is marked by an unprecedented degree of technological sophistication and material abundance.

It is highly complex and deeply fragmented. “(Kulananda, 25) All over, people seem torn between a sincere desire to conquer ego and the drive to be doing so. A great benefit to our society has been the increase in people who aintain less interest in self and more for the benefit of others, as well as the increase of knowledge of the effects. The majority of Eastern Religions promote the ability to listen when people need to be heard. Everything that lives is subject to decay. All conditioned things are impermanent. To be alive is to change.

Without change we would be absolutely inert, but the un-enlightened human condition is to fight change every inch of the way. A following of well known peoples (celebrities, business men, politicians, etc. ) has made Eastern Religion appealing to those who were originally skeptical. A poem that appeared in New Yorker Magazine shows how Buddhism has practically become a “household term” “The huge head of Richard Gere, a tsonga blossom / in his hair, comes floating like a Macys / Parade balloon above snowcapped summit / of sacred Kailas.

Some very outstanding people of the Eastern religions have reached out to those in need, like Roshi Bernard Glassman, founder of the “Bakery Zendo” in Brooklyn, who uses what he learns and teaches to benefit his community. He employs the local homeless and unemployed in his bakery, garment company, and building-renovation services, and houses hem in his large suburban New York mansion where they are allowed to study Zen with the great master.

There has been much progression of Buddhism in the US because, “Americans have always been a do it yourself culture, and this is a do it yourself philosophy. “(Van Biema, 8). But it is definite that there will be much more progression. As Richard Gere said, “There has not been enough time to ferment and intoxicate the culture in America, but our approach, because were so new at it, has a certain eagerness and excitement that you sometimes dont see in Tibetans.

Westerners ask uestions, they take notes. Individuals join meditating groups while still maintaining ties to their traditional faiths to “wet their feet” in more satisfying and less materialistic lives. The progression of Western views to adapt Eastern ideas can be explained as, “Combining monastic views with secular lifestyle has nonetheless served two functions. It has introduced the monastic dimension of the Japanese Zen tradition to the United States, where it may someday figure prominently. It has also been a skillful means for establishing the authority of Zen teachings both within and without the communities. “

The Republican Party

Government in education has always been a disputable topic. The Republican Party believes that the role of federal government must be limited. Teachers, parents, and school boards should have most of the control over schools. The party is in favor of home schooling and calls for enforcement of laws that would protect the familys privacy to do so. As college tuition continues to rise, Republicans want to increase the access to these universities with savings accounts. These savings would target higher benefits for students who take more challenging courses in high school.

There is also much debate over prayer in schools. The Republican Party continues to work to get voluntary prayer back into schools. I think that the most important aspects of President Bushs plan are to: require annual testing of grades three through eight, provide five billion dollars to ensure that every child can read by the third grade, and provide 2. 4 billion dollars to train and recruit highly qualified teachers. Education is a top Democratic priority. The party believes that every failing school in all of America should be turned around or shut down and then re-opened with new and better leadership.

Every eighth grader in the country should be comfortable using a computer because technology is everything around us now and more important, the future. Democrats believe strongly in a zero tolerance policy towards guns in schools. The party also believes that character education is extremely important in our schools. There are three elements to better schools in a Democratic view: reduce class size, modernize facilities, and hire new teachers. Teachers should also be paid more because they are professionals.

The Libertarian Party believes that in our current school system, poor kids end up at the worst schools. Wealthy parents can afford to send their children to better or safer schools while poor parents have no choice but to send their kids to public schools which are free but can also be a much harsher environment for learning. The Republican Party wants to reform and toughen the current immigration system in order to emphasize family. The system needs to devote resources to border control and give priority to spouses and children.

The party believes that needed skills for determining eligibility for admission to our country should be emphasized. Republicans also support increasing the number of H-1B visas to ensure that workers with more high-tech skills are placed into specialized positions. The H-2A program for short-term agricultural workers also needs expansion. President Bush supports the concept called English-Plus, which insists on English proficiency but recognizes the valued richness that other languages bring to our country.

Democrats are in support of the reforming of the INS to provide better services. Also, there needs to be increased resources for English language courses. The party believes that family reunification should continue to be the most important aspect of our current immigration system. Democrats want protection of immigrants who are hired by employers in order to exploit them. There is need for restoration of basic due process protections, so that immigrants can no longer be deported for minor offenses. The Green Party says, Dont blame immigrants for social and economic problems.

Our nation was built with a rich mixture of immigrants and we must continue to respect the contributions and potential contributions of those immigrants. Policies should promote fairness, non-discrimination, and most importantly, family unification. The party believes that particular attention should be paid to minorities who are political exiles and refugees. This includes people who are Russian Jews, Eastern Kurds, Tibetans, and Haitians. Green members also believe that our current relationship with Mexico needs some added attention because our bordering nations offer economic opportunities.

The Green Party is in opposition of those who raise up ethnic and racial hatreds for the sake of political gain. Immigrants cannot be blamed for social and economic problems. Civil Rights could be the most questionable platform in all parties. The Republican Party is in strong support of the traditional definition of marriage; that is the union of one man and one woman. Republicans believe that federal judges should not force states to recognize any other living arrangements as marriages. The party does not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.

The party will not allow government to ban religious symbols from the workplace. Members also believe that religious institutions should not be taxed. The party supports women advancing in the military, however it calls for the ending of co-ed basic training. President Bush stated that strong civil rights enforcement will be a cornerstone of his administration. The Democratic Party declares that police should have zero tolerance of racial profiling. The party views profiling as a violation of the basic American principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Democrats believe that hate crimes arent just assaults on other people, but they are assaults on all of America. These crimes should be punished with extra force and protections should include hate crimes based on gender, disability, or sexual orientation. Members of the Democratic Party are proud to lead the fight of discrimination based on race, gender, religion, age, disability, and sexual orientation. The Libertarian Party is kind of an extreme because they want to repeal all laws against homosexuality.

The party also believes that the right to complete freedom of expression includes pornography. Libertarian members strongly support rights of American Indians. Included in those rights are: individuals should be free to select their own citizenship, Indians should have their property rights restored, the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be abolished leaving tribal members to determine their own system of government, and negotiations should be undertaken to resolve all differences between tribes and government.

The Americans: The Colonial Experience

America was not believed to be a ground for a utopian society, rather a place for a new start, more freedom, and fewer taxes. The initial group to settle the New World were the Puritans, separatists making a hopeless attempt to try to purify the Church of England by swearing loyalty to the group instead of the king. This all takes place during the 17th and 18th centuries. The following topics that will be discussed are intended to portray all of the different aspects of colonial American social and governmental tendencies.

The impression that Boorstin has hidden in the context of the book is that of the portrayal of the Old Worlds ideas and the influence that those ideas had on the coming of the New World, or better known as America. The Puritans sailed westward across the Atlantic Ocean in 1630. There were fifty-two Puritans that came to the New World to set up the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and the governor of the colony was to be John Winthrop, who stated, Wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill.

This simply meant that they would be a beacon for the entire world to look upon. This group included many people of substantial wealth and position. The Puritans wished to be guided by one rule, even the Word of the most high. They were ruled by the Bible, which resulted in the special character of their approach to experience. The peculiar character of their Biblical orthodoxy nourished a practical and non-Utopian frame of mind. Anne Hutchinson believed that if the Puritans are going to ignore the non-elect, that they should ignore all of the non-elect.

She was put on trial by John Winthrop, however, she knew her scripture very well so she could not be persecuted. She and her followers were banished from the colony. Another disagreement that took place was that of Roger Williams. He questioned the legality of congregationalism and said that church and state must be separate. Williams believed that the civil government should remain totally uninvolved in religious matters. He was then banned from Massachusetts and later, he founded Providence, which was the only New England colony at the time that practiced religious tolerance.

The Puritans were not the only colonists driven by religious motives to leave England. William Penn, the son of Charles II, was given the last large tract of land that the king owned. In 1681, William Penn and his fellow Quakers used this land grant in the founding of Pennsylvania, the city of brotherly love. Penns Frame of Government in 1682 guaranteed religious freedom to all who confess and acknowledge the one Almighty and Eternal God….. and hold themselves obliged, in conscience, to live peaceably and justly in civil society.

William Penn had two goals: set up a religious community holy experiment based on the teachings of George Fox, the founder of English Quakerism; and make some money for all of the troubles he went through. George Foxs teachings were simply, that every man was enlightened by the divine Light of Christ, and he was tried for blasphemy and he warned the judges to tremble at the word of the lord, hence the name Quakers. Penn also publicized the fact that there are opportunities awaiting the newcomers to the Pennsylvania colony, and convicts were actually given the chance to escape from the prisons and start a new life in the New World.

Mary Dyer, a follower of Anne Hutchinson, spoke out against her oaths, and she was hung for sedition. Georgia was founded in 1732 by the British. General James Oglethorpe, an appealing figure of Georgia, despised slavery and he tried to ban it in Georgia. He was an arrogant and tough-minded military man of good will. Britain tried to make Georgia into a utopia, but their basic error was the strictness of their rules for the ownership, use, sale, and inheritance of Georgias primary resource, land.

The London Philanthropists tried to make Georgia into what Europe could not have been, a charity colony. They felt that this colony ought to be a protector of the frontier, a refuge for the unfortunate and unemployed of London, and a source of valued semi-tropical products. The government of Georgia eventually failed because the Trustees had burdened themselves with powers which nobody could wisely exercise from London. Late in December 1606, a group of about one-hundred men set out in search of great adventure and hope of finding gold.

Among them, Captain John Smith emerged as the dominant figure, and despite many quarrels, starvation, and Indian attacks, he managed to hold the little colony together through the first years. In 1612, the discovery of a method of curing Virginia tobacco to make it pleasant to the European taste revolutionized the economy of Virginia. The first shipment of this tobacco reached London in 1614, and within a decade it had become Virginias chief source of revenue. The local government varied throughout Virginia. They adopted a county-court system in which the justices were appointed by the Governor.

The entire colony was governed by a vestry, or elected council. The members of the church were legally indebted to pay a certain tax to the Anglican church. Virginia did not have the elite members of society to provide for the unfortunate because the wealthy class emerged mainly from thieves. Harvard College was founded in1636 in Massachusetts. Near the end of the 17th century, the College of William and Mary was established in Virginia. A few years later, the Collegiate School of Connecticut (Yale College) was chartered. Even more remarkable was the growth of a school system maintained by governmental authority.

In 1647, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, followed later by all the other New England colonies except Rhode Island, provided for mandatory elementary education. In the south, the farms and plantations were so widely separated that community schools like those in the more compact northern settlements were impossible. Some planters joined with their nearest neighbors and hired tutors for their children, while other children were sent to England for schooling. One of the most innovative colonies educationally was Pennsylvania. The first school there began in 1683, and it taught reading, writing, and keeping of accounts.

The College of New Jersey at Princeton, Kings College (Columbia University) in New York City, and Queens College (Rutgers) in New Brunswick, New Jersey, were not established until the middle of the 18th century. The intellectual and cultural development of Pennsylvania reflected the vigorous personalities of two men: James Logan and Benjamin Franklin. Logan was the secretary of the colony, and it was in his library that Franklin did his works. Franklin founded a public academy that later developed into the University of Pennsylvania.

Considering all of the events that took place during this time, the intellectual energy of colonial Americans was strikingly small. There were not many books written, even by the most literate of them all, Franklin and Jefferson. In his circular letter, Franklin suggested that not many people wrote books because they were too involved in other things and didnt have time to write about American culture. In New York, freedom of the press had its first important test in the case of Peter Zenger, whose New York Weekly Journal, begun in 1733,was the spokesman for opposition to the government.

After two years of publication, the colonial governor could no longer tolerate Zengers satirical barbs and had him thrown into prison on a charge of libel, or simply slander. Zenger continued to edit his paper from jail during his nine-month trial, which excited an intense interest throughout the colonies. Andrew Hamilton, a prominent lawyer defending him, argued that the charges printed in the paper were true and, therefore, not slanderous. The jury returned the verdict of not guilty, and Zenger went free.

This momentous decision helped establish in America the principle of freedom of the press. The Americans had certain experiences in the earlier colonial times that have been discussed that affect their attitude towards war. The colonies are a newly formed nation and, therefore, do not have a very strong militia built up. They often had small battles with the Natives, most likely over land control. Americans wanted war on clear days in nice weather, however, the Indians didnt care one way or the other. They had their own weapons and own ways, just as the Americans do.

As for prisoners, colonists would trade prisoners for prisoners, but the Natives would torture and massacre them. Compared to Natives, the American way of warfare is much more civilized. Boorstin is attempting to show an interpretation of how habits of people who lived more than two centuries ago shaped the lives of modern Americans. He proves this by saying, Old categories were shaken up, and new situations revealed unsuspected uses for old knowledge, meaning that all the bad things that happened in the nations history happened so as to shape it how it is today.

The arguments discussed in the book made me reexamine some of my preconceptions about the colonial period and consider the impact of early American history on the present in a whole new light. Although the book is well-documented throughout, Mr. Boorstin was not there during that time, therefore, he can only go by what the individuals that were there remembered and documented. Also, those people that were there most likely had their own biased opinions of the causes and reasons of the events that took place. The viewpoints of an elite group would be much different than the viewpoints from a group of farmers.

America – Sports Construction Boom

America is in the midst of a sports construction boom. New sports facilities costing at least $200 million each have been completed or are under way in Baltimore, Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Nashville, San Francisco, St. Louis, Seattle, Tampa, and Washington, D. C. , and are in the planning stages in Boston, Dallas, Minneapolis, New York, and Pittsburgh. Major stadium renovations have been undertaken in Jacksonville and Oakland. Industry experts estimate that more than $7 billion will be spent on new facilities for professional sports teams before 2006.

Most of this $7 billion will come from public sources. The subsidy starts with the federal government, which allows state and local governments to issue tax-exempt bonds to help finance sports facilities. Tax exemption lowers interest on debt and so reduces the amount that cities and teams must pay for a stadium. Since 1975, the interest rate reduction has varied between 2. 4 and 4. 5 percentage points. Assuming a differential of 3 percentage points, the discounted present value loss in federal taxes for a $225 million stadium is about $70 million, or more than $2 million a year over a useful life of 30 years.

Ten facilities built in the 1970s and 1980s, including the Superdome in New Orleans, the Silverdome in Pontiac, the now-obsolete Kingdome in Seattle, and Giants Stadium in the New Jersey Meadowlands, each cause an annual federal tax loss exceeding $1 million. State and local governments pay even larger subsidies than Washington. Sports facilities now typically cost the host city more than $10 million a year. Perhaps the most successful new baseball stadium, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, costs Maryland residents $14 million a year.

Renovations aren’t cheap either: the net cost to local government for refurbishing the Oakland Coliseum for the Raiders was about $70 million. Most large cities are willing to spend big to attract or keep a major league franchise. But a city need not be among the nation’s biggest to win a national competition for a team, as shown by the NBA’s Utah Jazz’s Delta Center in Salt Lake City and the NFL’s Houston Oilers’ new football stadium in Nashville. Why Cities Subsidize Sports

The economic rationale for cities’ willingness to subsidize sports facilities is revealed in the campaign slogan for a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers: Build the Stadium–Create the Jobs! Proponents claim that sports facilities improve the local economy in four ways. First, building the facility creates construction jobs. Second, people who attend games or work for the team generate new spending in the community, expanding local employment. Third, a team attracts tourists and companies to the host city, further increasing local spending and jobs.

Finally, all this new spending has a multiplier effect as increased local income causes still more new spending and job creation. Advocates argue that new stadiums spur so much economic growth that they are self-financing: subsidies are offset by revenues from ticket taxes, sales taxes on concessions and other spending outside the stadium, and property tax increases arising from the stadium’s economic impact. Unfortunately, these arguments contain bad economic reasoning that leads to overstatement of the benefits of stadiums.

Economic growth takes place when a community’s resources–people, capital investments, and natural resources like land–become more productive. Increased productivity can arise in two ways: from economically beneficial specialization by the community for the purpose of trading with other regions or from local value added that is higher than other uses of local workers, land, and investments. Building a stadium is good for the local economy only if a stadium is the most productive way to make capital investments and use its workers.

In our forthcoming Brookings book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, we and 15 collaborators examine the local economic development argument from all angles: case studies of the effect of specific facilities, as well as comparisons among cities and even neighborhoods that have and have not sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into sports development. In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment.

No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus. As noted, a stadium can spur economic growth if sports is a significant export industry–that is, if it attracts outsiders to buy the local product and if it results in the sale of certain rights (broadcasting, product licensing) to national firms. But, in reality, sports has little effect on regional net exports.

Sports facilities attract neither tourists nor new industry. Probably the most successful export facility is Oriole Park, where about a third of the crowd at every game comes from outside the Baltimore area. (Baltimore’s baseball exports are enhanced because it is 40 miles from the nation’s capital, which has no major league baseball team. ) Even so, the net gain to Baltimore’s economy in terms of new jobs and incremental tax revenues is only about $3 million a year–not much of a return on a $200 million investment.

Sports teams do collect substantial revenues from national licensing and broadcasting, but these must be balanced against funds leaving the area. Most professional athletes do not live where they play, so their income is not spent locally. Moreover, players make inflated salaries for only a few years, so they have high savings, which they invest in national firms. Finally, though a new stadium increases attendance, ticket revenues are shared in both baseball and football, so that part of the revenue gain goes to other cities.

On balance, these factors are largely offsetting, leaving little or no net local export gain to a community. One promotional study estimated that the local annual economic impact of the Denver Broncos was nearly $120 million; another estimated that the combined annual economic benefit of Cincinnati’s Bengals and Reds was $245 million. Such promotional studies overstate the economic impact of a facility because they confuse gross and net economic effects. Most spending inside a stadium is a substitute for other local recreational spending, such as movies and restaurants.

Similarly, most tax collections inside a stadium are substitutes: as other entertainment businesses decline, tax collections from them fall. Promotional studies also fail to take into account differences between sports and other industries in income distribution. Most sports revenue goes to a relatively few players, managers, coaches, and executives who earn extremely high salaries–all well above the earnings of people who work in the industries that are substitutes for sports. Most stadium employees work part time at very low wages and earn a small fraction of team revenues.

Thus, substituting spending on sports for other recreational spending concentrates income, reduces the total number of jobs, and replaces full-time jobs with low-wage, part-time jobs. A second rationale for subsidized stadiums is that stadiums generate more local consumer satisfaction than alternative investments. There is some truth to this argument. Professional sports teams are very small businesses, comparable to large department or grocery stores. They capture public attention far out of proportion to their economic significance.

Broadcast and print media give so much attention to sports because so many people are fans, even if they do not actually attend games or buy sports-related products. A professional sports team, therefore, creates a public good or externality–a benefit enjoyed by consumers who follow sports regardless of whether they help pay for it. The magnitude of this benefit is unknown, and is not shared by everyone; nevertheless, it exists. As a result, sports fans are likely to accept higher taxes or reduced public services to attract or keep a team, even if they do not attend games themselves.

These fans, supplemented and mobilized by teams, local media, and local interests that benefit directly from a stadium, constitute the base of political support for subsidized sports facilities. The Role of Monopoly Leagues While sports subsidies might ow from externalities, their primary cause is the monopolistic structure of sports. Leagues maximize their members’ profits by keeping the number of franchises below the number of cities that could support a team.

To attract teams, cities must compete through a bidding war, whereby each bids its willingness to pay to have a team, not the amount necessary to make a team viable. Monopoly leagues convert fans’ (hence cities’) willingness to pay for a team into an opportunity for teams to extract revenues. Teams are not required to take advantage of this opportunity, and in two cases–the Charlotte Panthers and, to a lesser extent, the San Francisco Giants–the financial exposure of the city has been the relatively modest costs of site acquisition and infrastructural investments.

But in most cases, local and state governments have paid over $100 million in stadium subsidy, and in some cases have financed the entire enterprise. The tendency of sports teams to seek new homes has been intensified by new stadium technology. The rather ordinary cookie-cutter, multipurpose facility of the 1960s and 1970s has given way to the elaborate, single-sport facility that features numerous new revenue opportunities: luxury suites, club boxes, elaborate concessions, catering, signage, advertising, theme activities, and even bars, restaurants, and apartments with a view of the field.

A new facility now can add $30 million annually to a team’s revenues for a few years after the stadium opens. Because new stadiums produce substantially more revenues, more cities are now economically viable franchise sites–which explains why Charlotte, Jacksonville, and Nashville have become NFL cities. As more localities bid for teams, cities are forced to offer ever larger subsidies. What Can Be Done? Abuses from exorbitant stadium packages, sweetheart leases, and footloose franchises have left many citizens and politicians crying foul.

What remedy, if any, is available to curb escalating subsidies and to protect the emotional and financial investments of fans and cities? In principle, cities could bargain as a group with sports leagues, thereby counterbalancing the leagues’ monopoly power. In practice, this strategy is unlikely to work. Efforts by cities to form a sports-host association have failed. The temptation to cheat by secretly negotiating with a mobile team is too strong to preserve concerted behavior. Another strategy is to insert provisions in a facility lease that deter team relocation.

Many cities have tried this approach, but most leases have escape clauses that allow the team to move if attendance falls too low or if the facility is not in state-of-the-art condition. Other teams have provisions requiring them to pay tens of millions of dollars if they vacate a facility prior to lease expiration, but these provisions also come with qualifying covenants. Of course, all clubs legally must carry out the terms of their lease, but with or without these safeguard provisions, teams generally have not viewed their lease terms as binding.

Rather, teams claim that breach of contract by the city or stadium authority releases them from their obligations. Almost always these provisions do not prevent a team from moving. Some leases grant the city a right of first refusal to buy the team or to designate who will buy it before the team is relocated. The big problem here is the price. Owners usually want to move a team because it is worth more elsewhere, either because another city is building a new facility with strong revenue potential or because another city is a better sports market.

If the team is worth, say, $30 million more if it moves, what price must the team accept from local buyers? If it is the market price (its value in the best location), an investor in the home city would be foolish to pay $30 million more for the franchise than it is worth there. If the price is the value of the franchise in its present home, the old owner is deprived of his property rights if he cannot sell to the highest bidder. In practice, these provisions typically specify a right of first refusal at market price, which does not protect against losing a team.

Cities trying to hold on to a franchise can also invoke eminent domain, as did Oakland when the Raiders moved to Los Angeles in 1982 and Baltimore when the Colts moved to Indianapolis in 1984. In the Oakland case, the California Court of Appeals ruled that condemning a football franchise violates the commerce clause of the U. S. Constitution. In the Colts case, the condemnation was upheld by the Maryland Circuit Court, but the U. S. District Court ruled that Maryland lacked jurisdiction because the team had left the state by the time the condemnation was declared.

Eminent domain, even if constitutionally feasible, is not a promising vehicle for cities to retain sports teams. Ending Federal Subsidies Whatever the costs and benefits to a city of attracting a professional sports team, there is no rationale whatsoever for the federal government to subsidize the financial tug-of-war among the cities to host teams. In 1986, Congress apparently became convinced of the irrationality of granting tax exemptions for interest on municipal bonds that financed projects primarily benefiting private interests.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act denies federal subsidies for sports facilities if more than 10 percent of the debt service is covered by revenues from the stadium. If Congress intended that this would reduce sports subsidies, it was sadly mistaken. If anything, the 1986 law increased local subsidies by cutting rents below 10 percent of debt service. Last year Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), concerned about the prospect of a tax exemption for a debt of up to $1 billion for a new stadium in New York, introduced a bill to eliminate tax-exempt financing for professional sports facilities and thus eliminate federal subsidies of stadiums.

The theory behind the bill is that raising a city’s cost from a stadium giveaway would reduce the subsidy. Although cities might respond this way, they would still compete among each other for scarce franchises, so to some extent the likely effect of the bill is to pass higher interest charges on to cities, not teams. Antitrust and Regulation Congress has considered several proposals to regulate team movement and league expansion. The first came in the early 1970s, when the Washington Senators left for Texas.

Unhappy baseball fans on Capitol Hill commissioned an inquiry into professional sports. The ensuing report recommended removing baseball’s antitrust immunity, but no legislative action followed. Another round of ineffectual inquiry came in 1984-85, following the relocations of the Oakland Raiders and Baltimore Colts. Major league baseball’s efforts in 1992 to thwart the San Francisco Giants’ move to St. Petersburg again drew proposals to withdraw baseball’s cherished antitrust exemption. As before, nothing came of the congressional interest.

In 1995-96, inspired by the departure of the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore, Representative Louis Stokes from Cleveland and Senator John Glenn of Ohio introduced a bill to grant the NFL an antitrust exemption for franchise relocation. This bill, too, never came to a vote. The relevance of antitrust to the problem of stadium subsidies is indirect but important. Private antitrust actions have significantly limited the ability of leagues to prevent teams from relocating. Teams relocate to improve their financial performance, which in turn improves their ability to compete with other teams for players and coaches.

Hence, a team has an incentive to prevent competitors from relocating. Consequently, courts have ruled that leagues must have reasonable relocation rules that preclude anticompetitive denial of relocation. Baseball, because it enjoys an antitrust exemption, is freer to limit team movements than the other sports. Relocation rules can affect competition for teams because, by making relocation more difficult, they can limit the number of teams (usually to one) that a city is allowed to bid for. In addition, competition among cities for teams is further intensified because leagues create scarcity in the number of teams.

Legal and legislative actions that change relocation rules affect which cities get existing teams and how much they pay for them, but do not directly affect the disparity between the number of cities that are viable locations for a team and the number of teams. Thus, expansion policy raises a different but important antitrust issue. As witnessed by the nearly simultaneous consideration of creating an antitrust exemption for football but denying one for baseball on precisely the same issue of franchise relocation, congressional initiatives have been plagued by geographical chauvinism and myopia.

Except for representatives of the region affected, members of Congress have proven reluctant to risk the ire of sports leagues. Even legislation that is not hampered by blatant regional self-interest, such as the 1986 Tax Reform Act, typically is sufficiently riddled with loopholes to make effective implementation improbable. While arguably net global welfare is higher when a team relocates to a better market, public policy should focus on balancing the supply and demand for sports franchises so that all economically viable cities can have a team.

Congress could mandate league expansion, but that is probably impossible politically. Even if such legislation were passed, deciding which city deserves a team is an administrative nightmare. A better approach would be to use antitrust to break up existing leagues into competing business entities. The entities could collaborate on playing rules and interleague and postseason play, but they would not be able to divvy up metropolitan areas, establish common drafts or player market restrictions, or collude on broadcasting and licensing policy.

Under these circumstances no league would be likely to vacate an economically viable city, and, if one did, a competing league would probably jump in. Other consumer-friendly consequences would ow from such an arrangement. Competition would force ineffective owners to sell or go belly up in their struggle with better managed teams. Taxpayers would pay lower local, state, and federal subsidies. Teams would have lower revenues, but because most of the costs of a team are driven by revenues, most teams would remain solvent. Player salaries and team profits would fall, but the number of teams and player jobs would rise.

Like Congress, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division is subject to political pressures not to upset sports. So sports leagues remain unregulated monopolies with de facto immunity from federal antitrust prosecution. Others launch and win antitrust complaints against sports leagues, but usually their aim is membership in the cartel, not divestiture, so the problem of too few teams remains unsolved. Citizen Action The final potential source of reform is grassroots disgruntlement that leads to a political reaction against sports subsidies.

Stadium politics has proven to be quite controversial in some cities. Some citizens apparently know that teams do little for the local economy and are concerned about using regressive sales taxes and lottery revenues to subsidize wealthy players, owners, and executives. Voters rejected public support for stadiums on ballot initiatives in Milwaukee, San Francisco, San Jose, and Seattle, although no team has failed to obtain a new stadium. Still, more guarded, conditional support from constituents can cause political leaders to be more careful in negotiating a stadium deal.

Initiatives that place more of the financial burden on facility users–via revenues from luxury or club boxes, personal seat licenses (PSLs), naming rights, and ticket taxes–are likely to be more popular. Unfortunately, citizen resistance notwithstanding, most stadiums probably cannot be financed primarily from private sources. In the first place, the use of money from PSLs, naming rights, pouring rights, and other private sources is a matter to be negotiated among teams, cities, and leagues.

The charges imposed by the NFL on the Raiders and Rams when they moved to Oakland and St. Louis, respectively, were an attempt by the league to capture some of this (unshared) revenue, rather than have it pay for the stadium. Second, revenue from private sources is not likely to be enough to avoid large public subsidies. In the best circumstance, like the NFL’s Charlotte Panthers, local governments still pay for investments in supporting infrastructure, and Washington still pays an interest subsidy for the local government share.

And the Charlotte case is unique. No other stadium project has raised as much private revenue. At the other extreme is the disaster in Oakland, where a supposedly break-even financial plan left the community $70 million in the hole because of cost overruns and disappointing PSL sales. Third, despite greater citizen awareness, voters still must cope with a scarcity of teams. Fans may realize that subsidized stadiums regressively redistribute income and do not promote growth, but they want local teams.

Alas, it is usually better to pay a monopoly an exorbitant price than to give up its product. Prospects for cutting sports subsidies are not good. While citizen opposition has had some success, without more effective intercity organizing or more active federal antitrust policy, cities will continue to compete against each other to attract or keep artificially scarce sports franchises. Given the profound penetration and popularity of sports in American culture, it is hard to see an end to rising public subsidies of sports facilities.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the most amazing men history has recorded

Ben Franklin was one of the most amazing men history has recorded. Throughout his lifetime he continued to increase his already genius-level intelligence. He had a high quality of life, was a popular political figure, and he strongly believed in his thoughts, beliefs, and ideas. While he wasnt perfect, that was what he struggled to attain. Bens achievements are very numerous. Apart from being a genius after only 2 years of schooling, his other achievements show that he was an overpolitiachiever. Some of Bens achievements are literature-based. For example, he printed the first novel published in America.

He also started the first circulating library in America. Also, year after year, he wrote and published Poor Richards Almanac. Those werent his only achievements though. He organized the first hospital, started mail delivery, organized the first fire company, that is, firefighters; and was a city representative, too! All this is just more proof of him being an overachiever. Because of Franklins many inventions and experiments, our lives today are better. Ben made the first copperplate printing press in America, a chair with a built in table for writing, and a chair that turned into a step ladder for his library.

He also invented the odometer, a heating unit called the Pennsylvania Stove, the lightning rod, bifocals, an electricity generator, and the armonica. By experimenting, he proved that dark materials absorb more than light materials, proved lightning was electricity, and did many more experiments with static and regular electricity. He also introduced artificial fertilizer and discovered lead poisoning. We all should be grateful for how he has improved our lifestyle today. Bens childhood started out like anyone elses, but when he became around age 10, he started to become different.

He was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1706. The 15th of 17 children, school was not cheap, so he only got to go for 2 years. He started out making soap and candles, but after expressing that he didnt like that, he would like to write, he became apprenticed to his brother, James, who was a printer. James wouldnt publish Bens work, so he submitted it under the name Mrs. Silence Dogood. When James found out, Ben ran away to Philadelphia, Where he would marry and live the majority of the rest of his life.

Ben started writing as a small boy, when most adults were illiterate. That and reading must have increased his intelligence to its genius state. Ben Franklin surely was amazing. He found time and money for all he wanted and agreed to do, which was a lot. Without him, Thomas Edison could not have the electricity to create the light bulb. Without him, certain people would have a hard time seeing things close/far away with the same glasses. Without him, we would have no way to tell how many miles are on our cars. Surely, Ben Franklin was magnificent.

The Ideal American

America is interesting. It captures the imagination and attention of the world but almost all of the attention it receives is negative. A gas guzzling, beer drinking, loud, and highly violent culture are some of the more common attributes dumped on America. Its the mass murders, militia standoffs, and government scandals that make the foreign press headlines. Asia feels were lazy and bloated with sucess. France thinks were un-cultured, and most of the third world views us as intrusionary bullies. Even the United Nations is beginning to despise our power.

But not much changes in the way America is involved with the affairs of the rest of the world. We are despised but accepted. The rest of the world has no choice, they cant deny us because we are key to their survival and they know it. This dichotomy plays havoc with how the ideal American is viewed. Because America and the rest of the world plays to the drum of the moment, America and what it believes is constantly changing and evolving. It is this fluidity of acceptance of new ideas, that keeps America vital and a step ahead of ther rest of the world.

It is a place where the adventurous spirit of the pioneers who settled the west is central to the soul of America and is valued above most everything else. Change and new ideas is essential to Americans. It is what their country is based on. Fresh ideas, whether accepted as true or right by the general public are discussed. Ultimately the new ways may be ridiculed, scorned, outlawed or viewed as evil and unfit for the country. But first the ideas are always debated and weighed with a generally open mind. Creative and new ways of looking at things are judged before being dismissed.

People whose ideas are not accepted may be then be placed in a negative light or even hated. But no matter how vehemently opposed an American may be to the beliefs of a person or group, he/she cant help but respect the radical for the fact that they develped a new idea, and acted on it. Just as the pioneers who settled a hostile country, the radicals who believe and act on their convictions gain the respect of the American public. I feeel that this creativity, convicition and hard work are essential to the life of an ideal American. Moral purity and the golden rule attitude are also considered a basic tenet of being a good American.

But these values can easily be replaced with hard work, dedication, sucess, and ultimately public recognition. In the mind of Americans, these qualites can effectively override the moral purity qualifications. People such as the great tycoons Rockefeller, and Trump. Or even some of our presidents, namely Nixon. They swindled, stole, cheated and downright stepped on the backs of others to reach their positions. At all times they certainly did not practice ethical business practices to achieve their stature. But, there stature is not diminshed much because of how they achieved their greatness.

Twenty five years later, President Nixon is eulogized as a great man by most of the country, and excluding text books, Rockefeller is remembered solely for his unselfish use of his money toward many splendid public works. How quickly America selectively forgets what is was evil about the person, when the person is so powerful, and has such an impact on history. Because a man is sucessful and achieves great power, they are revered. It is this power and drive that is admired by Americans and considered ideal traits. That is not to say that humanitarians and religious prophets cant be considered ideal Americans, or to posses the ideal traits.

There power is not as obvious but are also respected only because they posses the same type of influential power enjoyed by tycoons and political leaders. I believe the ideal American is the person who works hard for what they desire, or with conviction in what they preach, and succeed in gaining recognition, whether favorable or not. It is here in America where being noticed, commanding power, and/or being original and dedicated, are the virtues that people respect and see in an ideal American. These are the people that the American public reveres as ideal.

In this country, all the conclusions drawn about ideal Americans inevitably leads to equating the ideal American with the noteworthy American. It is not common that a caucasian person as myself would usually claim Malcolm X as a person I would choose to follow as the ideal American. But using the terms laid out before the reasoning becomes clearer. I do not think of Malcolm X or El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz as the only type of ideal American. He simply possess most of the traits I established as being an ideal American. How can this be true if one stops to consider the life of Malcom Little?

Besides being a drug dealer, he was a murderer, mugger, thief, and consequently a convicted criminal. He was a uncotrollable drug user, and virtual socio path. He was even nicknamed Satan, for being one of the meanest, most evil inmates in prison. For decades after being released from prison he succumbed to the inane racist philosophies of the Nation of Islam and its bigot leader Elijah Muhhamed. Malcom X as he was now called preached hatred, bigotry and violence to all that would listen.. He was responsible for countless deaths, riots, and general prejudices being worsened all for the cause of the racist Nation of Islam.

For most of his years he preached that the white man was the devill, and should be wiped out from the earth. Finally, towards the end of his life he opened his ignorant eyes to what was so obvious to countless others. He saw that what he had been preaching was evil and wrong, and rebuked much of his earlier beliefs. Malcolm cannot be rembered as an intellectual genius, nor as a testament to the virtues of a great man. He preached hatred and intolerance for too long, even with his upbring taken into account, to be considered a brilliant visionary.

He was not an ideal American in terms of being a good citizen, morally pure, or patriotic. r being the morally pure, upstanding American citizen. Instead, certain attributes of his life and its effects, qualifies him as a different type of an ideal American. While hated by many, none can deny that he changed the world around him permanently. His life was a testament to dedication, hard work, and perserverance. His pursuits were the wrong ones, but he believed that he was doing the right thing. The goals were morally wrong but his conviction was unfaltering. He never lagged with a gap between his thoughts and his actions. Whatever he desired he went and attempted, and continued until all options were exhausted.

Wholeheartdely he commited himself to his work with the same hard work ethics that the great tycoons did. Only his goal was not to improve his standing in life, but to improve his peoples, he must be respected as they are because of his commitment to his goal. While the tycoons ultimate goal was simply self fufillment, a selfish, morally incorrect purpose in life, they were viewed as ideal Americans because they achieved what they set out to do through dilligent hard work. Malcolm X did the same and so should be viewed in the same light as these ideal Americans.

As was already established, the thoughts and actions of Malcolm (or more precisely the those of the dishonorable Elijah Muhammed whose he followed) were inherently evil, and assinine. The general population may have desired Malcolm to die and not worthy of being alive when his beliefs became public, and he campaigned for them. Their hatred was fresh and vehement. These were new troublesome ideas that this young radical was claiming. It was because they were new or becasue they were voiced publicly for the first time that the population became so angry and worried.

His thoughts were scary in their newness. Like an ideal, free thinking American, Malcolm had used The Nation of Islam teachings to spring these creatively evil thoughts on an unwilling public. The population recognized the terrible creativity and freshness behind these ideas. They realized that like other ideal Americans in history, Malcolm had new theories, but more importantly that he new how to use them. His thoughts were unlike past notable Americans, but they were just as creative and original as those men and women who were considered ingenious role models.

Malcolms ability to implement these new ideas on the population effects the world around him. He sets out to change the world with fresh, new ideas, and suceeds in gaining recognition. For good or ill use, he still embodies the pioneering attitude so key to America. Some may disagree with my position. They may claim that no matter how creative, hard working, and dedicated Malcolm X was, he still preached hatred and cannot be considered an ideal American. His evil also outweighs his impact on history and his noteworthyness. I cannot begin to defend the views that Malcolm held for so long.

As they are certainly wrong. All that can be done is to try to justify the reasons that Malcom may have believed these things. His cruel life all pointed him towards these beliefs. A much more honest and religious man, may have come to the same conclusions had he have lived the life that Malcolm lived. One of abuse, poverty, murder, and hopelessness, all at the hands of the white man. His actions were not justified, but can almost be considering his plight. It is this partial justification that I offer as an answer to his inexcusable acts.

What Malcolm X preached was what he truly believed to be the truth. Every shred of his exsistence rested on these racist beliefs. Until near the end of this life, he believed that what he was doing, was the word of god, Allah. He believed he was doing the most sincere and morally correct thing any man could do. Every time he preached the devil as the white man he believed he improved the world. How I ask can you hold a man completely accountable for his actions when he feels he is improving the world around him for the good of the people?

I dont excuse him completely. I only say that like any ideal American he was following his set of golden rules. Be kind to black men, and hate white men. Just as a pious, American citizen believes that being kind to your fellow man, and being a good citizen is essential to being an ideal American. Malcolm believed that what he was doing was essential to being an ideal American, or an ideal person. His intentions were good, it was only that his whole philosophy was wrong, through no complete fault of his own.

The history of America

For years Americans have been engulfed in what may be the greatest nationwide debate in the history of America. The separation of Church and State. For starters a few definitions should be made clear. Webster defines religion as a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. That is the definition that I will be referring to when I say religion. When I say Religion with a capitol R I am referring to the service and worship of God, or the supernatural So many people argue that prayer in schools should not be allowed, or that Religion should not be taught. The bible was once used as a textbook in schools.

Prayer used to open up the days at school. Christianity used to be taught. Then Darwin came along and suddenly, Evolution is the new lesson in science. Now, teachers must teach Evolution as fact, when it is still a theory. The Theory of Evolution by Darwin is what it needs to be called. Now teaching Creation suddenly became Religion. And teaching Religion is a violation of Constitutional Rights. Oftentimes, people overlook the historical context when reading documents. This holds true with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. People always say separation of Church and State, have to have separation of Church and State.

You can’t pray, that isn’t separation of Church and State We need to have Freedom of Religion. True the founding documentation does call for the separation of Church and state but it does not call for the separation of Church FROM state. Note this difference. The founding fathers had British persecution on the forefront of their minds when this was written. They remembered the government sanctioned Religion persecuting the rest of the religions. They wanted to protect Religion from the government, not the government from Religion. Today, although no one wants to admit it, the nationally sanctioned Religion is Atheism.

Atheism goes along with both definitions that I previously stated. Atheists believe that there is no God or gods. Evolution is promoting Atheism, not teaching any Religions in school promotes Atheism, not allowing prayer in schools promotes Atheism. That CANNOT be allowed. Public schools which are funded by the government, teach evolution which along with being scientifically impossible and unprobable promotes Atheism. The First Amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Now if Atheism is both religion and Religion, then making school curriculum teach evolution, which is the Atheist creation story, is promoting it. The taxes of all people of all states goes to paying teachers salaries, and for paying for supplies and aides that help to teach this Scientific point of view. That is not acceptable. I am not saying that evolution should not be taught. I believe that both Evolution and Creation should be taught. I am not saying that prayer should be mandatory in schools, I am saying that student initiated prayer should not be prohibited by any government, school, city, state or national.

It is undemocratic of this nation to prohibit the exercise that many people left England to gain. Religion and religion are not only a part of life, but should be a part of learning. We cannot grow up ignorant of Religion. Religion should not be taught from a true or false aspect but from a this is what Christianity says, or this is what Islam teaches, or Judaism teaches this aspect. Here are some facts that are PROVEN. Since the feminist revolution, and mothers started going to work the crime rate has increased, the amount of people seeing therapists has risen and the national ranking in many categories has taken a turn for the worst.

Since prayer was banned in schools, America has become the leader in divorce rates, homicides, suicides, crime rates, illiteracy, and abortion in either the Western world or the entire world. I do not want Christian beliefs forced upon anyone, I just don’t want Atheist ones forced upon us either. Teach the secular world view AND the world view of at least some of the major religions. Teach them from an unbiased and impartial point of view. And don’t try to stop students from participating in their Religious or religious beliefs while on campus or anywhere else.

The Ku Klux Klan

The Ku Klux Klan is a secret society based on hatred and violence. The Klan claims that it stands for only law-abiding rallies and activities, but the Klan has been known for having hypocritical views throughout its existence. No matter where the Klan is headed, violence is sure to be the destination. The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan claim that the Bible is on their side. They claim that the Bible condones their activity. Nowhere in the Bible is killing thy neighbor encouraged. They claim they are not out to destroy America, but rather to save it.

How is it possible to save America with hate and violence? The Klan xists only to hold onto the beliefs of the Confederacy, but hanging on to the past only adds to the destruction of the future. Holding on to the past is bad enough when the past is full of pleasant memories, but the Klan is hanging on to the hate and ignorance of the South in the 1800s. The Ku Klux Klan has always attempted to reach their goal of instilling fear and intimidation in the minds of everyone they cross. The Klan has undergone four stages after its establishment and the last stage is still on the rise.

The Klan has a distinct origin, a four stage revolution, distinct symbols, recruiting requirements, and strong olitical beliefs. Formed in the 19th century, the Ku Klux Klan has attempted to instill fear in the minds and the hearts of black citizens in the United States. The Klan was first organized on December 24th, 1865 in the Law Office of Judge Thomas M. Jones. There were six people who organized the Klan. They included Calvin E. Jones, John B. Kennedy, Frank O. McCord, John C. Lester, Richard R. Reed, and James R. Crow. This information is proclaimed on a wall in Pulaski, Tennessee.

It was unveiled on May 21, 1917 by the widow of Captain Kennedy, who was the last of the six founders to pass away. The origin of the Ku Klux Klan was described in a thirty page pamphlet published by Mr. and Mrs. William B. Romine of Pulaski. It read: As the Klan stood primarily for purity and preservation of the home and for the protection of the women and children, especially the widows and orphans of Confederate soldiers, white, the emblem of purity was chosen for the robes. And to render them startling and conspicuous, red, emblem of the blood which Klansmen were ready to shed in defense of the helpless, was chosen for the trimmings.

Also, a sentimental thought was present in adopting the color scheme, as white and ed were the Confederate colors. Be it said to the credit of the women of the South who designed and made with their own hands more than four hundred thousand of these Klan robes for both horses and riders, not a word was said by these women to anyone about them and not one single secret concerning them was ever revealed. -page 8 of Ku Klux Klan, A Century of Infamy by William Pierce Randel This account was published in 1924. The six founders were unable to fill a complement of den officers. At first there was no Grand Scribe.

The original den leader, Frank McCord was called Grand Cyclops; his chief lieutenant, known s Grand Magi, was Captain Kennedy. James Crowe was chosen Grand Turk, a kind of marshal or master of ceremonies. Calvin Jones and Captain Lester were Night Hawks, or couriers, and Richard Reed was the first Lictor or outer guard. New titles were created for the next few members to join. After these positions were filled, the new members were to be called Ghouls. The name of this secret organization was one of the first things that was discussed. They wanted a name that was original and one that would send a tingle down the spine of their victims.

The title came from a Greek word kuklos which means a band or circle. James Crowe suggested that the word be split in two and changing the last letter to an x. This gave them the name Ku Klux. Then John Lester remarked that all six founders were of Scottish descent, therefore he proposed that clan be added to the end, but spelled with a k for consistency yielding the Ku Klux Klan. This name was much better than the proposed Clocletz. Clocetz was the name of a phantom Indian chief who the Negroes from Georgia had feared, but they decided that it was too unoriginal.

After the name was established, the Ku Klux Klan needed to have a set structure to maintain order. The structure was founded by one of the most educated founders, John Kennedy. Since he had briefly attended Centre College in Kentucky, he had observed some details about how fraternities were structured. Since the structure of fraternities helped establish other organizations, it seemed that this was a perfect model to follow in the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan. Now that the name and structure were established, the Klan needed uniforms. The color white was chosen for the reason that the KKK stood for purity.

They decided to wear robes and hoods to intimidate their much hated counterparts, the Blacks. The Ku Klux Klan has gone through an evolution over the course of time and it has endured four phases; Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movements, revival after World War II, and present day activity. The first evidence of the Ku Klux Klan was during Reconstruction. The Klan began as a prankish organization that targeted Blacks and Republicans. The first Klan was a secret society established in the Southern states during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War.

It was founded at Pulaski, Tennessee in the fall of 1865 as a social club. The sudden attempt at enfranchisement of blacks, by passage of the Reconstruction cts of March 1867, and also of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, created serious problems of political and social readjustments. Local politicians and their white supporters, known as scalawags, and Northerners, known as carpetbaggers, who went south hoping to profit in one way or another by the manipulation of the black vote, added to the confusion and uncertainty. Many Blacks were exploited by their new found friends and turned to them for help.

The Ku Klux Klan was formed to intimidate Blacks. They used bizarre rituals and wore pointed hoods and draping gowns to help intimidate Blacks. From 1868 to 1871, the Klan reached the height of its power. The movement was really a revolution against many of the aspects of Reconstruction, and was also a revolt to overthrow local and state governments. At the first meeting for the KKK in Nashville, Tennessee, General Nathan B. Forrest, a famous Confederate cavalry leader, was chosen as Grand Cyclops, or president. The Klan was separated into local dens and they adopted a set of principles.

They are as follows: 1) to protect the weakened and to relieve the injured and oppressed, 2) to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and laws passed in conformity thereto and to protect the states nd the people from invasion of any source, and 3) to aid in the execution of the laws and to protect the people from unlawful seizure and trial except by their peers. The Klan spread from Tennessee to the Carolinas and especially Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. In Louisiana, white radicals formed a group that was different than the KKK only in name.

They referred to themselves as the Knights of the White Camellia. Other similar organizations were referred to as the White League and the Invisible Circle. The Klan had a large group of members, but the members were not as evident as hoped. Local groups were soon were branded as utlaws; therefore, were condemned. In 1871 and 1872, the government introduced the Force Laws to break up these local groups and to control local elections. The Ku Klux Klan continued to participate in their activities until they had accomplished all of their goals.

They vowed to continue protecting the white people, reducing the black vote, expelling undesirable carpetbaggers and scalawags, and nullifying those laws of Congress that in a sense would put white Southerners under control of a party largely supported by black voters. By 1877, when Rutherford B. Hayes became president and the federal troops had been withdrawn as upport of local governments, the original Klan had been disbanded. The second, or the modern 20th-century, Klan was formed by William J. Simmons on Stone Mountain, near Atlanta, Ga. in 1915 as a fraternal organization devoted to the principles of white supremacy.

It was a new organization, linked only by name and tradition to the original Klan. By 1919, Edward Clark Young and Elizabeth Tyler, publicity agent and fund raisers, had joined with Simmons. Klan activities were now not only directed against blacks, but also against Roman Catholics, Jews, and the foreign-born. This Klan became dedicated to protecting the purity of the ative-born, white, Anglo-Saxon Americans and claimed a higher morality and dedication to religious fundamentalism.

Because the Klan was not sectional in its appeal, its influence spread to other parts of the country outside of the South. Mysterious meetings around fiery crosses, with members masked, hooded, and robed in sheets, became symbolic of the Klan. The tactics they used were to instill fear upon their counterparts. They used whippings, tarring and feathering, branding, mutilating, and lynching as tactics to present intimidation and fear. Following investigations into the Klan finances and isclosures of money making in 1921, Young and Tyler resigned and Simmons was replaced as head of the Klan by Hiram W. Evans.

The Klan reached the height of its power in the early 1920s, when it probably had between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 members. As a political force the Klan was effective and promoted the election of many officials on the local level. In 1924, the Klan helped split the Democratic presidential convention. Thereafter their influence began to wane, and public sentiment of the Klan grew, especially after the conviction for murder of the head of the Indiana Klan. There was a rise of Klan activity during the 1928 residential campaign, when Al Smith ran on the Democratic ticket.

The ranks of the Klan, however, continued to deteriorate. During the 1930s, the Klan was reduced to a regional, ineffective organization in the South. In the late 1930s, it had some association with the German-American Bund. When the U. S. government tried to collect back taxes in 1944, the remnants of the Klan again disbanded. The third stage came after World War II. The Klan was again revived in Georgia in 1946 and similar organizations arose throughout the South as the movement for increased civil rights for blacks developed after World War II.

Klan ctivity increased after the 1954 Supreme Court desegregation decision and became more intensive following the passage and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the decision by the vast majority of Southern political leaders to comply with the law. Many bombings and murders were attributed to the Klan, including the 1965 killing of Mrs. Viola Liuzzo, a civil rights worker, for which three Klansmen were convicted. President Lyndon B. Johnson called for a congressional investigation of the Klan by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

In 1966 seven leading Klansmen were indicted for contempt of Congress for refusing o produce Klan records. In 1973, convictions were handed down against five men who, as Klansmen, bombed school busses in Pontiac, Michigan. Klan strength is variously estimated at 15,000 to 30,000 members active in 15 states. The Ku Klux Klan seemed to have all of the odds against them, but they seemed to again reestablish itself in the present day. The Klan was again revived for the fourth stage. Every time the Klan reappeared, they came with more anger and weaker beliefs than the last.

This is the main reason the Klan has lost meaning every time it has reappeared. The new Klan differs from the original dramatically. All current members are ignorant radicals out to save the world. The present-day Klan has been convicted recently of burning Black churches. This proves that the Klan is not just ignorant, but yet hypocrites of their beliefs. No where in the Bible does it say burn thy neighbors church down. The Klan is portrayed on television by uneducated, drunk, and violent men who portray themselves as protecting their ancestors.

Their ancestors had to form a secret society because they lost the Civil War, but were too scared to give up their old lives. Again they were grasping on to the past instead of solving problems by looking ahead to the future. Instead those great ancestors have passed on their beliefs to these Neo-Nazis on television. The present-day Klan is the most confused. All of the other phases of the Klan have been true to their beliefs, but this recent Klan has incorporated the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan with those of Hitlers Nazis.

The Klan/Neo-Nazis stand for mainly the hate and jealousy of African-Americans. Most of the other beliefs have diminished, but the hatred towards Blacks has expanded to fill the empty hole left open by all of the other missing beliefs. The new Klan is known for their extreme beliefs and actions. They preach with violence. Even though they are short on members, they use extreme tactics that would have never been considered in the past. The present-day Klan stands for only shallow beliefs including hate, jealousy, and anger that is expressed through violence.

The Ku Klux Klan is known for their trademark symbols. Almost all Klan groups use the Blood Drop symbol that was made popular in the 1920s. It represents the blood of Jesus Christ that was shed for the white Aryan Race. Another symbol is the crosswheel that was made popular during the 1970s, the 4th Era. It is a cross in a circle. In the crosswheel, it is evident that the Christian cross, the heel of creativity, the circle of unity, motion, and also the ancient Aryan symbol for the sun are all present. The cross that is set ablaze is another signature symbol acquired by the Ku Klux Klan.

The reason that the cross is lit has been described. From the sacred pages of the Holy Bible comes the sad sweet story of the Holy Cross of Calvary. This Holy Cross is our symbol of sacrifice and service, and a sign of the Christian religion. It was sanctified and made Holy almost 2000 years ago by the suffering and blood over 50 million martyrs who died in the most Holy Faith. The Cross stands in every Klan Den as a onstant reminder that Jesus Christ is our Criterion of character and His teachings our life blood, bought Holy, sanctified and sublime.

This old Cross was bathed in the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and became transformed into the symbol of faith, hope, and love. Today it is used to rally the forces of Christianity against the ever increasing hordes of an anti-Christ and the enemies of America and the White Race. We light the Cross with fire to signify to the world that Jesus Christ is the light of the world. Where the Holy Cross shall shine, there will be dispelled evil, darkness, gloom, and despair. The Light of Truth dispels ignorance and superstition as fire purifies gold and silver, but destroys wood and stubble.

So by the fire of the Cross of Calvary, we cleanse and purify our virtues by burning out our vices with the fire of His Word. Who can look upon this sublime symbol, or sit in its sacred Holy Light without being inspired with a holy desire and determination to be a better person? By this Holy Light of the Cross, we will perservere. – KKK. com quoted by a Klansman on why they light the cross. Recruiting for the Klan was never thought about when it was established. One of the first decisions that was to be ollowed by the Klan everywhere was new members were not to be sought out.

Joining the Klan was each individual decision. The den officers do not push people to join the Klan. Although the Klan does not recruit, people interested in joining have to meet certain qualifications. They are as follows: No person is allowed in our ranks who can not declare an unqualified allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. No person is allowed in this Movement who can not pledge themselves to the protection, preservation, and advancement of the White Race. No one is allowed in this movement who can not practice real Brotherhood.

Only pure White Christian people of non-Jewish, non-Negro, non-Asian descent who are at least eighteen years old and who pledge to dedicate their lives to this cause can enter the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Those under the age of eighteen can join the Klan Youth Corp. with parental consent, and then become a full member of the Knights when they turn eighteen. The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is strictly a law-abiding organization. Every member is sworn to uphold the law and the principles of justice, and he will not conspire with others to commit any unlawful or violent crimes.

The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan cocedes the right of very Christian citizen the right to worship God as he sees fit, and will not tolerate denominational dissentation of any nature. All White Christians must unite, at this juncture in history. The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Movement is not an open membership organization. Only those who meet 100% of the qualifications are allowed to join the Klan. Although the Ku Klux Klan is extremely influential in politics, members claim that the KKK is not a political affiliation.

They add that if it was a political affiliation, the beliefs that would be introduced are as follows: Reassert Americans White Christian Heritage. Return prayer to school. Stop all non-white organizations. Drug testing on all welfare recipitants. Quarantine all Aids carriers. Make the purchase of US Industry and property illegal to foreigners. Do away with free trade that harms the American worker and employ a policy of protectionism. Workfare not welfare. People work for their checks, so should they. Troops on our South border to stop illegal immigration.

Stop reverse discrimination by doing away with Affirmative Action. Declare all laws attempting to enforce gun control as unconstitutional. The Klans political beliefs are clearly out to benefit only the white conformist who rejects what society has ndergone. Society today offers equality for every American citizen. The Klan is against this because they do not like that they will have to work for their jobs just as hard as immigrants do. Klan members want society to hand them what ever they want even though they are the under qualified applicant.

Equality should not bother anyone who is not afraid of working hard for what they want. Nothing will be handed out on a silver platter in todays society, regardless of what the Ku Klux Klan has to say. Complaining, criticizing, and envying will not produce anything except for hatred for the working man, or in todays society, the working woman. The Ku Klux Klan has endured and overcame many obstacles to stay around and distort childrens minds. The Klan has been around for a long time, and unless they are stopped, will be around for a long time.

The Ku Klux Klan is a secret organization that helps segregate the United States by color or beliefs. The Klan helped to preserve racism and because members are ignorant, they will not mingle and learn to understand other cultures. Hating the unknown is just an easy and safe way to live. If the Klan attempted to understand other cultures, maybe they could begin to realize that everyone is alike in one way or another. The most effective technique in destroying the Klan is education. Education is the tool for prevention.

If children are not educated that the Ku Klux Klan stands for evil purposes, these children may fall into the Klans evil empire. Educating the youth along with the society is the only effective way to disband the Ku Klux Klan and secret groups of this nature. The key is to never forget what happened with the Klan so this world will never have to endure the hardships that the Ku Klux Klan has provided. The Ku Klux Klan has undergone a revolution of four stages after their origin in Tennessee and can be identified by their distinct symbols.

The Transcendental Movement of 1830s

In 1830, a movement known as Transcendentalism began to gain popularity in America. Representing an idealistic system of thought, “strength, courage, self-confidence, and independence of mind”1 were some basic values admired by the followers of the Transcendental movement. Transcendentalists opposed many aspects of their government, where they felt “many unjust laws existed. “2 Therefore, they became the leaders of many modern reform movements. Transcendentalists also had a major affect on their society.

Transcendentalism became a “powerful force for democracy. 3 Originating in the area in and around Concord, Massachusettes, Transcendentalism was recognized as having an “underlying relationship to the Romantic movement as a whole. “4 Three of the most obvious or well known sources or origin of Transcendentalism are neo-platonism, German idealistic philosophy, and certain Eastern mystical writings which were introduced into the Boston area in the early nineteenth century. “5

Transcendental beliefs focused on “the importance of spirit over matter. 6 Ralph Waldo Emerson, a well known Transcendentalist, felt that all men aspire to the highest, and most of them spend their lives seeking money and power only because they see nothing higher. “7 Followers also believed in a spiritual hunger, or the need to find themselves one with the world. In addition, they believed in “an ascending hierarchy of spiritual values rising to absolute good, truth, and beauty. “8 Transcendentalists also believed in a supreme being, the Oversoul, and felt that “if the Oversoul is all powerful and at the same time good, then evil does not exist. 9

Transcendentalism “appealed to the best side of human nature, onfident in the divine spark in all men, and it was a clarion call to throw off the shackles of custom and tradition, and go forward to the development of a new and distinct American culture. “10 It was believed that human nature was basically good since “God was in every person. “11 Therefore, “man, because he isthe creature of God, necessarily partakes of the divine nature of his creator. “12 Man’s creator, the Oversoul, was conceived by Emerson as an “all pervading spiritual power from which all things emanate, and from which man derives the divine spark of his inner eing. 13 This Oversoul is “by definition good. “14

The Oversoul “dwelt within human beings as well as in nature. “15 The Transcendentalists also supported many various reform movements such as the following: suffrage for women, better conditions for workers, temperance for all, modifications of dress and diet, the rise of free religion, educational innovation, and other various humanitarian causes. The Transcendentalists became leaders or spokesmen of reform movements in church, state, and society.

Transcendentalists are also known for contributing to the rise of free eligion, aiding the abolitionist movement, supporting feminism, and promoting communitarian experiments. In the abolitionist movement, many reformers felt that “when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army and subject to military law, then it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. “16 Transcendentalism’s affect on society was tremendous.

Because they led many reform movements and rejected the conventional ideas of the eighteenth entury thought, a rift began to form between the old and new ideas in society. Transcendentalism represented a battle between the older and the younger generations. It also represented an emergence of a new national culture based on native materials. This began to influence a break in American culture. Transcendentalism encouraged “a complete break with tradition and custom, encouraged individualism and self-reliance and rejected a too-intellectual approach to life. 17

It becamea call for “young men to slough off their deadening enslavement to the past, to follow he God within, and to live every moment of life with a strenuousness that rivalled that of the Puritan fathers. “18 The main weakness of this seemingly perfect idea of Transcendentalism ist that it had “borrowed from many sources and reconciled few of them. “19 It was never united by a set program. Transcendentalism was comprised of the various interests and labors of many different personal concepts. Therefore, there were many conflicting values which made it an unsteady system to follow.

At the time of the Transcendentalism movement, “it preached, racticed, an idealism that was greatly needed in a rapidly expanding economy. “20 However, soon people began to find other, more comprehensible means of dealing within society. Therefore, they began to turn away from Transcendentalism. However, even though Transcendentalism is non-existent as a whole today, many of its ideas, values, and morals are still present in many of the religions and beliefs of today’s society. In conclusion, Transcendentalism will always be present in the world, it just will not have as obvious a presence.

American Has Lost its Honor

America has always been the envy of the world due to our system of government with its leadership that has traditionally upheld the highest code of honor. In years past Americas leaders were expected to maintain high personal ethics and morals as well insure that the countries economy and standing in the world are maintained at a level that is acceptable to the American public. Recent events have highlighted the fact that honor and ethics no longer rule America. Popular public opinion and spin control have replaced Americas traditional values.

The United States government conceded that it had to close some military base’s but the congressman were unwilling to vote for a base closer in there own states. The Base Realignment and Closer Commission was formed as an independent panel that would present a list of base closures to Congress and the President with the stipulation that all bases on the list would have to be closed or they would all stay open. However in July of 1995 President Clinton ended this process when he made two exemptions to the process under the guise of privatization in place.

A move that insured the reelection of Democratic Caucus Chairman Vic Fazio whose Sacramento area seat leaned Republican. Another example was the 1995-96 Citizenship U. S. A. program that enrolled 180,000 foreigners that became American citizens without any criminal background checks, this group traditionally votes Democratic. 16,000 had felony arrest and 5,000 clearly should have been denied citizenship however on orders from the white house they were rushed through the naturalization process in the hopes they would vote Clinton-Gore in 1996.

During the Lewinsky scandal President Clinton perjured himself under oath and lied to the nation on television. Once it was found out that the President had lied to the American people the White House spin machine tried to debate What the definition of is is. That they were simply two consenting adults voluntarily engaging in sex and enjoying it. , disregarding that the nations chief law enforcement officer had committed perjury. Hustler publisher Larry Flint announced that he was a Democrat and that he was waging a campaign on any congressman that voice an opinion that the President was guilty of impeachable offenses.

Mr. Flynt stated Im looking to expose the hypocrites. Mr. Flynt made it clear that no adverse publicity would come to those who kept silent about President Clintons crimes. Mr. Flynt was using his position to attempt to alter the American governmental system. Once America was respected by the rest of the world as a nation of the rule of law. Our politicians who place their own interest ahead of the nations and the moral and ethical code that they swore to uphold have destroyed our high position and our nation is now the but of jokes around the world.

There was a time that Congressman and the President was upheld as moral, ethical, and honorable role models. No longer will the parents use the President as a role model of proper behavior; instead parents now have to explain to their children what oral sex is and what a cigar has to do with a vagina. The America based on honor and duty to ones fellow citizen and duty to the country is a fact of the past, it died when we put our immediate comfort a head of principals and honor.

The Restructuring Of American Society

There has been a concern for some time throughout America regarding the quality of public education. Students are graduating from highschool without adequate knowledge of the three R’s. Universities are recruiting a multitude of incompetent pseudo-scholars. Employers don’t understand why the new generation of workers do not possess the basic skills to perform the job. It would appear that American students are not learning as much as their parents did. And yet, teachers are still teaching, taxes are still being paid, and more funds than ever are being appropriated for public education.

What’s going on in America’s lassrooms? Up until the 1980’s most schools used a standards based curriculum. In the traditional classroom setting, educators focused on the input side of education, teaching a specific body of knowledge. Students were graded against predefined standards and passed or failed based on their ability to meet those standards. This method of teaching produced a graduate with a well rounded education, and prepared him for further development of career skills. With the exception of those who did not apply themselves, the system worked.

Today America’s educators take a new approach in the classroom. The ocus of education has moved to measuring what students can do, rather than what they understand. This is the core principle of Outcomes Based Education (OBE). An outcome, by definition, is something that follows as a result or consequence. So OBE then, is an approach to education where the end result is the most important factor. This is very important in understanding what OBE is, and what it intends to do. In the OBE classroom, every aspect of the curriculum is geared toward achieving a small group of specific goals.

To gain an insight into OBE, it is necessary to learn something about its origins and those promoting it. B. F. Skinner, a psychologist and learning theorist, developed the techniques of learning (operant conditioning) based on conditioning phenomena first analyzed scientifically by Pavlov. Skinner called his technique his “teaching machine. ” Skinner thus developed the principles on which “Mastery Learning” was developed by Benjamin Bloom. Mastery Learning was the original name for the process known today as Outcome Based Education, also known as Performance Based Education, or Restructuring.

Educational theories used in OBE are based on Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. A curriculum, according to Bloom, “… may be thought of as a plan for changing student behavior. ” (p 14 of Ron Sunseri’s book OBE: Understanding the Truth about Education Reform, Questar Publishers, P. O. Box 1720, Sisters, OR 97759) Bloom called it “Mastery Learning. ” Techniques for his new style of education, based on Skinnerian behavioral psychology, focus on stimulus-response conditioning. Bloom said the mission of education is to change the thoughts, actions and feelings of students.

He held that the desired outcome is “… formulating subjective judgment as the end product resulting in personal alues/opinions with no real right or wrong answer. ” With no absolutes, the goal of teaching is to modify the “thoughts, feelings and actions” of the stude nt to some replacement system supplied by the educational system. William Spady, Director of the High Success Network and Director of the International Center on Outcome-Based Restructuring, is the “father” of OBE. He works with the federal government, foundations, states and school districts helping them implement OBE.

According to Spady, we are faced with “a fragile and vulnerable global environment that requires altering economic consumption patterns and quality of ife standards, and taking collective responsibility for promoting health and wellness. ” The goal of education, Spady says, has to be to prepare students for that future. Learning results are what is important, and his premise is that all students can learn. It is not important how long it takes, as long as the desired learning takes place. Since all will learn, grades are irrelevant in the new system.

All get an “A”. Competition in schools in his estimation is a negative influence impairing learning. Spady’s definition of an outcome is “the acceptable culminating demonstration of a significant learning behavior. Subject knowledge and concepts are not valid outcomes. In 1982 he observed that one of the four main goals of Mastery Learning is a “system of supervision and control which restrains behavior of kids. The outcome of the hidden agenda should be the fostering of social responsibility and compliance. ” These goals “transcend academics,” and deal with attitudes and feelings.

However, Spady rejected the term “Mastery Learning” because of its monumental failures, renaming it so that the system of OBE would not be rejected out of hand. But how exactly does OBE work? In OBE, a student must demonstrate an pproved behavior defined by the state as the required outcome of the educational process. The state: 1. Sets a standard for “mastery” of a specified goal. 2. Tests to verify that the goal has been achieved. 3. Remediates a student who fails to meet the standard until he does. The required outcomes are attitudinal, not academically based.

They set outcome attitudes towards and behavioral capacity for adaptability to change, ethical judgment, family living, environment, understanding and appreciating others, and good citizenship (defined as active participation in and support of civic government). The rhetoric of OBE says that children will proceed at their own pace and not be judged by “seat time. ” In practice, because of emphasis upon group learning strategies, all children in a group must achieve the goals before the group may move on, which puts tremendous pressure on a non-conformist to conform.

 

The Debate Over Multicultural Education in America

America has long been called “The Melting Pot” due to the fact that it is made up of a varied mix of races, cultures, and ethnicities. As more and more immigrants come to America searching for a better life, the population naturally becomes more diverse. This has, in turn, spun a great debate over multiculturalism. Some of the issues under fire are who is benefiting from the education, and how to present the material in a way so as to offend the least amount of people. There are many variations on these hemes as will be discussed later in this paper.

In the 1930’s several educators called for programs of cultural diversity that encouraged ethnic and minority students to study their respective heritages. This is not a simple feat due to the fact that there is much diversity within individual cultures. A look at a 1990 census shows that the American population has changed more noticeably in the last ten years than in any other time in the twentieth century, with one out of every four Americans identifying themselves as black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, or American Indian (Gould 198).

The number of foreign born residents also reached an all time high of twenty million, easily passing the 1980 record of fourteen million. Most people, from educators to philosophers, agree that an important first step in successfully joining multiple cultures is to develop an understanding of each others background. However, the similarities stop there. One problem is in defining the term “multiculturalism”. When it is looked at simply as meaning the existence of a culturally integrated society, many people have no problems.

However, when you go beyond that and try o suggest a different way of arriving at that culturally integrated society, Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what will work. Since education is at the root of the problem, it might be appropriate to use an example in that context. Although the debate at Stanford University ran much deeper than I can hope to touch in this paper, the root of the problem was as follows: In 1980, Stanford University came up with a program – later known as the “Stanford-style multicultural curriculum” which aimed to familiarize students with traditions, philosophy, literature, and history of the West.

The program consisted of 15 required books by writers such as Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aquinas, Marx, and Freud. By 1987, a group called the Rainbow Coalition argued the fact that the books were all written by DWEM’s or Dead White European Males. They felt that this type of teaching denied students the knowledge of contributions by people of color, women, and other oppressed groups.

In 1987, the faculty voted 39 to 4 to change the curriculum and do away with the fifteen book requirement and the term “Western” for the study of at least one non-European culture and proper ttention to be given to the issues of race and gender (Gould 199). This debate was very important because its publicity provided the grounds for the argument that America is a pluralistic society and to study only one people would not accurately portray what really makes up this country.

Proponents of multicultural education argue that it offers students a balanced appreciation and critique of other cultures as well as our own (Stotsky 64). While it is common sense that one could not have a true understanding of a subject by only possessing knowledge of one side of it, his brings up the fact that there would never be enough time in our current school year to equally cover the contributions of each individual nationality. This leaves teachers with two options.

The first would be to lengthen the school year, which is highly unlikely because of the political aspects of the situation. The other choice is to modify the curriculum to only include what the instructor (or school) feels are the most important contributions, which again leaves them open to criticism from groups that feel they are not being equally treated. A national standard is out of the question because of the fact hat different parts of the country contain certain concentrations of nationalities. An example of this is the high concentration of Cubans in Florida or Latinos in the west.

Nonetheless, teachers are at the top of the agenda when it comes to multiculturalism. They can do the most for children during the early years of learning, when kids are most impressionable. By engaging students in activities that follow the lines of their multicultural curriculum, they can open up young minds while making learning fun. in one first grade classroom, an inventive teacher used the minority students to her dvantage by making them her helpers as she taught the rest of the class some simple Spanish words and customs.

This newly acquired vocabulary formed a common bond among the children in their early years, an appropriate time for learning respect and understanding (Pyszkowski 154). Another exciting idea is to put children in the setting of the culture they are learning about. By surrounding children in the ideas and customs of other cultures, they can better understand what it is like to be removed from our society altogether, if only for a day. Having kids dress up in foreign clothing, ample foods and sing songs from abroad makes educating easier on the teacher by making it fun for the students.

A simple idea that helps teachers is to let students speak for themselves. Ask students how they feel about each other and why. This will help dispel stereotypes that might be created in the home. By asking questions of each other, students can get firsthand answers about the beliefs and customs of other cultures, along with some insight as to why people feel the way they do, something that can never be adequately Students are not the only ones who can benefit from this type of earning. Teachers certainly will pick up on educational aspects from other countries.

If, for instance, a teacher has a minority student from a different country every year, he or she can develop a well rounded teaching style that would in turn, benefit all students. Teachers can also keep on top of things by regularly attending workshops and getting parents involved so they can reinforce what is being taught in the classroom at home. The New York State Social Studies Review and Development Committee has come up with six guidelines that they think teachers should mphasize in order to help break down ethnic barriers.

These steps are as First, from the very beginning, social studies should be taught from a global perspective. We are all equal owners of the earth, none of us are more entitled than others to share in its many wealths or misfortunes. The uniqueness of each individual is what adds variety to our everyday life. Second, social studies will continue to serve nation building purposes. By pointing out the things we share in common, it will be easier to examine the individual things that make us different. Third, the curriculum must strive to be informed by the most up to date scholarship.

The administrators must know that in the past, we have learned from our mistakes, and we will continue to do so in the future. By keeping an open mind, we will take in new knowledge and different Fourth, students need to see themselves as active makers and changers of culture and society. If given the skills to judge people and their thoughts fairly, and the knowledge that they can make a difference, students will take better control of life in the future. Fifth, the program should be committed to the honoring and ontinuing examination of democratic values as an essential basis for social organization and nation building.

Although the democratic system is far from perfect, it has proven in the past that it can be effective if we continue to put effort into maintaining it while leaving it open for change. Sixth, social studies should be taught not solely as information, but rather through the critical examination of ideas and events rooted in time and place and responding to social interests. The subject needs to be taught with excitement that sparks kids interest and motivates them to want to take lace in the shaping of the future of our country (NYSSSRADC 145-47).

In order to give a well rounded multicultural discussion, as James Banks explains, teachers need to let students know how knowledge reflects the social, political, and economic context in which it was created. Knowledge explained by powerful groups in society differs greatly from that of its less powerful counterparts (Banks 11). For example, it should be pointed out how early Americans are most often called “pioneers” or “settlers” in social studies texts, while foreigners are called “immigrants”.

They should realize that to Native Americans, pioneers were actually the immigrants, but since the “pioneers” later went on to write the textbooks, it is not usually described that way. By simply looking at the term “western culture” it is obvious that this is a viewpoint of people from a certain area. If students are aware that to Alaskans, the west was actually the south, they can realize the bearings of how the elite in society determine what is learned. By not falling victim to these same misconceptions, students can better make unprejudiced decisions about those around them.

Another important aspect tudents need to realize is that knowledge alone isn’t enough to shape a society. The members themselves have to be willing to put forth the time and effort and show an interest in shaping their society in order for it to benefit all While generally opposed to the idea, Francis Ryan points out that “Multicultural education programs indeed may be helpful for all students in developing perspective-taking skills and an appreciation for how ethnic and minority traditions have evolved and changed as each came into contact with other groups” (Ryan 137).

It would certainly give people a sense of ethnic ride to know how their forefathers contributed to the building of the American society that we live in today. It is also a great feeling to know that we can change what we feel is wrong to build a better system for our children. Minorities would benefit from learning the evolution of their culture and realizing that the ups and downs along the way do not necessarily mean that their particular lifestyle is in danger of extinction. Some opponents feel that the idea of multiculturalism will, instead of uniting cultures, actually divide them.

They feel that Americans should try nd think of themselves as a whole rather than people from different places all living together. They go even further to say that it actually goes against our democratic tradition, the cornerstone of American society (Stotsky 64). In Paul Gannon’s article Balancing Multicultural and Civic Education will Take More Than Social Stew, he brings up an interesting point that “Education in the origins, evolution, advances and defeats of democracy must, by its nature, be heavily Western and also demand great attention to political history (Gannon 8).

Since both modern democracy and its lternatives are derived mostly from European past, and since most of the participants were white males who are now dead, the choices are certainly limited. If we try to avoid these truths or sidestep them in any way, we cannot honestly say we are giving an accurate description of our history. Robert Hassinger agrees with Gannon and adds that we cannot ignore the contributions of DWEM’s for the simple fact that they are just that.

He thinks that we should study such things as the rise of capitalism or ongoing nationalism in other countries, but should not be swayed in our critical hinking by the fact that some people will not feel equally treated or even disrespected (Hassinger 11). There certainly must be reasons why many influential people in our history have been DWEM’s, and we should explore these reasons without using race and sex alone as reasons for excluding them from our curriculum.

When conflicts arise with the way we do things, we should explore why rather than compromise in order to protect a certain Francis Ryan warns that trying to push the subject of multiculturalism too far would actually be a hindrance if it interferes with a students articipation in other groups, or worse yet, holds the child back from expressing his or her own individuality. He gives a first-hand example of one of his African-American students who was afraid to publicly admit his dislike for rap music because he felt ethnically obligated as part of his black heritage (Ryan 137).

While a teacher can be a great help in providing information about other cultures, by the same note, that information can be just as harmful if it is incomplete. In order for students to be in control of their own identity, they must have some idea of how others look at these same qualities. Children must be taught to resolve inner-conflicts about their identity, so that these features that make us unique will be brought out in the open where they can be enjoyed by all instead of being hidden in fear of facing rejection from their peers.

Teachers need to spend an equal amount of time developing each students individuality so they don’t end up feeling obligated to their racial group more than they feel necessary to express the diversity that makes As Harlan Cleveland points out, many countries still feel that the predominant race must be the one in power. For instance, try to imagine a Turkish leader in Germany, or anyone but a Japanese in control of Japan (Cleveland 26). Only in America is there such a diverse array of people in power from county officials all the way up to the make up of people in our Supreme Court.

However, although we have made many advances culturally that other countries haven’t, we still have yet to see an African-American, Latino, or for that matter, a woman as head of our country. With increasing awareness of other cultures though, these once unheard of suggestions are making their way even closer to reality. Another way to look at the issue is that most non-Western cultures have few achievements equal to Western culture either in the past or present (Duignan 492). The modern achievements that put America ahead of other countries are unique to America because they were developed here.

Many third-world countries still practice things that we have evolved from many years ago, such as slavery, wife beatings, and planned marriages. We are also given many freedoms that are unheard of in other countries. Homosexuality is punished severely in other lands, while we have grown to ealize that it is part of the genetic makeup of many people and they cannot Most immigrants come to America for a better way of life, willing to leave behind the uncivilized values of their mother countries.

Instead of trying to move the country that they came from into America, immigrants need to be willing to accept the fact that America is shared by all who live here, and it is impossible to give every citizen an equal amount of attention. If we are not willing to forget some parts of our heritage in favor of a set of well rounded values, then a fully integrated America will never be possible. There certainly is no easy answer to the problem of multicultural education. Proponents will continue to argue the benefits that unfortunately seem to be too far out of reach for our imperfect society.

The hard truth is that it is impossible for our public school system to fairly cater to the hundreds of nationalities that already exist, let alone the hundreds more that are projected to arrive during the next century. In order for us to live together in the same society, we must sometimes be willing to overlook parts of our distant past in exchange for a new hope in the future. Our only chance is to ontinue to debate the topic in order to hope for a “middle of the road” compromise.

One particularly interesting solution is that we could study the basics of how America came about in the most non-biased way possible, not concentrating on the race and sex of our forefathers as much as what they made happen, at least during the elementary and high school years. This would leave the study of individual nationalities, which are not themselves major contributing factors, for people to do at home or further down the line in their education, where they can focus on tradition and beliefs to any extent hey want without fear of anyone feeling segregated.

In conclusion, in order for us to function as a whole, we need to start thinking of America in terms of a whole. With just a basic understanding of other cultures, and most importantly, the tools and background to think critically and make our own decisions not based on color, sex, religion, or national origin, but on information that we were able to accurately attain through the critical thinking skills we were taught in school, we would be better equipped to work at achieving harmony in a varied racial country.

Can America Win its Battle with Garbage

Today’s generation have been taught to be wasteful. We produce enormous quantities of waste, then try to bury it or burn it and forget it. But it cannot be forgotten. It washes up on our beaches, it reappears as air pollution, it creeps into our water supply; it comes back to haunt us. A throw-away society is not a sustainable society. A garbage crisis is at hand. As a nation, we have begun to worry that the growing mounds of wastes will only continue to increase as the means of disposal become further restricted.

Government agencies and public officials are urgently trying to find a solution. The waste dilemma has become the centerpiece of the politics of garbage. The mood of the crisis manifests itself in countless ways, including attempts to export the problem, here or abroad. Numerous municipalities, counties, and states, particularly those with heavier concentrations of industry and greater urban density, have attempted to send their waste to less dense, often poorer areas. This has created a garbage war between states.

California seeks to dispose in Arizona, New York looks to Vermont, and Minnesota makes a move on Iowa. New Jersey, especially, has been an active exporter, probing the possibilities of dumping its waste in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia. These states though constrained by the commerce clause of the Constitution, have nevertheless sought to pass legislation to halt New Jersey’s aggressive export policy. But it is the city of Philadelphia and the saga of its ash barge that provides perhaps the striking example of this form of garbage imperialism.

During the 1980s, Philadelphia sought to rely on incineration to reduce the amount of its municipal trash embarked for distant landfills. As a consequence, local officials were stuck with a new, and more difficult problem: how to dispose of the city’s incinerator-generated ash, particularly after residents sued to compel the city to remove thousands of tons of ash residue piled up near the city’s main incinerators. Some of the ash had been shipped to Virginia, Ohio and other states, but it was rejected because of local protests.

With its land-based disposal options under attack, the city finally arranged with two private companies to ship the ash abroad. A cargo ship named the Khian Sea traveled all around the world and not one country would let the ash be disposed of in their land. The ash barge after a long time voyage eventually dumped the ash in the Indian Ocean. The Philadelphia experience has become the rule rather than the exception in the costly and sometimes bizarre search to dump the trash.

Exporting scandals—in which incinerator ash or other wastes are either unloaded illegally or under questionable circumstances—have taken place in a number of African and Latin American countries, such as Nigeria and Guinea-Bissau, and even in England, which has become a haven for garbage, because of its relatively lax standards. The solid waste dilemma is not limited to the issue of garbage export. It ultimately raises questions about the source, volume, and nature of the wastes that are being generated.

Policy-makers have placed a special emphasis on disposal technologies as they seek a solution they hope will be sufficiently risk-free and cost-effective. Despite the enormous industrial changes of the early 1900s and the resulting growth and change in the waste stream, the garbage issue appeared to be under control. Solid waste management continued to be an exercise in developing new, more comprehensive disposal technologies, primarily land based. Land disposal offered a number of advantages.

The availability of cheap real estate at the outskirts of the growing cities and suburbs of the 1940s and 1950s allowed such methods to be developed at a relatively low cost. This abundant underdeveloped land also meant, it was assumed, that landfills could easily handle any increase in volume brought by a rapidly changing waste stream. By expanding landfill capacity, public officials assumed they could ignore waste generation issues. Expanding landfills became a yardstick of productivity. Most landfills in this period were little more than open pits.

By the end of the 1950s, policy makers began promoting a more refined, and presumably environmentally benign, method of disposal, the sanitary landfill. Though more complex and costly than the open pit, the economics of the sanitary landfill remained an attractive means to offset public discontent about the hazards of land disposal. If the landfill had triumphed as the dominant method of getting rid of trash, the sanitary landfill became in turn the symbol of the most technically advanced form of that method.

The sanitary landfill distinguished itself from the open dump primarily by its practice of covering the waste with “ a layer of earth at the conclusion of each day’s operation or at such more frequent intervals as may be necessary. ” Sanitary engineers emphasized during the 1950s and 1960s that the sanitary landfill was a method based on the principles of engineering capable of eliminating any nuisances (odor problems, for example) “or hazards to public health or safety,” as opposed to simply burying the wastes without any additional intervention.

Since the 1970s, the sanitary landfill remains the overwhelming disposal method of nearly every community. The conflicts over landfills are at their peak. Public officials have to concede that the days of land disposal are numbered. How to get rid of the garbage is a national dilemma. By transforming waste materials into useable resources, recycling provides a way to manage solid waste while reducing pollution, conserving energy, creating jobs and building more competitive manufacturing industries.

Like burying trash in landfills or burning it in incinerators, recycling also costs money. Assessing society’s interest in recycling requires a full appraisal of the environmental and economic benefits and costs of recycling, in comparison with the one-way consumption of resources and disposal of used products and packaging in landfills and incinerators. When all of these factors are taken into account, the overwhelming advantages of recycling are apparent.

Recycling cuts pollution and conserves natural resources. The greatest environmental benefits of recycling are related not to landfills, but to the conservation of energy and natural resources and the prevention of pollution in manufacturing that result from the use of recycled rather than virgin raw materials. Recovered materials have already been refined and processed once, so manufacturing the second time around is usually much cleaner and less energy-intensive than the first.

Detailed analysis shows that these environmental benefits of recycling far outweigh any additional environmental burdens resulting from the collection, processing and transport of recyclable materials in curbside recycling programs. Franklin Associates recently examined the lifecycle environmental impacts of recycling the aluminum cans, glass bottles, newspapers, tin-coated steel cans and plastic soda bottles and milk jugs collected in a typical residential curbside program.

Collecting, processing, transporting and manufacturing new products with recovered materials results in less release of air and water pollutants, and less solid waste, than does acquiring and using virgin raw materials in manufacturing. Moreover, releases from recycling were considerably lower than those from landfilling in all pollutant categories, and were lower than those from incineration in almost all categories. Recycling conserves energy. Much less energy is needed to make recycled materials into new products compared to beginning the process again with new, “virgin” raw materials.

By recycling a ton of materials in a typical curbside recycling program, at least $187 worth of electricity, petroleum, natural gas and coal are conserved, even after accounting for the energy used to collect and transport the materials. In other words, the energy conserved through recycling is about five times as valuable as the average cost of disposing of trash in landfills in the U. S. The net reduction in energy use due to recycling is thus estimated at 16. 8 million b. t. u. ‘s. Recycling programs that are sensibly designed and fully implemented can be cost-competitive with solid waste landfilling and incineration.

Many of the curbside recycling collection programs that have been quickly implemented in the last six years are more expensive than they need to be. Numerous techniques are now available to make curbside recycling more efficient, and are now being tested and implemented in communities across the country. Recycling avoids the costs of disposing of waste in landfills or solid waste incinerators. The costs of recycling are partially offset by avoided disposal fees and by revenues earned through the sales of materials. Disposal fees vary greatly between different regions, and markets for recyclable materials are now booming.

Of the roughly 40% of the U. S. population served by curbside recycling programs in 1993, almost two-thirds live in the Northeast, where disposal costs are high, or on the West Coast, which has moderate disposal costs and especially high prices for recyclable materials. Curbside recycling in these areas is a rational response to economic costs and opportunities. Richard Bishop Consultants conducted a detailed study of 12 curbside recycling programs and three intermediate processing facilities in New Jersey chosen to be representative of the state’s mix of programs.

The firm found costs in 1990 to be $124 per ton without revenues from the sales of materials and $115 per ton including revenues. The study estimated that improved collection, revenue enhancement, administrative refinements, and changes in strategy and program design could reduce overall costs by 41%. Recycling creates jobs and makes manufacturing industries more competitive. Recycling provides manufacturing industries with less expensive sources of raw materials, a long-term economic advantage that translates into value for consumers who spend less on products and packaging.

The industrial development effects of recycling are significant. For example, one recent study found that in ten northeastern states alone, recycling adds $7. 2 billion in value to recovered materials through processing and manufacturing activities. Approximately 103,000 people were employed in recycling processing and manufacturing jobs in this region in 1991, 2. 7% of the region’s total employment. By transforming materials that would otherwise be discarded as waste into positively valued commodities that are used in manufacturing, the industrial development effects of recycling can be significant.

Answer to “Can America Win its Battle with Garbage? ” America can win its battle with garbage. It takes an individual effort by every consumer. When you use less and reuse more, you’re helping the environment both “upstream” (when products are manufactured) and “downstream” (when they’re disposed of). By not creating waste–in the form of unnecessary products or packaging–we don’t just avoid having to send it to landfills or incinerators.

We also avoid having to expend the energy, consume the natural resources, and create the pollution that comes from manufacturing it in the first place. Waste is reduced when purchases of disposable and over-packaged items are reduced or when there is a reuse of what is already purchased. We can no longer just send our growing garbage pile to new technological shrines; we must, instead finally accept responsibility for the garbage crisis. And do something positive about it without hurting the environment any further.

America, The Stereotype For Countries

America is the stereotype for countries wounded by salutary neglect and looking to set themselves free. All countries do not decide to become separate from their mother overnight, it is a long, drawn-out process that requires many actions and reactions, plus unity and nationalism. The American Colonies were strained to the limit before they became one to battle injustice. England had put forth too many acts and duties against it’s American colonies for them not to rebel. For example, the Stamp Act.

The Stamp Act was introduced by the British prime minister George Grenville and passed by the British Parliament in 1765 as a means of raising revenue in the American colonies. The Stamp Act required all legal documents, licenses, commercial contracts, newspapers, pamphlets, and playing cards to carry a tax stamp. The act extended to the colonies the system of stamp duties then employed in Great Britain and was intended to raise money to defray the cost of maintaining the military defenses of the colonies.

Passed without debate, it aroused widespread opposition among the colonists, who argued that because they were not represented in Parliament, they could not legally be taxed without their consent. Opposition culminated in the convening of the Stamp Act Congress to consider organized means of protesting against the tax, a joining of American forces for the good of the colonies. Colonial businessmen agreed to stop importing British goods until the act was repealed, and trade was substantially diminished. Refusal to use the stamps on business papers became common, and the courts would not enforce their use on legal documents.

The Stamp Act helped enflame the fire burning in American bodies of independence. Richard Henry Lee wrote to Arthur Lee in 1774, (Document C) saying “The wicked violence of the Ministry is so clearly expressed, as to leave no doubt of their fatal determination to ruin both countries unless a powerful and timely check is interposed by the Body of People… all N. America is now most firmly united and as firmly resolved to defend their liberties ad infinitum against every power on Earth that may attempt to take them away. ” Americans realized that England was stealing their rights, and they began to join together.

It wasn’t an individual against England, it was the country against England. Salutary Neglect was the cause of all American problems. It was the precursor to all the troubles. Salutary Neglect was the negligence of England toward the colonies for reasons such as war or distance. Letting the America’s live one way for decades, then becoming strict on them, did not work for either the colonies or Britain. In 1754, a meeting in Albany, NY, of commissioners representing seven British colonies in North America to form a treaty with the Iroquois, chiefly because war with France, impended.

A treaty was concluded, but the Native Americans of Pennsylvania were resentful of a land purchase made by that colony at Albany and allied themselves with the French in the ensuing French and Indian War. The meeting was notable as an example of cooperation among the colonies, but Benjamin Franklin’s Plan of Union (Document A) for the colonies, though voted upon favorably at Albany, was refused by the colonial legislatures (and by the crown) as demanding too great a surrender of their powers.

This congress showed Americans could represent themselves and did not need to be virtually represented in parliament. Colonist despised virtual representation, as evident in document “B”. Edmund Burke writes “Govern America as you govern an English town which happens not to be represented in Parliament? ” The colonies did not feel that they should be governed by a power that does not care about them. They cannot be governed without say in a government. Would England govern London without representation? No. Therefore, it is not fair for the American colonies.

England once again is pushing America to revolt. Document E states, ” … the arms have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen, rather than live like slaves. ” This quote comes from the Continental Congress on July 6, 1775. It says that a revolution is needed, and it is England’s fault. The First Continental Congress met in Carpenters Hall, Philadelphia from Sept. 5 to Oct. , 1775.

It was attended by 12 colonies. Georgia sent no people but agreed to support any plans made at the meeting. The leaders of the Congress included Samuel Adams, George Washington, Peyton Randolph, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, John Jay, Joe Galloway, and John Dickinson. Peyton Randolph was elected president. The people sent a petition to King George, called the Declaration of Rights and Grievances, and invited the people of Canada to join with the King’s permission. In addition the congress called the colonies to boycott trade to England.

The people discussed the acts that the British made. Some of the acts were the Stamp Act, Sugar Act, Restraining Act, and the Quartering Act. They decided to try and stop some of them by writing a letter to the king. The First Continental Congress was concerned about fair treatment more than independence. If it was necessary they would hold another Congress the next May. The First Continental Congress was important because it was a step closer to independence and the Revolutionary War. If the Congress had not met, independence might not have been won.

When the First Continental Congress was over the people did not get a response from the king. Later a second Continental Congress was held. The Second Continental Congress got together after the war had started, in 1775, like had been threatened. John Adams told them to make an American Army. They put George Washington in charge. Even after the war had started the Second Continental Congress wanted to have peace with England. They still remained loyal to the king. They continued to ask to be treated like Englishmen, but the King again refused.

Not all of colonial America was for independence. Some sections, such as the Tories, were against the revolution and desired to stay with their homeland of England. “… burst into rebellion against that parent, who protected them against the ravages of their enemies…. And why was the sudden transition made, from obedience to rebellion, but to gratify the pride ambition and resentment of a few abandoned demagogues…. ” Peter Oliver, the composer of this letter, believes that over night, a decision for independence was made. Not that it was a drawn out process like it truly was.

Just like what is said by Mather Byles in Document D, “They call me a brainless Tory; but tell me… which is better, to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or by three thousand tyrants not a mile away. ” Mr. Byles believes that the fathers of the revolution were simple tyrants looking only for self advancement, not the liberty supporting men they were. There were some colonist, not necessarily for independence, but for Americans. A group quickly breaking the mold of new countries. The American Colonies were not Englishmen.

They were an amalgamation of the world, best stated by Hector St. John Crevecoeur in document “H”. “What then is the American, this new man?… He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced… Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will on day cause great changes in the world…. ” Maybe Hector really knew what he was talking about. The Americans were beginning the end of judging of their brothers and sisters from other countries.

The colonies were becoming one. People were not French, English or Dutch, they were American. With all of the strikes England had against them, it was becoming more and more difficult for the American Colonies to be loyal to a country that only cares about themself. The Colonies were finally becoming able to support themsleves. If one colony fell, others would be there to pick them up. One blaring example of the Americans unity and readiness to become seperate is seen in Document G. When Boston was having problems, the colonies rallied around them with relief.

Connecticut alone sent 2,600 bushels of grain, Massachusetts sent 258 sheep, NewJersey sent monitary aide, North Carolina sent provisions and 2000 pounds and South Carolina sent a shipload of rice. These are not the total contributions from the colonies, but some hightlights. England was nowhere to been seen when Boston was suffering. Just one in a long line of intolerable acts by Great Britain. The true Intolerable acts were just as harsh. The Intolerable Acts were a group of laws passed by Britain to penalize the American colony of Massachusetts.

These laws were passed mostly as a retaliation for the resistance to the Stamp Act, resistance to quartering British troops, and the Boston Tea Party . Four laws were passed as a penalty: The Boston Port Act which closed the Boston port, as the name suggests. The Massachusetts Government Act removed Massachusetts’ legal rights, and banned town meetings. The Quartering Act forced colonists to house British soldiers. Finally, the Impartial Administration of Justice Act removed British soldiers from the American legal system, so they could not be punished for anything as long as they weren’t in Britain.

The colonists coined these acts the “Intolerable Acts,” and many other colonies joined into the battle for freedom. The Americans were infuriated. There was not excuse for what England had done by 1775-1776. The Americans finally realized as a majority that they had to band together in order to survive. It was go time. Without some form of Army/unity, the American Colonies would be defeated in their fight against the Brits. America finally found what it had been looking for all along; Nationalism.

The History of Diversity

The History of Diversity in America Known as the Melting Pot, America is a country with a more diverse population than any other. But America also has a long, painful past of discrimination that has been based on sex, race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation and various other characteristics that stray from the average white American citizen. Through the years, government has played a major role in trying to correct the past wrongs due to discrimination by enacting legislation and adding amendments to the Constitution.

The primary purpose of these measures is to enforce non-discriminating employment practices and to encourage, and sometimes force, companies to increase their representation of women and minority group members in the workplace. This move toward equal opportunity has come about through numerous measures enacted throughout our history. A few of those policies, such as Affirmative Action, contain very controversial issues that many employers hope to see changed, or done away wi! th all together.

For the present time, however, the trend continues in most every state and is enforced by law. The effects of diversity on our nation can be traced back to the civil war period. This period of upheaval is a perfect example of the struggle many Americans went through to free black slaves. The blacks were made slaves in the states for a number of reasons. The blacks were a representation of difference, therefore the whites viewed them as being unequal. We also seem to fear that which is different, so we try to keep them down.

The blacks represented such a small percentage of the population that it was easy for the white slave owners to control them. The diversity issue among the blacks and whites created a civil war within our nation that pitted friends and family against one another, and our whole nation was in turmoil. Many lives were lost fighting for the freedom of the slaves. On September 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery and declared all slaves free by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation (the thirteenth amendment to our constitution).

An excerpt from the proclamation follows: . . . That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever, free; . . . (Sandburg, 17) Soon after the issuance of the amendment, various states enacted black codes that limited the newly enacted civil rights of the freed slaves.

In 1868, the fourteenth amendment was passed to counter the black codes to ensure that no state could make, or enforce, a law which served to take civil rights away from any person (FindLaw). But discrimination wasnt only geared towards blacks. Any person who was not your average able, white male was discriminated against. Females, the disabled, the aged, and all other groups not fitting the norm were the targets both in and out of the workplace. The reasons for the discrimination ranged from their color, weight, religion, ethnic background, sex, culture, etc.

A memorable incident that is seared in the minds of many Americans took place on December 1, 1955. Rosa Parks, a nineteen-year-old black women, took a seat on the Montgomery, Alabama bus lines on her way home from work. The bus lines were segregated, therefore the blacks had to sit in the back behind the section labeled for whites only. When Rosa was told to give up her seat for a white man, and move further to the back, she refused. She was not only tired from working all day, but tired of the way she was treated.

Before the incident was over Rosa Parks was arrested. The public was outraged and precipitated the 1955 Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott. City buses would no longer be ridden by black Americans, which constituted 70 percent of the riders. The boycott continued for 381 days, until December 20, 1956, when the U. S. Supreme Court upheld a lower courts decision declaring Montgomerys segregated seating unconstitutional. This incident seemed to be the spark t! hat ignited the U. S. civil rights movement.

This was also the time in which Martin Luther King, Jr. , a pastor, first came to National prominence. He was a powerful speaker, and later, catapulted to the forefront in an effort to gain civil rights for Black Americans. Another landmark case to end segregation came with Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. This case argued that the policy established by the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling was unconstitutional. All nine judges agreed, and ordered the immediate desegregation of public schools.

In protection of the nine black students trying to gain admission to the Little Rock High School, President Eisenhower had to federalize the Arkansas National Guard and send one thousand paratroopers, from the 101st Airborne platoon. Many schools simply chose to close their doors rather than integrate. The changes were slow in coming. (The Hall of Public Service, 2). One of the prominent changes that occurred was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was a huge step towards greater civil rights legislation and a major step toward equality for all.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was developed to deter the actions of individuals who were in violation of the civil rights of other Americans. Congress was able to pass this act due to their power to regulate interstate commerce. The original act prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in public establishments connected to interstate commerce or supported by the state. These public establishments were defined as places of public accommodation (hotels, motels, trailer parks, etc. ), restaurants, gas stations, bars, taverns and places of entertainment.

This act was also detrimental in aiding desegregation due to its inclusion of a strong legislative policy that dealt with discrimination in colleges and public schools. Still yet, another victory was awarded un! der Title VI of the civil rights act, which prohibited discrimination in federally funded programs (Civil Rights Act of 1964). The keystone federal legislation regarding equal employment opportunity came with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act eventually led to the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Title VII was crucial in the battle to enlist nondiscriminatory practices in organizations. It prevented employers, labor unions, employment agencies and other labor and employment related organizations, that were engaged in interstate commerce, from discriminating against a person based on their color, race, religion, sex or national origin in employment and training practices. It became the job of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to administer the act and play watchdog on those organizations covered by the act, to ensure they dont engage in any unlawful employment practices.

This was still not enough to gain rights for certain individuals. (Civil Right Act of 1964). In 1961, President Kennedy issued an executive order requiring businesses, with U. S. government contracts, to treat employees without regard to race, ethnic origin, religion, or sex. Kennedy was the first to relate to this procedure as Affirmative Action (Campbell, 135). This course of action has grown into a profound and widespread practice through bureaucratic action, court order, and the acceptance of business and government alike (Krauthammer, 94).

The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, included a broader array of organizations subject to Title VII. The organizations currently covered under Title VII are: all private employers of 15 or more people employed 20 or more weeks out of the year, all public and private educational institutions, state and local governments, public and private employment agencies, labor unions with 15 or more members, or that operate a hiring hall or office, and joint labor-management committees for apprenticeships and training (Equal Opportunity Act of 1972).

This act was also detrimental in helping another minority group obtain greater rights, that of females. In 1972, congress proposed the Equal Rights Amendment (written in 1921 by suffragist Alice Paul) to provide an express constitutional provision prohibiting the denial of equality of rights on account of sex. For women, whom have struggled for equality for years, this was to be a great milestone. Unfortunately, this amendment was not adopted due to the lack of support.

Ratification of an amendment requires three fourths of the state legislatures support (38 states) within the original or an extended ratification period, but only 35 states ratified the amendment (N. O. W. ). Affirmative action has barely had time to affect a single generation, but its effects have been widespread and have had a major impact on America. Affirmative action refers to the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority group-members, especially in the employment setting. The way in which representation is achieved is open to the discretion of each organization.

Over the last couple of decades, affirmative action plans have involved preferential treatment towards women and especially minority groups. This preferential treatment has been dubbed Reverse Discrimination by many that believe that the majority groups are being adversely affected by these practices. This issue was first recognized as a reality soon after the ruling in a landmark Supreme Court case dealing with affirmative action plans. In 1968, due to a lack of minority representation, the University of California at Davis developed a special admissions program in an effort to incre! ase minority representation.

The History of Diversity in America Known as the Melting Pot

America is a country with a more diverse population than any other. But America also has a long, painful past of discrimination that has been based on sex, race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation and various other characteristics that stray from the average white American citizen. Through the years, government has played a major role in trying to correct the past wrongs due to discrimination by enacting legislation and adding amendments to the Constitution.

The primary purpose of these measures is to enforce non-discriminating employment practices and to encourage, and sometimes force, companies to increase their representation of women and minority group members in the workplace. This move toward equal opportunity has come about through numerous measures enacted throughout our history. A few of those policies, such as Affirmative Action, contain very controversial issues that many employers hope to see changed, or done away wi! th all together.

For the present time, however, the trend continues in most every state and is enforced by law. The effects of diversity on our nation can be traced back to the civil war period. This period of upheaval is a perfect example of the struggle many Americans went through to free black slaves. The blacks were made slaves in the states for a number of reasons. The blacks were a representation of difference, therefore the whites viewed them as being unequal. We also seem to fear that which is different, so we try to keep them down.

The blacks represented such a small percentage of the population that it was easy for the white slave owners to control them. The diversity issue among the blacks and whites created a civil war within our nation that pitted friends and family against one another, and our whole nation was in turmoil. Many lives were lost fighting for the freedom of the slaves. On September 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery and declared all slaves free by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation (the thirteenth amendment to our constitution). Sandburg, 17)

An excerpt from the proclamation follows: . . . That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever, free; . . . (Sandburg, 17) Soon after the issuance of the amendment, various states enacted black codes that limited the newly enacted civil rights of the freed slaves.

In 1868, the fourteenth amendment was passed to counter the black codes to ensure that no state could make, or enforce, a law which served to take civil rights away from any person (FindLaw). But discrimination wasnt only geared towards blacks. Any person who was not your average able, white male was discriminated against. Females, the disabled, the aged, and all other groups not fitting the norm were the targets both in and out of the workplace. The reasons for the discrimination ranged from their color, weight, religion, ethnic background, sex, culture, etc.

A memorable incident that is seared in the minds of many Americans took place on December 1, 1955. Rosa Parks, a nineteen-year-old black women, took a seat on the Montgomery, Alabama bus lines on her way home from work. The bus lines were segregated, therefore the blacks had to sit in the back behind the section labeled for whites only. When Rosa was told to give up her seat for a white man, and move further to the back, she refused. She was not only tired from working all day, but tired of the way she was treated.

Before the incident was over Rosa Parks was arrested. The public was outraged and precipitated the 1955 Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott. City buses would no longer be ridden by black Americans, which constituted 70 percent of the riders. The boycott continued for 381 days, until December 20, 1956, when the U. S. Supreme Court upheld a lower courts decision declaring Montgomerys segregated seating unconstitutional. This incident seemed to be the spark t! hat ignited the U. S. civil rights movement.

This was also the time in which Martin Luther King, Jr. , a pastor, first came to National prominence. He was a powerful speaker, and later, catapulted to the forefront in an effort to gain civil rights for Black Americans. Another landmark case to end segregation came with Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. This case argued that the policy established by the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling was unconstitutional. All nine judges agreed, and ordered the immediate desegregation of public schools.

In protection of the nine black students trying to gain admission to the Little Rock High School, President Eisenhower had to federalize the Arkansas National Guard and send one thousand paratroopers, from the 101st Airborne platoon. Many schools simply chose to close their doors rather than integrate. The changes were slow in coming. (The Hall of Public Service, 2). One of the prominent changes that occurred was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was a huge step towards greater civil rights legislation and a major step toward equality for all.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was developed to deter the actions of individuals who were in violation of the civil rights of other Americans. Congress was able to pass this act due to their power to regulate interstate commerce. The original act prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in public establishments connected to interstate commerce or supported by the state. These public establishments were defined as places of public accommodation (hotels, motels, trailer parks, etc. ), restaurants, gas stations, bars, taverns and places of entertainment.

This act was also detrimental in aiding desegregation due to its inclusion of a strong legislative policy that dealt with discrimination in colleges and public schools. Still yet, another victory was awarded un! der Title VI of the civil rights act, which prohibited discrimination in federally funded programs (Civil Rights Act of 1964). The keystone federal legislation regarding equal employment opportunity came with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act eventually led to the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Title VII was crucial in the battle to enlist nondiscriminatory practices in organizations. It prevented employers, labor unions, employment agencies and other labor and employment related organizations, that were engaged in interstate commerce, from discriminating against a person based on their color, race, religion, sex or national origin in employment and training practices. It became the job of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to administer the act and play watchdog on those organizations covered by the act, to ensure they dont engage in any unlawful employment practices.

This was still not enough to gain rights for certain individuals. (Civil Right Act of 1964). In 1961, President Kennedy issued an executive order requiring businesses, with U. S. government contracts, to treat employees without regard to race, ethnic origin, religion, or sex. Kennedy was the first to relate to this procedure as Affirmative Action (Campbell, 135). This course of action has grown into a profound and widespread practice through bureaucratic action, court order, and the acceptance of business and government alike (Krauthammer, 94).

The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, included a broader array of organizations subject to Title VII. The organizations currently covered under Title VII are: all private employers of 15 or more people employed 20 or more weeks out of the year, all public and private educational institutions, state and local governments, public and private employment agencies, labor unions with 15 or more members, or that operate a hiring hall or office, and joint labor-management committees for apprenticeships and training (Equal Opportunity Act of 1972).

This act was also detrimental in helping another minority group obtain greater rights, that of females. In 1972, congress proposed the Equal Rights Amendment (written in 1921 by suffragist Alice Paul) to provide an express constitutional provision prohibiting the denial of equality of rights on account of sex. For women, whom have struggled for equality for years, this was to be a great milestone. Unfortunately, this amendment was not adopted due to the lack of support.

Ratification of an amendment requires three fourths of the state legislatures support (38 states) within the original or an extended ratification period, but only 35 states ratified the amendment (N. O. W. ). Affirmative action has barely had time to affect a single generation, but its effects have been widespread and have had a major impact on America. Affirmative action refers to the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority group-members, especially in the employment setting. The way in which representation is achieved is open to the discretion of each organization.

Over the last couple of decades, affirmative action plans have involved preferential treatment towards women and especially minority groups. This preferential treatment has been dubbed Reverse Discrimination by many that believe that the majority groups are being adversely affected by these practices. This issue was first recognized as a reality soon after the ruling in a landmark Supreme Court case dealing with affirmative action plans. In 1968, due to a lack of minority representation, the University of California at Davis developed a special admissions program in an effort to incre! ase minority representation.

In 1971, sixteen of the one hundred freshman positions were set aside to be filled by disadvantaged applicants (minorities) chosen by a separate admissions committee. In 1973-1974, Alan Bakke, a Caucasian male, was denied admission to the university. Bakke contended that the special program had admitted minority students with lower grade averages and test scores than himself, so he filed a lawsuit. Bakke said he had been discriminated against because of his race and argued that the schools special admissions committee system violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. With this case reverse discrimination was born.

This type of discrimination happens when one group (minority or female) is alleged preferential treatment over another group, rather than equal opportunity. On June 28, 1978, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5 to 4 decision, that Bakke should be allowed to attend the medical school, and further, found the schools special admissions system to be illegal. On the reverse side of the issue, in another 5-4 decision, the court ruled that some forms of race-conscious admissions programs are constitutional, and that race or ethnic background may be considered a plus in an applicants file.

This ruling doesnt protect the individual from being compared with other candidates, but it should provide for equal opportunity and for certain considerations to be made. This somewhat hazy decision opened the doors for future court hearings on the legitimacy of reverse discrimination (Byars and Rue, 40). This ruling did not ban affirmative action programs, therefore, this so called preferential treatment continues today and is still the subject of much heated debate. Many people believe that affirmative action has served its purpose of avenging past discrimination.

In its 30 years of existence, it wasnt until recently that affirmative action has been put to the democratic test. Due to the vagueness of past court decisions dealing with affirmative action (some which seem conflicting), these practices have evolved and sparked even more controversy. An example of these conflicting and unclear decisions is the comparison of Regents of the University of California V. Bakke and the recent ruling by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Hopwood V. Texas.

Be reminded that Regents of the University of California V. Bakke is the landmark case, which set affirmative action on its winding path in 1978. In March of 1996, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declared an affirmative action program adopted by the University of Texas Law School to be illegal. The program lowered the required grade point averages for blacks and Mexican American applicants relative to other groups and lowered the minimum standards for Law School Admissions Tests for these groups as well.

The appellate court directed university officials to develop a color-blind admissions program immediately while Judge Jerry Smith, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, declared that: The use of race to achieve a diverse student body can not be a state interest compelling enough to meet the steep standard of strict scrutiny. Within the general principles of the Fourteenth Amendment, the use of race in admissions for diversity in higher education contradicts, rather than furthers, the aims of equal protection. Diversity fosters, rather than minimizes, the use of race.

It treats minorities as a group, but, just as likely, may promote improper racial stereotypes, thus fueling racial hostility. (Bresler, 7) Smith went on to state that a university could consider: a host of factors – some of which may have some correlation with race – in making admissions decisionsKdiversity can take many forms, to foster such diversity, state universities and law schools and other governmental entities must scrutinize applicants individually, rather than resorting to the dangerous proxy of race.

Bresler, 7) The Hopwood case is being appealed to the Supreme Court, and whether or not Judge Smiths opinion is upheld, will have a dramatic impact on the future of affirmative action and this country as a whole (Bresler, 7). This ruling by the Fifth Circuit sends confusing signals to Americans. What has been law and considered the right thing to do for 30 years is now being portrayed as a somewhat harmful and racist technique. Another important court decision that took place prior to Hopwood is Adarand Constructors Inc. V. Pena in 1995.

This decision backs up the Hopwood ruling in that it questioned the legality of properly designed affirmative action programs and called for strict scrutiny to be applied to federal affirmative action programs (Hair, 12). To better understand affirmative action, it is necessary to look at the effects that affirmative action legislation has had on America. The average annual earnings of a full-time male worker in 1975 (based on 1993 dollars) as compared to the earnings of that same individual in 1993 are as follows: Males 1975 1993 % change White $34,000 $31,000 (8. 8%) Black $25,000 $23,500 (6. ) Hispanic $24,000 $20,000 (16. 7%) The average annual earnings of full-time, female workers for the same ethnic groups were, in general, below those of the males.

White womens earnings climbed steadily between 1975 and 1990, but began to plateau in 1993, while the same trend affected the earnings of Blacks and Hispanics, but to a slightly different degree. The earnings of Black and Hispanic women did not increase nearly as sharply as the earnings of White women, but they experienced approximately the same decrease. For both male and female workers, Hispanics have experienced the lowest earnings of all (Campbell, 140).

What Does it Mean to be American

What makes it American? And how does it make us American? American stands for the beliefs, the music, as well as the people that come from this great nation. The beliefs of this great nation speak every language. These beliefs stretch from the furthest reaches of Africa to the city life of New York. These beliefs are pride, freedom, and equality. American means to be proud. It means to stand up for what you believe in and to fight for it wholeheartedly.

American also means to have freedom, freedoms to do what you wish, to practice your own religious ceremonies, customs, and beliefs. With these freedoms comes a responsibility, a responsibility to be accountable for your actions. Equality is the basis of American society. Before equality for all, there was slavery. With this slavery came accounts of cruelty and disillusioned violence. Without help from first hand accounts of slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Olaudah Equiano, we would have never emerged from this dark era in American history.

American music is the envy of nations around the world. From Led Zeppelin to Snoop Doggy Dog, American music continues to diversify and grow. American bands develop large masses of followers in nations of all different ethnic backgrounds. From Asia to Germany, American music continues to influence the music styles of the rest of the world. Proud American men and women joined the armed forces to serve the country that they love and protect.

These people show what it means to be American. Just as the colonists fought the British for Independence in April Morning, they risk their lives, for something they believe in and cherish. These same people also stand for exploration and discovery. To be American is to be many things. It means different things to different people, yet they all agree on the basic American traditions and styles. The beliefs, music, and people of a country define the essence of that nation.

Could America not have fought the British

Could America have gradually and peacefully developed independence within the British Common wealth, as Canada later did, rather than engaging in a violent revolt? Soon after England’s victory in the Seven Years’ War, England struggled with the financial costs of the war. England’s Parliament tried to establish power in the New World by issuing a series of laws. England attempted to have the colonies help pay for the cost of the war that would later help lead to revolt in America. Prior to the Seven Years’ War, the English rarely intervened with colonial business.

It was during this time that the colonies began gradually to think and act independently of England. This scared England, and initiated a period in which they became more involved in the colony’s growth. The passage of these laws undermined the Colonist’s loyalty to England and stirred the Americans to fight for their freedom. What began as a fight over economic policies soon deteriorated into the difference in Americans and Britons political views, which help lead to the violence of the American Revolution (The American Pageant, pg 122).

I believe a violent revolt could have been prevented only if England hadn’t pushed the Colonies past the point of non-violent resolutions. Before 1763, the only British laws that truly affected the colonists were the Navigation Acts, which monitored the colony’s trade so that it traded solely with England. As this law was not rigidly enforced, the colonists accepted it with little fuss. The colonies also accepted England’s right to monitor trade. The change of course in 1763 was what really riled the colonists.

England began to slowly tighten its imperial grip on the colonies by ordering the British navy to begin strictly enforcing the Navigation Laws (The American Pageant, pg 125). Additional problems began when. This was a powerful weapon against smuggling, but most importantly to the Colonists; it allowed the invasion of their privacy. This was crossing the line and violating the rights of an English man. During the Seven Years War, the British sent over ten thousand troops to America to deal with property problems at the frontier.

This cost a large amount of money, and Britain did not want to see the sum come out of its own pocket. To pay for some of the expense, Britain began to pass acts to tax the colonists and lighten the severe debt the empire was in. Acts Such as The Sugar Act of 1764, The quartering Act of 1765, The Stamp Act of 1765, and the Declaratory Act were such acts that place taxes on goods the colonists received from England and cause tension in which the colonists believed were unjust and unwarranted. The Sugar Act of 1764 was an example of a tax that had many affects on the Colonial lifestyle.

Among various provisions this act raised the price of imported sugar from the Indies (The American pageant, pg. 126). This act was accompanied by a strict enforcing of the former Navigation Laws due to the sudden increase of smuggling. This enhanced the tension between England and the New World. “The law also changed trials for offenders; they were held away from the place of the crime, and the judge was awarded a percentage of the confiscated goods, increasing the number of guilty sentences handed down (America’s Homepage).

In reality, the laws were so regulated it was hard not to make an error. The Quartering Act in 1765 was a burden to all the colonists; it required certain colonies to provide food and housing to the British Troops on demand (The American pageant, pg. 126). Many viewed this as an indirect tax, though an inexpensive one. While the previously passed laws caused some protest, the one that brought out the most public opposition was the Stamp Act in 1765. The Sugar Act had failed to produce enough money, and Parliament was forced to pass the Stamp Act.

The Act stated that all Americans must use specially stamped paper for printing bills, legal documents, even playing cards (The American pageant, pg. 126). England saw these taxes as reasonable; after all, the Americans were merely paying for the soldiers in their colonies, a measure for their safety. As Americans did not deem the soldier’s presence as necessary in the New World, obviously they despised the tax. And worst of all, these taxes were decreed without any word from an American, as there was no representative for the New World in the British parliament.

Americans believed it was understandable for the British to legislate when the subject involved the Empire as a whole, such as trade, but only Colonists could tax colonists, not the British government. The Prime Minister claimed that the Colonists were “virtually represented” in parliament: each member stood for the empire as a whole (The American Pageant, pg. 126-127). The Colonists disagreed because they believed that Parliament did not care about or understand them and therefore did not have the American people’s best interest at heart.

The acts imposed by England to try to control and monitor America only succeeded in furthering its independence. The Colonists were left with two options as a result of the Stamp Act, neither of which were very appealing; either confront parliament, and risk a fight with the much larger and more powerful mother land of England, or succumb to the act without complaining and possibly give up the right to self govern for good. The Colonists began to feel as though England did not have their best interests in hand and began to start a unification process of the colonies.

The first in this process was the coming together of 27 delegates from nine of the thirteen colonies in 1765, which became known as the Stamp Act Congress. The Stamp Act Congress met and decided that Parliament cannot tax the colonists or deny their right to a trial by jury. The congress, led by the elite upper class, was careful to control the rebellion; thereby, not having to send costly troops to maintain peace. Merchants of the colonies began to boycott and adopt non-importation agreements of British goods. The colonists began to wear woolen garments and rely on their own land to provide goods.

Colonists began to come together as a nation and not just a people. British opposition groups began to appear such as the Sons and Daughters of Liberty who sometimes took the law into their own hands with violent protests and coercive acts undermining British rule. The business communities in England appealed to parliament to repeal the stamp act or have all the merchants go bankrupt. In March of 1766, the Stamp Act was revoked, marking the first victory in the long journey to America’s independence. But, it was a small one and this was not to be the end of the struggle.

In its place, the Declaratory Act was placed. It was a subtly worded act, which confirmed Parliament’s right to legislate over the colonies always and in all cases (The American Pageant, pg 128). Charles Townshend, who took control of the British ministry, enacted the Townshend Acts in 1767, which placed a small import duty on glass, white lead, paper, paint, and tea. This Act, unlike the Stamp act, placed an indirect customs duty payable at American ports (The American Pageant, pg 129). To the colonists it was viewed in the same way as a tax without representation.

Townshend also passed the Suspending act, which nullified all acts from New York after October 1st for refusing to pay their expenses for the soldiers (The American Pageant, pg. 129). Smuggling began to become more rampant in the colonies. Colonists began to act as they did when the Stamp Act was enacted. In 1768, to control the outbreak against law and order, two regiments of British troops were landed in Boston. In 1770, the Boston Massacre took place, in which six Colonists were killed after provoking a group of soldiers.

This was arguably the first blood spilled in the name of the American Revolution. Committees were established to promote opposition to England and its Acts. The most memorable of these committees was that of the Continental Congress of 1774, which met from September 5 to October 26, 1774. During it’s deliberation, The Congress drafted many papers urging the British merchants to place pressure on parliament to repeal the Townshend Duties and the Delclaration of Rights (The American Pageant, pg 134).

Brittan’s parliament rejected the Congresses petitions. The Colonies began collecting muskets and various weapons and militia’s began drilling in the open. Colonists began to rebel against England rule and a clash between the colonists and England seemed inevitable (The American Pageant pg 134). British soldiers were dispatched to Lexington to disperse the “rebels” and when the refused shots were fired which killed eight Americans and wounded several more (The American Pageant pg. 134-135).

This is known as the Battle of Lexington, the first battle in an eight-year war between the colonies and Britain. The road to revolution was irreversible when the Stamp Act was passed. It was at this point that the different views of the Americans and the British really began to show through. When this happened, the Americans had already developed such a sense of independence that nothing the British could have done could have destroyed it. Once this self-reliance was obtained there was nothing the British could do to repress it.

The road to the American Revolution was long and difficult. If Britain wouldn’t have insisted on passing act after act, to tax the colonies and ruin their devotion to the crown a violent revolution could have been avoided. Through all of the trouble the acts caused, it pushed the colonies into merging with each other. Once together as a whole, the colonies were able to develop their own individuality and defeat the British army for their independence. Once the bloodshed had started, for the American’s it was fight or be controlled. The American’s chose to fight.

Cause of the Culture wars

Even a casual observer of the American culture cannot help but be impressed by the increasing degree of polarization not only of American politics, but of cultural values and even lifestyles and attitudes. There seems to be an endless array of conflict – not just minor differences of opinion, but major conflict – even resulting in violence and murder. The results seem to be applauded or abhorred – depending on whose side you are on. The outcome of this conflict could not be more important – it is nothing less than the survival of Western civilization.

This is because the roots of this conflict run far deeper than most people realize, and its consequences far more serious. For example, one of the major battlegrounds is over civil rights for homosexuals. On the one side, there are conservatives who claim that homosexuals are seeking special rights and have a gay agenda calculated to secure those special rights. On the other side are liberals who believe that homosexuals are a repressed minority who suffer discrimination and bigotry, and that homosexuals deserve minority status and rights.

The liberals who represent that view believe that government should not involve itself in the private lives of individuals, provided it cannot show a compelling state interest in doing so. Many conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the government should be based on a view of governance inspired by their interpretation of Christian culture, rooted in the Bible. Why are the two views at such loggerheads? Why are they willing to fight each other, even to the death? It is because of a basic, fundamental change that has taken place in Western civilization.

The change is the result of two technological innovations that have fundamentally changed how Americans and Western societies in general are organized and how these people relate to each other. The first is mass transportation. For the first time in human history, it is possible begin a journey on one continent in the morning and be on another continent in a different part of the world before the sun sets that same day. And at a price that can be afforded by a large percentage of the world’s population. It is also possible to pick up and move on short notice, to follow a career or find more acceptable neighborhoods or living conditions.

The second is mass communications, especially worldwide television broadcasting. Again, for the first time in human history, it is possible for an individual to make his voice heard by people around the world, and in so doing, make his opinion known. And every evening, the opinions expressed by ordinary people regarding events that have affected them, are seen and heard by viewers around the world. Again, people living in the poorest villages in India and Africa see these events in a world they have never known before.

The results have undermined the very basis on which civilizations have been organized since the first stirrings of civilizations in Mesopotamia and East Asia. For millenia, people have had a commitment to their home town for no other reason than that they were stuck there. They couldn’t move. Even if they had the physical means, there was often no job or other economic opportunity that made moving away from the birthplace possible. For this reason, most people were forced to remain in the same community, and few were willing to risk the ire of their neighbors.

It was a clear reality that these people would be part of the rest of their lives, and it was vitally important to get along by going along. Now that is no longer the case. Mass transportation has made it possible to change hometowns and find a more workable or pleasant living and working environment. And since people can, they often do. Americans move more frequently with each passing year. The result has been a lack of commitment. Why make an effort to know your neighbors when you are going to be gone in a year or two anyway? Or they may even be gone before you! So why get to know them? Why settle a dispute? Just move away!

We no longer have the incentive to settle disputes and go along to get along. So we no longer feel a commitment to our communities, and cheap mass transportation is the reason why. But why all the acrimony? It is because the very basis of civilization as we know it has been undermined. That basis is patriarchy, and it works like this: Since time began, since the origins of humanity, right up until about 7,000 years ago, societies were organized around women. Contrary to what most people think, archaeologists tell us that in ancient hunter-gatherer societies that did not live in villages, women ruled the roost.

They told men when to hunt and what to gather. They were responsible for rearing the children. They did the work and since men were dependent on them, the women called the shots. Men seemed to be along for the ride, and were considered inferior in status. This is reflected in the religions of the period – gods were almost always female in gender and were benign of character (fertility goddesses and the like). About 7,000 years ago, a remarkable change occurred. Almost all over the world at about the same time, people settled down in villages with agricultural economies. What made this event occur was the invention of the army.

To defend resources, favored hunting grounds and the most productive flora, armies had to be raised to defend the group from its enemies. The logical people to do the defending were the men, who weren’t responsible for anything else. So here you have available manpower and someone is needed to organize it. Well now, any good tyrant can spot the makings of a deal here: If the men subdue the women so they can be required to raise lots of sons for the army, and if the men will join the tyrant’s army, the tyrant will give him status – for the first time, the man in the family will call the shots.

All the tyrant demands in return is that the man subjugate the women in his life and that he maintain political loyalty and the willingness to go into battle. There was an increase in family size, since women no longer were in control of their fertility and men were needed for the army. With the increase in family size, agriculture became important as a means of supporting the increasing population. The rise of agriculture made centralized governments under control of the tyrant neccessary because of the need to organize the production and distribution of resources.

The patriarchial tyrant was the perfect organizer to make it all happen. And so it began. With the development of the army, societies now began to have an investment in male dominated governments that quickly became so deeply ingrained in culture, that most people assume they are genetic in origin. This was reflected in new religions that revolutionized human spirituality. Gone were the benign fertility goddesses (or at least they were sublimated), and they were replaced by fierce, warlike gods intended to intimidate.

These gods not only were intended not just to intimidate enemies, but to strike fear into the hearts of the tyrant’s subjects. That way it isn’t neccessary to station a platoon of soldiers in every village. The king can simply rely on the fear of the gods, of which he was usually pretended to be one (or at least a descendent). It is from this period that the Old Testament arises. And it is why the Old Testament begins with the laying down of the law — this is what the new religion demanded: obedience to God (and by implication, His representative on earth, the tyrant and his government).

So therefore men became dominant in our society not because of any inherent biology, but because of thousands of years of cultural conditioning. The curtain falls. Millenia pass. The curtain rises. It’s the twentieth century, and women, who have been subjugated by a myth for centuries and complaining about it all along, all of a sudden can be heard, because of the forum provided by new forms of technology, cheap mass transportation and communications. Not only are they being heard, but what they are saying makes sense. And the old patriarchial order isn’t having any of it.

For one thing, it undermines the old power base. For another, it undermines the old male claim to status. It’s not just the women. It is repressed minorities as well. Why? Because now, for the first time, they can complain and be heard. And when the complaints make sense, they offend the old order based on the status quo and subservience to the king and his government. Often called liberals or secular humanists, these people along with defectors from the patriarchial camp want nothing to do with the order that has oppressed them, and have asked for a new arrangement, based on genuine equality.

It is even becoming apparent that the tyrant and his ways of doing things are obsolete. For one thing, the tyrant’s army can not only destroy the enemy in hours or minutes, but the enemy’s army can destroy his with similar dispatch. Armies have become so destructive that the most powerful are no longer deployed against each other — too much destruction would result. For another, the king can’t do anything without all his subjects — and his enemies — knowing it almost immediately.

It is no accident that slavery did not end nor did democracy take root in the world until cheap movable type made printed material and early forms of mass transportation made the wide dissemination of knowlege possible. For a third, cheap mass transportation has made international borders porous and increasingly difficult to control, even to the point of irrelevance in many cases, especially in the third world. Now, with television, the impact of mass communications has become much more dramatic.

It is true that a picture is worth a thousand words, and now television brings thirty of them from around the world right into the home every second. The results couldn’t have been more dramatic. Now, for the first time, one can watch the governing process in another country as closely as if one were in that country. And all the arguments and ideas are heard and understood, even when they reflect poorly on that tired old patriarchial tyrant and his minions. But the old order is having none of it. Among the conservatives, there is a firm belief in the rightness of the old patriarchy.

One hears the slogans: My country right or wrong, my country, a woman’s place is in the home, keep ’em at home, barefoot and pregnant! And for God’s sake keep ’em out of the military! There are serious proposals being floated to control the content of television, even though as satellite technology progresses, the ability to control that content erodes. This erosion played no small part in the collapse of the thoroughly patriarchial Soviet empire. The patriarchy isn’t giving up easily. It uses all the old justifications, whether they are relevant or not, whether they are true or not.

And often, the principal justification is an old one indeed – religion. We even see the spectacle of serious proposals for the American army being increased in size and influence when no credible threat to America remains, and for the American nation, founded on secular democracy, to be turned into a theocracy, with an old-style patriarchial religion in charge! The more the old patriarchists feel threatened, the more they retreat into the old time religion. It justifies their fears and their prejudices.

It makes repression acceptable, because it is for God (often Jesus) and king (America was founded on Christian principles! ). Thus, that which was originally invented to support the patriarchial order becomes its principal justification! So here is the basis of the culture war. The millenia-old patriarchial order says its this way because it is natural and God ordained it this way and women and minorities saying we are oppressed and we demand to be heard and our rights honored. Neither side is willing to concede to the other. But neither side has all the answers to the problems that Western civilization faces.

The rebelling minorities certainly do not have the answers to the inevitable conflicts that will and are arising between themselves. The patriarchialists ideas were founded on a myth and can’t survive the intense scrutiny of the new media of idea exchange. So the war begins. On its outcome, hang the fate of Western societies. Get it right, and we will have a more honorable and just society, based on genuine equality in which the concept of self determination is truly honored. Get it wrong, and we will enter a new dark age, based on ruthless repression and rejection of technologies and ideas that have unquestionably been liberating.

Mass Immigration Essay

While immigration has played an important role in the building and formation of America, new federal laws have resulted in mass immigration. Throughout history, Congress has enacted laws and has had to amend them to control the flow of both legal and illegal In 1948, legislation was first enacted in an effort to control the number of applicants fleeing persecution; it permitted 205,000 refugees to enter the United States. In 1952, Congress set in place major regulations setting parameters and quotas mostly for the eastern hemisphere and leaving the western hemisphere unrestricted.

In 1953, congress was again faced with having to increase the number of refugees from 205,000 to 415,000. In order to qualify as a refugee one must have a well founded fear of persecution, not be firmly resettled in a third country, and must not be an aggravated felon. In 1965, the national origins quota system was abolished but still maintained was the principle of numerical by establishing 170,000 hemispheric and 20,000 per country ceilings and a seven category preference system.

This system included the spouses of lawful resident aliens, brother and sisters of United States citizens, killed and unskilled workers. To present date spouses and minor children of US citizens are exempt any quota system. In 1980, the refugee act removed them from the preference category and established clear criteria and procedures for their admission. In 1986, Congress was faced with yet another national crisis which it attempted to resolve by enacting the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

IRCA was considered to be the most comprehensive act which was to grant amnesty to those who had resided in the US illegally since January 1, 1982, (2) created sanctions against persons nd companies that hired illegal aliens, (3) created the a new classification of temporary agriculture and granted amnesty to such workers, (4) created a new visa waiver pilot program (VWPP) allowing the admission of certain non-immigrants without visas, (4) created legislature for conditional status for those couples whose marriage is less than two years prior to immigrating to the US. Under IRCA 2. illegal aliens mostly from Mexico were given legal immigrant status.

These new laws opened the door to the longest and largest wave of immigration ever-27 million since 1965, including illegal entries. The visa waiver pilot program (VWPP) is designed to extend reciprocity to the countries that permit US citizens to visit their countries without the need of a tourist visa. To date a total of twenty-nine countries are signatory to the treaty. In order to qualify, countries must have a low rate of non-immigrant overstays to the US, and must have state of the art machine readable passports.

Prior to the enactment of IRCA, marriage fraud between non-citizens and US citizens was rampant and out of control. Measures were put in place to reduce this by requiring couples to submit proof to INS. This proof must show that the couple has been living together and submitted ninety days prior to the second anniversary. If the couple fails to establish that the marriage is valid, the non-citizen will not become a lawful permanent resident and will be faced with and order of deportation.

The only exception, is that the non-citizen cannot be the subject of spousal abuse and be expected to remain in the marriage for the two years. After almost thirteen years, Congress and the United States citizens have had the misfortune of reflecting on the blunders of the Immigration Reform Act of 1986(IRCA). The amnesty permanently added millions of poor people to our society. A study done by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) showed that after ten years in the United States, the average amnestied illegal alien had only a seventh grade education and an annual salary of less than $9,000 a year.

The cost of amnesty to the American taxpayer is unbelievable. According to a recent study by the Center for American studies, the total net cost of amnesty after ten years comes to over $78 billion dollars. An amnesty sends the message that its okay to break the law. Eventually, it says, you will be forgiven, even ewarded for doing so. Further-more, it makes a mockery of the legal immigration process, where-in those who obey the rules, wait years to immigrate.

Their is a list of 3. million eligible people waiting to be admitted as immigrants to our country; some of them have been on that list for eighteen years. Illegal aliens make a mockery of those who respect our laws and our countrys sovereignty by waiting for an Again Congress and the American public are faced with a serious problem–the high number of criminal aliens. Criminal aliens are a growing threat to public safety and national security, as well as a rain on our scare criminal justice resources. In 1980, our federal and state housed fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens.

By the end of 1994, these same prisons housed over 59,000 criminal aliens. Today, criminal aliens account for over 25% of federal prison inmates and represent the fastest growing segment of the federal prison population. For the first time ever, more that 50,000 criminal aliens were deported in fiscal year 1997. In fiscal year 1998, the number jumped by more than 50% to 106,000. According to Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Congressman Lamar Smith, only a small percentage of criminals are being deported.

Congress in 1996 passed a law that took effect last October that requires mandatory detention and deportation of aliens who commit any of a long list of offenses, regardless of how long ago they occurred. INS is making every effort to remove the criminal aliens expeditiously but many foreign countries hinder this process by not issuing the necessary travel documents in an expedient fashion. This intentional delay affect the American public, both socially and economically. Closer to home, Miamis foreign born population rose, in a ten year period, by about 28,000 (14. 9%) since 1980.

During the same eriod, the citys overall population was increasing by about 12,000. This caused the share of the population that was foreign born to increase from 53. 7% to 59. 7%. In contrast, the largest number of immigrants are of Cuban decent totaling 72,042, Haitians, 29,219, Jamaicans, 9,887. According to reports by the US Border Patrol, 2,000 Cubans have arrived since October 1, 1998. Since its enactment in 1965, The Cuban Adjustment Act has fundamentally treated Cuban nationals differently than any other national. This law provides Cuban nationals a safe haven, no questions asked, do as you please in America.

It is believed that the Cuban nationals are fleeing a government of persecution, but in my opinion, they are fleeing a government in economic shambles. Despite the fact that their country is economically inept they should be treated as any other person that comes to the country illegally. Nonetheless, as soon as Cubans set foot on American soil they are granted with employment authorization, can adjust their status to lawful permanent status (green card) within a year, can apply for US citizenship within five years, and government assistance (welfare). All of these benefits without really knowing about their backgrounds.

Babe Ruth is an American hero

Babe Ruth is an American hero. He transformed baseball from a sport, to a national pastime when it needed it the most. Coming off of the wake of the Black Socks scandal, baseball was headed downhill. It had a bad reputation, and interest was waning. The dead-ball era was dragging on, and there were to few baseball “purists” left to support it. Baseball was in search of a new audience, and Babe Ruth handed it to them on a silver platter. Babe Ruth started the Home run era of baseball. In the dead-ball scores of 2-1 1-0 was the norm.

With the advent of the Home run era, games that averaged 1-2 runs an inning were common. What once took a couple hits, walks, and a stolen base to accomplish were being done with the single swing of a bat. Baseball was now much more enjoyable to watch. Then with the invention of the radio, millions of people enjoyed listening to it. George Herman Ruth was born in the early 1890s to a couple of German immigrants who ran a local bar. His parents had there hands full with the bar, and had very little time to tend to young George.

His trouble making, and lack of time on his parents part eventually landed him in St. Marys Boys school. It was here that he met the man who Babe claimed to be the greatest man who ever lived, Brother Mathias. Brother Mathias was the one who handed Babe his punishments, and it was Babe who always touted his strong, yet caring hand that led him to baseball. It was also at St. Marys that Babe started his life of giving. He would save up his money from his job in the Tailor shop and often spend it on large amounts of candy to give away to the little boys at St.

Mary who were poor, or orphans. Brother Mathias was the one who introduced Babe to baseball, as a recreational game to play during the spring. It wasnt long until Babe was the only 13 year old playing on the 16 years and older team. First as a catcher, then later as a Pitcher. It was here that he first established a prowess for hitting. His long home runs would leave local audiences speechless. It was his pitching, however that landed him his first professional job. Jack Dunn of the then minor league Baltimore Orioles signed him at the young age of 17.

He played a few years for the Orioles, until Dunn sold him to the Boston Red Sox. Babe pitched well, finally breaking into the Red Sox starting rotation in 1918. Then the Red Sox ran into some hard luck, and in search of money sold him for the then huge amount of money, 125,000. It is often said that New York and Babe Ruth were made for one another, and by the way Babe took New York by storm, it is hard to dispute the saying. He took an instant liking to the big city, enjoying bars, dance clubs and people in general.

It was in New York that Babe started the long ball game. In the early twentys Babes home run totals usually eclipsed that of any other TEAM in baseball. After a few years however, people began to pattern there swing after babe, and pretty soon each team had their own home run experts. The boom in run scoring also equated to a boom in attendance and revenue. It wasnt long until Babe started to cash in on this, with his salary soon surpassing that of then President Grover Cleveland. In a Characteristic Ruth remark, Babe Responded “Why not I had a better year than him! When asked by a reporter if he should be making more money than the president. Babes way of life was Characteristic of the time period, The Free willing 20s.

Babe frequented speakeasies (a place to get illegal alcohol during the prohibition. He was often at odds with his teams manager, owner, and even police. This was Characteristic of the Rebellious 20s. He would often weasel his way out of speeding tickets by offering a signed baseball if the officer let him go. The Yankees owner was often reluctant to suspend Ruth, knowing the negative effect it would have on his team’s performance.

In this particular Biography, the authors intent is to provide the most detailed, in depth Biography on Ruth ever. That he does, in masterful accounts of Babes most heroic Games, and World series. Even his personal life is told in great detail and accuracy. Controversies such as Babes actual date of birth are presented, debated, then concluded with the authors opinion. I choose this book because I am fascinated by Babe Ruth. I have read many biographies on him, and this is by far the most in depth and detailed. I really admire Babes love for life, and people.

He gave to those less fortunate, and did everything in his power to make sure he enjoyed his life to the fullest. Sometimes that meant bending a few rules, and even laws, but Babe realized you only get one crack at life, and he made it worth it. In all the biographies I have read before, I did not know Babe made an unsuccessful bid to be a manager. It was details like this, and many more that made this book very interesting. This book didnt really change my view on Babe, it just broadened my horizon as to the many aspects of his life and career in the major leagues.

I would not however recommend this book to someone just looking to learn a little about this American icon. There are many books that would do this in far fewer pages, and most would probably consider this book boring with its many little storys it delves into with great detail. However for the baseball enthusiast who has time on his hands, or for someone who just cant get enough of Babe Ruth; I strongly recommend this book as the most informative piece of work on the Greatest Baseball Player to have walked the earth, George Herman (Babe) Ruth.

Americans Attitude Change in the 60s

Question 1: For many Americans, the 1960s began with JFKs Age of Camelot, an era that seemed to exude confidence in American institutions. Yet, by the early 1970s, those expectations and attitudes seemed to be replaced by a sense of bitterness and cynicism. Discuss and analyze the causes and consequences of this profound attitudinal shift. Question 3: How did official US policy towards Vietnam change between 1950 and 1975? How did American leaders link events in Vietnam to national security interests? How did the American public react to the war in the sixties and early seventies?

Answer: These two questions are so intertwined with one another that combining the two answers is the most efficient way of telling the story. Vietnam was a legacy of Kennedy and a primary reason for the split in American society. I think one of the biggest reasons for such a change in Americans ideas and confidence comes from a major generational gap. The difference between the WWII era citizens (the greatest generation) and their children (baby boomers) is dramatic and holds within itself some of the keys to the answer. The answer also lies within sociological and political changes that occurred in and around the 60s.

During WWII, America had devoted itself almost entirely to the war effort. Countless numbers of able-bodied men were in the service in the Pacific and European theaters. Millions of women went to work in the factories and industries that had converted to full time war production. Food and raw materials such as rubber and oil were rationed and sacrificed. It is an easy conclusion to draw that WWII had affected every American. Like the previous generation, this last war was seen as the war to end wars. It was the bloodiest in all of humanity. Millions upon millions were killed. Entire European nations were wiped out.

In America, returning troops and civilians though America had fought and won the good fight. In the late forties, and entire generation was born into one of the most prosperous times in American history. This new generation, which would come of age during the 1960s, grew up with a different perspective for America. In such a prosperous time, more people went to college than ever before. People had more time and money to begin analyzing social issues with a greater sense of criticism. Following the victories of the U. S. , Britain, French, and Russian troops, Europe quickly became re-divided.

The war torn country of Germany had been subsequently dived into eastern and western hemispheres by the allied powers. Within the center of this division lay Berlin. Russias communist intentions were becoming clearer to western powers. Stalin had no plans to back down from further conflict. In 1946, Churchill delivered the Iron Curtain speech, symbolizing future relations with the communist powers. In 1947, U. S. president Truman established his famous doctrine of containment policy, which outlined in vague terms the wests distain and containment intentions of further communist expansion by Russia.

In 1948, Americans witnessed the pressurized showdown in Berlin between western forces and Russian occupiers, which eventually led to the division of Germany, and the construction of the Berlin Wall. Once, the Russians began developing and testing nuclear weapons, and the subsequent development of space flight, Americans placed their lives in the hands of their government to handle this new, Cold War. The baby boom generation grew up in this environment. They grew up with missile drills and McCarthys witch-hunt of communists within the government. Communism was something to be feared, and America knew it.

The election of 1960 brought hope to much of America, despite the close margin of victory for the Kennedy camp. JFK himself had been a war hero, and was viewed by Americans as determined to win the cold war. JFK was an attractive man, had a beautiful wife, and a seemingly perfect family. The best and the brightest term seemed to hold true. Americans were obsessed with their new leader. More Americans than ever were owning televisions and this new First Family made for great viewing. Within JFKs staff was his younger brother Robert, McNamara, Rusk, etc. All in all there were 15 Rhodes Scholars.

Americans had every right to believe in their president and his staff. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis was viewed by the public as a great victory over communism. (Americans saw it as a victory, although in truth, there was little victorious about it. According to McNamara, in The Fog of War, Castro and the Russians had already had nuclear war heads ready for deployment before Kennedys naval blockade had occurred. Recently, we have learned the resolution was because of an agreed trade of the pull-out of Russian missiles from Cuba, for the pull-out of an out-dated U. S. missile system in Turkey. Regardless, Americans were provided more belief that their leaders were doing a good job. Kennedy was strong on social issues. He was viewed as a proponent of Civil Rights. He formed the Peace Corps. He challenged America to put a man on the moon within ten years. He brought America hope and pride. In Kennedys push to halt communism, he became more and more aware that communists had gained further control of the former French colony of Vietnam. Fearing that China and Russia were feeding the northern Vietnamese, Kennedy saw fit to fund and supports the leader of South Vietnam, Diem Bien Phu.

In 1957, free elections were supposed to have occurred in Vietnam, but they hadnt. The Eisenhower administration had placed 600 military advisors in South Vietnam. By Kennedys end, there are 17,000 advisors (along with Special Forces and other secret government agents) in the country. What seems to have begun the turning of the tide for Americans perception of government is what comes next. In November of 1963, JFK was assassinated in Dallas. In one explosive moment, Camelot came crashing down and died with Kennedy.

America was shocked, and events such as Jackies witness to Johnsons swearing in, all while continuing to wear the blood and brain speckled suit, further personified the event. Johnson was not as liked as a president. He had somewhat of a personality complex. He always wished to be viewed as powerful. He was a tall Texan, and his professed arrogance was pushed on all who contacted him. For example, he had a powered chair lift installed in Air-Force-One so that he could raise himself inches above the people he was talking with. Johnson had always been a strong legislator, and he brought these talents to the white house.

He pushed for social issues. He was successful in passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964, followed by the Voting Rights Act shortly later. In November of 64, Americans elected Johnson in a landslide. All of America except for the Deep South seemed to like what he had to say about social issues. Johnsons own presidency shadows the divide of America. Johnson was brought into the continuing expansion of troubles in Vietnam. Kennedy had supported the South-Vietnamese democratic intentions, but shortly before his own death, the democratic leader of South-Vietnam was assassinated.

That event, among others, showed Johnson that escalation of U. S. involvement was necessary. The credibility gap begins with the Gulf on Tonkin incident. On August 2nd, 1964, a US warship was for sure engaged by a North-Vietnamese warship. Two days later, the incident seemed to repeat itself, but in McNamaras own words, ended up being nothing at all. Regardless, the incident was all Johnson needed to push congress to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which permitted the presidency to have all the powers of war without congressional permission.

This Guns and Butter approach to the presidency ended up engulfing Johnson. His social issues that were the key to his presidency were put on the back burner as his escalation of Vietnam became more than he could handle. Johnson and his advisors were continuing to say to the American people that fighting in Vietnam was the right thing to do, to stop the spread of communism. Messages sent out in the news were positive, and tried to say that the end of the conflict was almost at hand. However, the chasm depended. As the citizens were being told one thing, the situation in Vietnam spiraled out of control.

Johnson was unwavering to pleas from the likes of McNamara as they pushed the president to try to slowly end Americas involvement. When the Tet-Offensive occurred in 1968, and the embassy was seized in Saigon, America realized that the credibility gap was enormous. Eventually it was too much for both. As a sign of the further end to Camelot, McNamara quit was secretary of defense in 1968. Johnson also announced that he would not seek re-election and under the advice of the new secretary of defense, Clifford, that he would push to end the war.

Americans began realizing they were being lied to by their government. In the election of 1968, Nixon won on the platform of turning the tide of the war. However, Nixon seemed to pick up where Johnson had left off. Nixon re-escalated the war, and heightened the Naval and Air-Force activities. (By the end of the war, three times more bombs were dropped in Vietnam as there were in all of Europe during WWII). The credibility gap widens in 1969 when American troops enter Laos and Cambodia and the public isnt told about it until a year later.

This turn of events breathes new life into the anti-war movement. Protests are heavier in the capital and across college campuses. When the Pentagon Papers were leaked, (these provided evidence that the Gulf of Tonkin was fabricated and that the government had been using Cointelpro to spy on domestic activities), Americans were provided with yet another tid-bit to feed their already heightened distain for the government. The baby boom generation had become quite active socially. Starting in the early sixties, the civil rights movement was gaining momentum.

In the summer of 1963, the Mississippi Summer Project, which involved northern, white students going south to help in voter registration, was launched. In college campuses such as UC Berkeley, student organizations such as the SDS and the New Left became powerful. On that particular campus, a wedge between the new generation and the establishment became deeper as protests and sit-ins erupted over all types of social issues. However the common theme was the protesting of the universitys attempt to silence protest in general.

The civil rights movement had been gaining momentum with the passing of the major civil rights legislations. However in the summer of 65, many American cities erupted in riots and violence as African-Americans began to realize that the government regulations were doing little to change the social norms. In 1967, Detroit erupted and 45 were killed by themselves and the police. The 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago was the boiling point for the new social activism. Every protesting standpoint was represented there as thousands of protestors descended on the windy city.

What followed was a never before seen event. Riots broke out and violence erupted. Hundreds were arrested and countless others were severely beaten by police. The sight of the police beating and fighting with students and young people became a great reason for distrust of the government and institutions. In May of 1970, 4 students were killed at Kent State in Ohio when a war protest went wrong and National Guard troops fired into the crowd. The simple symbolism of the students (American Citizens) and the National Guard (US government) clashing is a prime example of the division between government and the people.

In 1972, America re-elects Nixon on the strength of his trip to China and the strengthening of relations. In the course of the presidential campaign, the rival Democratic National Office is burglarized at the Watergate facility. The burglars are eventually tied to Nixon via an informant named Deep Throat who leaks information to the Washington Post newspaper. The House and Senate each begin investigations into the matter. Congress learns that the conversations in the White House are taped, and they seek to obtain copies of these tapes. When they begin analyzing the tapes, large chunks are missing.

The case against Nixon strengthens. In the summer on 74, congress begins to line up for impeachment. Barry Goldwater, a fellow Republican, tells Nixon that the Republicans in Congress wont be backing Nixon. Upon Learning of this, Nixon resigns. This coup-de-tat is the last of the blows to the image of the American Government to the citizens. Throughout the sixties, the social climate of America changed. The decade started out with hope for the future. Kennedy symbolized youth and prosperity in America. His social beliefs and strong stance on communism allowed Americans to have hope for the future and belief in their government.

However after Kennedys death, Johnsons strong social programs were no match for the Vietnam Conflict. As the conflict itself changed from one of containment to one of full scale war, Americans were deceived into believing the war was going their way. As social issues of the day worsened, the new generation took to the streets to protest and become involved. When Nixon became president, the country was given even more chaos and scandal with Watergate and belief in the government failed. All of the events of the sixties symbolize the change from hope and belief in the government to the change to distain.

A Proud Filipino American

America is considered a melting pot of different ethnic groups. By today’s standard, “American culture” is the result of a variety of races integrating their own cultural beliefs into American society. Throughout the years, the United States has seen a massive increase of people migrating from Asian countries; “they make up 3. 6 percent of the U. S. population, a 199 percent increase from 1980 when they constituted only 1. 5 percent of the population” (Ng).

Like other immigrants, Asians come here in order to seek a better life and experience civil liberties. According to statistics, “Filipino Americans today make up the second largest Asian Pacific American (APA) group in the country” (Aquino). Filipinos alongside other Asians have experienced and overcome racism with great pride, honor and respect. They have made great strides in reminding us of the history that was forgotten as well as improving the common misconceptions about the Philippines and its people.

The Filipino American National Historical Society (FANHS) was established in the early 1980s in order to “promote understanding, education, enlightenment, appreciation and enrichment through the identification, gathering, preservation and dissemination of the history and culture of Filipino Americans in the United States” (Cordova). FANHS has been an instrumental tool in bridging the gap between the younger and older generation as well as making a significant influence on American culture by designating October as the month for us to come together and reflect on the past, present and future.

Even though it seems like we have made a positive impact in this country, it hasn’t always been easy. Relations between the United States and the Philippines has been pleasant yet tumultuous at times. Even before America set foot into the country, Filipinos had endured years of abuse at the hands of Spain. The Philippines was promised that if they became allies with America to defeat Spain during the Spanish-American War of 1898, they would finally be able to govern themselves.

The signing of a peace treaty between the two fighting countries meant that the war was over. In order for the treaty to be valid, America had to pay Spain $20 million, which resulted in full control over the Philippines now. The Filipinos retaliated as a result of this because the opportunity of ruling their own country was out of the question. “Such an act, they said, showed that the Filipinos did not want to be under American rule” (Bautista).

This eventually led to the Philippine-American War of 1898, which was considered by some historians as the first Vietnam because of the atrocities; “The estimated American casualties were 4,000 and the estimated losses for the Filipinos were between 200,000 to 600,000 depending on what data source one looks at” (Nebrida). President McKinley declared that the war was over on July 4, 1902 because of the casualties that were being reported overseas. The end of this historical event was a chance for both countries to heal old wounds and start over again.

After the war ended in 1902, United States was on a mission to repair the damages that the Philippines had endured; they wanted to win back the trust of its people. President McKinley created laws that gave the Philippines some of the same provisions as America regarding government structure. According to Sonia M. Zaide, an expert Filipino historian, the Philippines was on its way to rebuilding itself: Under the new regime agriculture developed rapidly, commerce and trade soared to unprecedented levels, transportation and communication were modernized, banking and currency improved, the manufacturing industries were transformed.

As compared with the Spanish era, economic progress of the Philippines during the American era forged ahead with great strides. (291) The economy as well as education was improving dramatically. Teachers, also known as Thomasites, were sent over to the Philippines to teach school-aged children about American government policy. Educated young men, also known as pensionados, were sent to United State universities in 1903 in order to come back home and hopefully become future political leaders. (Zaide 303-304) This started the wave of Filipinos wanting to migrate to the states is search of unlimited opportunities.

There have been sporadic movement of Filipinos stepping foot onto American soil. During 1907 up until about 1930, they were forced to become hired help assigned to the sugar plantations in Hawaii, underpaid and living in poor conditions. There were brief periods in which Filipinos were not allowed to step foot into America, but after acquiring independence from the United States in 1946, there was an increase of migration to the states. Ever since then, the Filipino race has been steadily growing here. Minority groups that have chosen to make America their home have triumphed over many bumps in the road for freedom.

My ancestors have experienced negative moments in the past with white Europeans. Just like African Americans and Irish, they suffered derogative name-calling and racial slurs on a daily basis. They had to constantly deal with humiliating signs prohibiting them from entering business establishments. (Aquino) Instead of leaving and going back home, they chose to stay and try to weather the stormy conditions. Somehow managing to stay strong during hardships and obstacles shows how persistent Filipinos are to fight for what was promised to us.

There have been some notable contributors who have made a name for themselves in the science and food industry. There are some inventions today that we depend on and currently use that were created by Filipinos. Agapito Flores, a Filipino electrician, invented the fluorescent lamp; although there has been some debate on whether he indeed was the first person responsible for this invention. Publications have claimed that “no scientific report, no valid statement, no rigorous documents can be used to credit Flores for the discovery of the fluorescent lamp” (txtmania).

Another contribution that has had a positive impact in the medical field has been the invention of the incubator. Fe del Mundo was responsible for this life saving device that is used throughout the world helping babies survive. She was recognized for her achievements; “In 1966, she received the Elizabeth Blackwell Award, for her “outstanding service to mankind” (txtmania). Food is considered to be the one thing that can bring people together regardless of race. Our ancestors brought their relationship and love for food with them so they would be able to pass down the recipes to their children.

The Philippines’ most famous dish, Adobo, has a story behind its beginning. “Adobo was originally a way of preserving meat – and sometimes fish – during long journeys. A good adobo will keep four or five days without refrigeration,” says Inonog, an executive director at the Culinary Arts Division of Johnson & Wales University, Providence (Philippine). The most common ingredients that are used in Filipino dishes are: “garlic, vinegar, soy sauce, onions, tomatoes and pepper (Filipino).

Rice, which is found in most Filipino household, is considered to be the Philippines’ main food staple; “vegetables, meats, fish, chicken, noodles, all go into stews and soups and one-meal dishes served with rice” (Philippine). Rice, which is found in most Filipino households, is considered to be the Philippines’ main food staple. My people along with other races are able to enjoy the delicious cuisines, which are representative of the dishes offered back home, in Filipino fast food restaurants located throughout the country.

People are able to have a better appreciation of our culture and understand where we come from. Tracing the roots and history of my ancestors’ journey from the Philippines to the United States of America has been an enlightening experience. I have learned so many new things that my high school history books didn’t cover. I’m grateful to those who have come before me and continuously fought against injustices. Without their hard work and persistence, I would not be able to reap the benefits of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this country.

The Japan-American Trade War

For years after the end of the second world war, the Japanese suffered from an inferiority complex. This was the result of the American aid to Japan which helped to rebuild their country. Soon the Japanese started producing goods, small stuff at first, like junky toys in the earlier years – but then came better items, much better items. Now it is the Americans that suffer from the inferiority complex, not familiar with being economically vulnerable and not entirely in control of their destinies. Who to blame – the Japanese of course.

If Americans cFor years after the end of the second world war, the Japanese suffered from an inferiority complex. This was the result of the American aid to Japan which helped to rebuild their country. Soon the Japanese started producing goods, small stuff at first, like junky toys in the earlier years – but then came better items, much better items. Now it is the Americans that suffer from the inferiority complex, not familiar with being economically vulnerable and not entirely in control of their destinies. Who to blame – the Japanese of course.

If Americans can not learn to compete ith the Japanese, then there is going to be some serious trouble because the economic problem will not just “go” away. When Japan lost World War II, six million Japanese had to return home from the colonies Japan lost. These people had to be fed, clothed and housed. The outlook for Japan’s recovery did not look very hopeful. The Americans had no intention of helping the Japanese, but the communist victory in China changed this, because the Americans wanted to stop the further advance of communism.

Americans started to help Japan out by not aking them pay reparations for war damages and opened Japanese trade to other countries. The Americans dissolved the powerful family businesses which opened business to more competition and in the countryside, they took land from the landlords and gave it to the tenant farmers. By the time American occupation ended in 1952, Japan had returned to prewar levels of production. With their recovery now ensured, Japan embarked on a period of great economic growth which is growing at a faster rate every day.

The Japanese are now at the head of a powerful economy which is the econd largest in the world, exceeded only by the Americans. Many beleive that the Japanese economy will overtake the U. S. economy by the year 2000. Polls in the United States have indicated that the Americans rank the Japanese economic threat higher than the Russian military threat. Yoshio Sakurachi, the speaker for the Lower House of the Diet (the Japanese Parliament), called American workers lazy and illiterate.

These remarks came just after George Bush and the leaders of American Auto Corporations had visited Japan, a trip that left everyone with an mpression of American weakness and whining. A few weeks ago, Minoru Arakawa, president of Nintendo of America made a bid to purchase the Seattle Mariners. To a lot of Americans, there are two items which are located near the centre of their folklore and psyche. These are cars and baseball.

Now that these items are under threat from the Japanese, it is causing unusual resentment and distress to some Americans, especially after watching the Japanese buy heavily into Hollywood and other parts of their lives. Americans are now trying to figure out ways to get the economy back on ine after about a 19 month recession from which it is still recovering. Dr. William Lippy, for example, offered the 75 employees of his clinic $400 cash if they bought a new American car. He started inviting all other companies to join in his “Jump-Start America” campaign.

He claims to have enlisted a total of 175 firms with 60,000 workers to offer similar incentives. This is nothing new to the Japanese though, where this has been going on for a long time. For example, Mitsubishi and other corporate groups, called keiretsu have the power to order employees to wage personal arfare on the commercial brands of a rival. A common story was of a group of Japanese men that walk into a bar and shout “Biru” (Beer). The bartender offers them Asahi Beer, a common brand but they shout, “Were Kirin men! “.

The Kirin men are literally that – employees of any one of the 148 companies associated with the Mitsubishi group, whic ontrols Kirin. Americans are running scared now, and you probably did not need this essay to tell you that – and Japan is aware of this. So now opinion is growing in Japan in favour of an almost revolutionary idea – to back off. Corporations should raise prices, pay workers more for fewer hours and distribute fatter dividends. This came after the President of Sony made a speech saying that Americans will not take much more of the way the Japanese are competing with them.

They should in short then, become more like their western rivals. Already change is afoot in Japan’s most competitive industries. Since January, the two biggest auto companies, Toyota and Nissan, have said that they would raise vehicle prices and lengthen new product cycles from four to five years. Similar moves were ade by consumer electronics giants such as Sony and Matsushita. All these changes would benefit foreign competitors worn down by the back-breaking pace of the Japanese. There have been some problems inside Japan as well that are hurting American companies.

For the last while, The Nikkei stock average has been falling (See Graph #1) and Japan is in the beginning of a recession which is getting deeper and deeper although nowhere near as severe as the American recession. When domestic economic weakness is combined with a weak currency, it is a recipe for fewer Japanese imports and more Japanese exports. This pattern is already showing up. In the past year, Japan’s total imports have fallen by one quarter, and it’s non-oil imports by 10 percent.

In the case of Canada and the United States, both of which are mounting recoveries in their own economies – Japan is each ones second largest trading partner. Needless to say, the last thing either of these two economies needs is a Japan that buys less and sells more, and becomes a roadblock in their road to recovery. Americans are looking for a way to come out of their recession and become a growing world economy once again. Japan is right in their way. America, so used to being on top, has never been so vulnerable.

I believe that if Americans don’t do anything, like provide incentives to “buy American” and change the way they work and compete, then it is going to stay this way. Japan may help them, now and then, like they are starting to now, but that may not last. I believe that they can either become more like the Japanese, giving up the lifestyles so grown accustomed to, by working harder for less money, or learn to live with not always being on top of the world economy. It is always hard to change, but sometimes you have to. erious trouble because the economic problem will not just “go” away. When Japan lost World War II, six million Japanese had to return home from the colonies Japan lost. These people had to be fed, clothed and housed. The outlook for Japan’s recovery did not look very hopeful. The Americans had no intention of helping the Japanese, but the communist victory in China changed this, because the Americans wanted to stop the further advance of communism. Americans started to help Japan out by not making them pay reparations for war damages and opened Japanese trade to other countries.

The Americans dissolved the powerful family businesses hich opened business to more competition and in the countryside, they took land from the landlords and gave it to the tenant farmers. By the time American occupation ended in 1952, Japan had returned to prewar levels of production. With their recovery now ensured, Japan embarked on a period of great economic growth which is growing at a faster rate every day. The Japanese are now at the head of a powerful economy which is the second largest in the world, exceeded only by the Americans.

Many beleive that the Japanese economy will overtake the U. S. conomy by the year 2000. Polls in the United States have indicated that the Americans rank the Japanese economic threat higher than the Russian military threat. Yoshio Sakurachi, the speaker for the Lower House of the Diet (the Japanese Parliament), called American workers lazy and illiterate. These remarks came just after George Bush and the leaders of American Auto Corporations had visited Japan, a trip that left everyone with an impression of American weakness and whining.

A few weeks ago, Minoru Arakawa, president of Nintendo of America made bid to purchase the Seattle Mariners. To a lot of Americans, there are two items which are located near the centre of their folklore and psyche. These are cars and baseball. Now that these items are under threat from the Japanese, it is causing unusual resentment and distress to some Americans, especially after watching the Japanese buy heavily into Hollywood and other parts of their lives. Americans are now trying to figure out ways to get the economy back on line after about a 19 month recession from which it is still recovering.

Dr. William Lippy, for example, offered the 75 employees of his clinic $400 cash if they bought a new American car. He started inviting all other companies to join in his “Jump-Start America” campaign. He claims to have enlisted a total of 175 firms with 60,000 workers to offer similar incentives. This is nothing new to the Japanese though, where this has been going on for a long time. For example, Mitsubishi and other corporate groups, called keiretsu have the power to order employees to wage personal warfare on the commercial brands of a rival.

A common story was of a group f Japanese men that walk into a bar and shout “Biru” (Beer). The bartender offers them Asahi Beer, a common brand but they shout, “Were Kirin men! “. The Kirin men are literally that – employees of any one of the 148 companies associated with the Mitsubishi group, whic ontrols Kirin. Americans are running scared now, and you probably did not need this essay to tell you that – and Japan is aware of this. So now opinion is growing in Japan in favour of an almost revolutionary idea – to back off. Corporations should raise prices, pay workers more for fewer hours and istribute fatter dividends.

This came after the President of Sony made a speech saying that Americans will not take much more of the way the Japanese are competing with them. They should in short then, become more like their western rivals. Already change is afoot in Japan’s most competitive industries. Since January, the two biggest auto companies, Toyota and Nissan, have said that they would raise vehicle prices and lengthen new product cycles from four to five years. Similar moves were made by consumer electronics giants such as Sony and Matsushita.

All these hanges would benefit foreign competitors worn down by the back-breaking pace of the Japanese. There have been some problems inside Japan as well that are hurting American companies. For the last while, The Nikkei stock average has been falling (See Graph #1) and Japan is in the beginning of a recession which is getting deeper and deeper although nowhere near as severe as the American recession. When domestic economic weakness is combined with a weak currency, it is a recipe for fewer Japanese imports and more Japanese exports. This pattern is already showing up.

In the past year, Japan’s total imports have fallen by one quarter, and it’s non-oil imports by 10 percent. In the case of Canada and the United States, both of which are mounting recoveries in their own economies – Japan is each ones second largest trading partner. Needless to say, the last thing either of these two economies needs is a Japan that buys less and sells more, and becomes a roadblock in their road to recovery. Americans are looking for a way to come out of their recession and become a growing world economy once again. Japan is right in their way.

America, so used to being on top, has never been so vulnerable. I believe that if Americans don’t do anything, like provide incentives to “buy American” and change the way they work and compete, then it is going to stay this way. Japan may help them, now and then, like they are starting to now, but that may not last. I believe that they can either become more like the Japanese, giving up the lifestyles so grown accustomed to, by working harder for less money, or learn to live with not always being on top of the world economy. It is always hard to change, but sometimes you have to.

Multicultural Education in America – The Melting Pot

America has long been called “The Melting Pot” due to the fact that it is made up of a varied mix of races, cultures, and ethnicities. As more and more immigrants come to America searching for a better life, the population naturally becomes more diverse. This has, in turn, spun a great debate over multiculturalism. Some of the issues under fire are who is benefiting from the education, and how to present the material in a way so as to offend the least amount of people. There are many variations on these themes as will be discussed later in this paper.

In the 1930’s several educators called for programs of ultural diversity that encouraged ethnic and minority students to study their respective heritages. This is not a simple feat due to the fact that there is much diversity within individual cultures. A look at a 1990 census shows that the American population has changed more noticeably in the last ten years than in any other time in the twentieth century, with one out of every four Americans identifying themselves as black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, or American Indian (Gould 198).

The number of foreign born residents also reached an all time high of twenty million, easily passing the 980 record of fourteen million. Most people, from educators to philosophers, agree that an important first step in successfully joining multiple cultures is to develop an understanding of each others background. However, the similarities stop there. One problem is in defining the term “multiculturalism”. When it is looked at simply as meaning the existence of a culturally integrated society, many people have no problems.

However, when you go beyond that and try to suggest a different way of arriving at that culturally integrated society, Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what will work. Since education is at the root of the problem, it might be appropriate to use an example in that context. Although the debate at Stanford University ran much deeper than I can hope to touch in this paper, the root of the problem was as follows: In 1980, Stanford University came up with a program – later known as the “Stanford-style multicultural curriculum” which aimed to familiarize students with traditions, philosophy, literature, and history of the West.

The program consisted of 15 required books by writers such as Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aquinas, Marx, and Freud. By 1987, a group called he Rainbow Coalition argued the fact that the books were all written by DWEM’s or Dead White European Males. They felt that this type of teaching denied students the knowledge of contributions by people of color, women, and other oppressed groups.

In 1987, the faculty voted 39 to 4 to change the curriculum and do away with the fifteen book requirement and the term “Western” for the study of at least one non-European culture and proper attention to be given to the issues of race and gender (Gould 199). This debate was very important because its publicity provided the grounds for the argument that America is a luralistic society and to study only one people would not accurately portray what really makes up this country.

Proponents of multicultural education argue that it offers students a balanced appreciation and critique of other cultures as well as our own (Stotsky 64). While it is common sense that one could not have a true understanding of a subject by only possessing knowledge of one side of it, this brings up the fact that there would never be enough time in our current school year to equally cover the contributions of each individual nationality. This leaves teachers with two options. The first would be to lengthen the school year, hich is highly unlikely because of the political aspects of the situation.

The other choice is to modify the curriculum to only include what the instructor (or school) feels are the most important contributions, which again leaves them open to criticism from groups that feel they are not being equally treated. A national standard is out of the question because of the fact that different parts of the country contain certain concentrations of nationalities. An example of this is the high concentration of Cubans in Florida or Latinos in the west. Nonetheless, teachers are at the top of the agenda when it comes to multiculturalism.

They can do the most for children during the early years of learning, when kids are most impressionable. By engaging students in activities that follow the lines of their multicultural curriculum, they can open up young minds while making learning fun. in one first grade classroom, an inventive teacher used the minority students to her advantage by making them her helpers as she taught the rest of the class some simple Spanish words and customs. This newly acquired vocabulary formed a common bond among the children in their early years, an appropriate time for learning respect and understanding (Pyszkowski 154).

Another exciting idea is to put children in the setting of the culture they are learning about. By surrounding children in the ideas and customs of other cultures, they can better understand what it is like to be removed from our society altogether, if only for a day. Having kids dress up in foreign clothing, sample foods and sing songs from abroad makes educating easier on the teacher by making it fun for the students. A simple idea that helps teachers is to let students speak for themselves. Ask students how they feel about each other and why. This will help dispel stereotypes that might be created in the ome.

By asking questions of each other, students can get firsthand answers about the beliefs and customs of other cultures, along with some insight as to why people feel the way they do, something that can never be adequately accomplished through a textbook. Students are not the only ones who can benefit from this type of learning. Teachers certainly will pick up on educational aspects from other countries. If, for instance, a teacher has a minority student from a different country every year, he or she can develop a well rounded teaching style that would in turn, benefit all students.

Teachers can also keep on top of things by regularly attending workshops and getting parents involved so they can reinforce what is being taught in the classroom at home. The New York State Social Studies Review and Development Committee has come up with six guidelines that they think teachers should emphasize in order to help break down ethnic barriers. These steps are as follows: First, from the very beginning, social studies should be taught from a global perspective. We are all equal owners of the earth, none of us are more entitled than others to share in its many wealths or misfortunes.

The uniqueness of each individual is what dds variety to our everyday life. Second, social studies will continue to serve nation building purposes. By pointing out the things we share in common, it will be easier to examine the individual things that make us different. Third, the curriculum must strive to be informed by the most up to date scholarship. The administrators must know that in the past, we have learned from our mistakes, and we will continue to do so in the future. By keeping an open mind, we will take in new knowledge and different viewpoints as they are brought up.

Fourth, students need to see themselves as active makers and hangers of culture and society. If given the skills to judge people and their thoughts fairly, and the knowledge that they can make a difference, students will take better control of life in the future. Fifth, the program should be committed to the honoring and continuing examination of democratic values as an essential basis for social organization and nation building. Although the democratic system is far from perfect, it has proven in the past that it can be effective if we continue to put effort into maintaining it while leaving it open for change.

Sixth, social studies should be taught not solely as nformation, but rather through the critical examination of ideas and events rooted in time and place and responding to social interests. The subject needs to be taught with excitement that sparks kids interest and motivates them to want to take place in the shaping of the future of our country (NYSSSRADC 145-47). In order to give a well rounded multicultural discussion, as James Banks explains, teachers need to let students know how knowledge reflects the social, political, and economic context in which it was created.

Knowledge explained by powerful groups in society differs greatly from that of its less powerful counterparts (Banks 11). For example, it should be pointed out how early Americans are most often called “pioneers” or “settlers” in social studies texts, while foreigners are called “immigrants”. They should realize that to Native Americans, pioneers were actually the immigrants, but since the “pioneers” later went on to write the textbooks, it is not usually described that way. By simply looking at the term “western culture” it is obvious that this is a viewpoint of people from a certain area.

If students are aware that to Alaskans, the west was actually the south, they can realize the bearings of how the elite in society etermine what is learned. By not falling victim to these same misconceptions, students can better make unprejudiced decisions about those around them. Another important aspect students need to realize is that knowledge alone isn’t enough to shape a society. The members themselves have to be willing to put forth the time and effort and show an interest in shaping their society in order for it to benefit all people.

While generally opposed to the idea, Francis Ryan points out that “Multicultural education programs indeed may be helpful for all students in developing perspective-taking skills and an appreciation or how ethnic and minority traditions have evolved and changed as each came into contact with other groups” (Ryan 137). It would certainly give people a sense of ethnic pride to know how their forefathers contributed to the building of the American society that we live in today. It is also a great feeling to know that we can change what we feel is wrong to build a better system for our children.

Minorities would benefit from learning the evolution of their culture and realizing that the ups and downs along the way do not necessarily mean that their particular lifestyle is in danger of xtinction. Some opponents feel that the idea of multiculturalism will, instead of uniting cultures, actually divide them. They feel that Americans should try and think of themselves as a whole rather than people from different places all living together. They go even further to say that it actually goes against our democratic tradition, the cornerstone of American society (Stotsky 64).

In Paul Gannon’s article Balancing Multicultural and Civic Education will Take More Than Social Stew, he brings up an interesting point that “Education in the origins, evolution, advances and defeats f democracy must, by its nature, be heavily Western and also demand great attention to political history (Gannon 8). Since both modern democracy and its alternatives are derived mostly from European past, and since most of the participants were white males who are now dead, the choices are certainly limited. If we try to avoid these truths or sidestep them in any way, we cannot honestly say we are giving an accurate description of our history.

Robert Hassinger agrees with Gannon and adds that we cannot ignore the contributions of DWEM’s for the simple fact that they are just that. He thinks that we should study such things as the rise of capitalism or ongoing nationalism in other countries, but should not be swayed in our critical thinking by the fact that some people will not feel equally treated or even disrespected (Hassinger 11). There certainly must be reasons why many influential people in our history have been DWEM’s, and we should explore these reasons without using race and sex alone as reasons for excluding them from our curriculum.

When conflicts arise with the way we do things, we should explore why rather than compromise in order to protect a certain groups feelings. Francis Ryan warns that trying to push the subject of multiculturalism too far would actually be a hindrance if it interferes with a students participation in other groups, or worse yet, holds the child back from expressing his or her own individuality. He gives a first-hand example of one of his African-American students who was afraid to publicly admit his dislike for rap music because he felt ethnically obligated as part of his black heritage (Ryan 137).

While a teacher can be a great help in providing information about other cultures, by the same note, that information can be just as harmful if it is incomplete. In order for students to be in control of their own identity, they must have some idea of how others look at these same qualities. Children must be taught to resolve inner-conflicts about their identity, so that these features that make us unique will be brought out in the open where they can be enjoyed by all instead of being hidden in fear of facing rejection from their peers.

Teachers need to spend an equal amount of time developing each students individuality so they don’t end up feeling obligated to their racial group more than they feel necessary to express the diversity that makes America unique. As Harlan Cleveland points out, many countries still feel that the predominant race must be the one in power. For instance, try to imagine a Turkish leader in Germany, or anyone but a Japanese in control of Japan (Cleveland 26). Only in America is there such a diverse array of people in power from county officials all the way up to the make up of people in our Supreme Court.

However, although we have made many advances culturally that other countries haven’t, we still have yet to see an African-American, Latino, or for that matter, a woman as head of our country. With increasing awareness of other ultures though, these once unheard of suggestions are making their way even closer to reality. Another way to look at the issue is that most non-Western cultures have few achievements equal to Western culture either in the past or present (Duignan 492). The modern achievements that put America ahead of other countries are unique to America because they were developed here.

Many third-world countries still practice things that we have evolved from many years ago, such as slavery, wife beatings, and planned marriages. We are also given many freedoms that are unheard of in other countries. Homosexuality is punished severely in other lands, while we have grown to realize that it is part of the genetic makeup of many people and they cannot control it. Most immigrants come to America for a better way of life, willing to leave behind the uncivilized values of their mother countries.

Instead of trying to move the country that they came from into America, immigrants need to be willing to accept the fact that America is shared by all who live here, and it is impossible to give every citizen an equal amount of attention. If we are not willing to forget some parts of our heritage in favor of a set of well rounded alues, then a fully integrated America will never be possible. There certainly is no easy answer to the problem of multicultural education. Proponents will continue to argue the benefits that unfortunately seem to be too far out of reach for our imperfect society.

The hard truth is that it is impossible for our public school system to fairly cater to the hundreds of nationalities that already exist, let alone the hundreds more that are projected to arrive during the next century. In order for us to live together in the same society, we must sometimes be willing to overlook parts of our distant past in exchange for a new hope in the future. Our only chance is to continue to debate the topic in order to hope for a “middle of the road” compromise.

One particularly interesting solution is that we could study the basics of how America came about in the most non-biased way possible, not concentrating on the race and sex of our forefathers as much as what they made happen, at least during the elementary and high school years. This would leave the study of individual nationalities, which are not themselves major contributing factors, for people to do at home or further down the line in their education, where they can focus on tradition and eliefs to any extent they want without fear of anyone feeling segregated.

In conclusion, in order for us to function as a whole, we need to start thinking of America in terms of a whole. With just a basic understanding of other cultures, and most importantly, the tools and background to think critically and make our own decisions not based on color, sex, religion, or national origin, but on information that we were able to accurately attain through the critical thinking skills we were taught in school, we would be better equipped to work at achieving harmony in a varied racial country.

Alzeimer (AD) – one of the most fatal disease in America

Alzeimer (AD) is one of the most fatal disease in America. It strikes More than 4 millions of personne. Unfortunately, it also attacks a lot of loved one. And these loved ones are our parents, husband, wifes, Brother or sisters. And we have to take care of them. But how can we deal with a personne who cant remember our name even though he raised us? Before I answer that question, I will talk about how AD Stikes us. Alzeheimer is characterized by amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles.

The nerofibryllary tangles are fibers twisted in the neurons, nd by so, killing them. Usually AD is contracted by genetics factors finded on some chromosomes. But it may been caused by injuries, strokes, exposure to toxic substances, ethnicity, and bacterial infe- ction. The plaques, formed in the brain areas affetcts the memory of the patient. They are loated outside and around neurons as dense de- posits of an amyloid protein. According to researchers, amloid is a cause of Alzheimer. Even thougt there is no cure for AD, it exist a number of treat- Ment.

If you suspect a patient of AD, ask him an attention question, like, why people who lives in glasses houses shouldnt throw rocks. If he fails to answer, he might have Alzheimer disease and should be refered to a treatment.. There is 3 stages in AD. Mild: the patient might have trouble finding his words r forget familiar names. Moderate: he will be desoriented, paranoid and/or desoriented. He will also become urine-incontinent. And finally late: he will be innable to speak intelligibly, swallowing problems, and have some fecal incontinence.

Now, lets return to our initial question, how to deal with personne Suffering from AD. People suffering from Alzheimer needs a lot of support. They frequentely loose appetites because they forget to eat The food doesnt look appetazing. We should always give to patient suffering from AD finger food and surve theme one bye one. We should also distract them with simple amusements but not for more then 30 minutes. They might feel that there steel a mother of 28 years old and think that there kids will come back from school at three.

They will want to leave to there houses to prepeare there arrival. Even thougt there ar 82 years old. You must then walk with her and aknowledge that small child should not wander around in the street alone. Encourage her of talking about her kids and reminder her of her age and her kids might be old enough to make themself there own afternoon snacks. I found that the article was the best source i ever had. It had a complete explanation of AD and showed me a side of it i didnt knew. Now i really know how to deal with a personne suffering from AD in a hospital.

They also gaved me situation and how to deal with theme for exemple, if the patient doesnt want to go bathing if he has some eatting difficulties or suffer incotinence who is, everybody know, one of the most embarrassing problems. I also really enjoyed readding it because Alzheimer is a disease that really intrigued me for years. It was never really clear in my mind how do we contracted it. I worked with a lot of people who sufferd from terrible rampage but I never could have understod there attitude nor the way they reacted. I really felt a lot of paine for them.

That article would be perfect for a first year student in nursing. It gives you tips of how to deal with situations involving AD infected patients without shocked him and how to be really comprehensive. Like I was saying in my introduction, I had my hands full in the Library but I never regreted chosing that topic for my essay. As a nurse, most of my patient might have AD. I wanted to Be prepared fore my beginning days and i feel that i will be. AD is a terrible disease and people suffering from it deserve a lot of help. I wish I will be there for them.

The True American Cowboy

As the twentieth century approached, America was experiencing a time of considerable expansion. All eyes were looking for ways to make the United States a larger, more powerful, and more efficient country. Because of this wave in American society, there was no movement given more devotion than the settling of the West. The range-cattle industry in its various aspects, and in its importance to the United States and particularly to the Great Plains, has been a subject of focus to Americans since its origin in the mid 1800’s.

This industry was rendered possible by such factors as vast sections of fertile land, the rise of heavy industry involving the great demand for beef, and projected commercial tributaries, such as railroad lines across the frontier. The West was turning toward the future – A future that held industrial promises of high monetary rewards as well as a valuable addition to a growing America. However, like any other industry, the West needed a labor force. Workers with special skills and qualities were necessary to support a booming new frontier.

Previously untaught skills such as riding, roping, and branding could not simply be acquired by the average American. Athletic, rugged men were needed to settle the West. However, these men also needed inborn courage and quick thinking to utilize these skills effectively. The general public, however, under the influence of decades of “Western” movies and television shows have created an imagery of these “men of the west” or “cowboys” that is extremely inaccurate. American society has come to regard these settlers as the purest and noblest Anglo-Saxons.

In reality, a great portion of the work contributed towards the settling of the western frontier was performed by minorities, largely consisting of African Americans. Kenneth W. Porter has devoted his life to researching the truths about African-Americans in the West. He chronicles his findings in his book, The Negro on the American Frontier. Porter proves that the role of the black man during the settling of the of the land west of the Mississippi River that stretched from the Rio Grande to the Canadian border was crucial not only to the cattle industry, but to the entire country.

In his findings, Porter reveals that the West was one of America’s first non-segregated territories, both physically and morally. This integration was a crucial step towards physical productivity as well as social productivity. During the great expansion of the West between 1866-1900 it is authoritatively estimated by General George W. Saunders of the Texas Trail Drivers Association that of the 50,000-75,000 cowboys who helped to created the West, 25 percent were black (Porter, 1971). However, to merely state that there were 13,000-19,000 Black cowboys is inaccurate simply because the American definition of a cowboy has become distorted.

To understand the role of the blacks in the West, one must first comprehend what the cattle-industry workers or cowboys truly did. To move a herd of cattle men do not simply jump on horses and scream and hit until the herd moves. Contrary to common thought, there was a very systematic hierarchy of jobs involved in being a frontiersman. The group together was referred to as the trail herd outfit. This outfit usually consisted of about a dozed men, each with an individual responsibility. As in any group, there was a leader, second in command, and then three levels of workers.

Negroes occupied all positions of the cattle-industry employees, from the usually low wrangler through ordinary hand to top hand and lofty cook. However, it would never be tolerated to give the distinguished honor of ranch or trail boss to a man with colored skin. Although the Black cowboys seem to have been treated much more fairly than their relatives in other regions of the country, it must be understood that at this point in history the United States was rebounding from a traumatic Civil War.

This left a bitter taste in the mouth of many Americans and hostile feelings towards Negroes were still inundating the country. These conflicts could be seen the West. These feelings were simply blurred by the other hardships that accompanied the settling of the new frontier. African-American men were not simply handed important jobs out of pity, they were there for a reason. While, there were plenty of white men willing to work for the same extremely low wages, the hostile attitudes held by whites were generally overlooked in compensation for the more than adequate work performed by blacks.

Black cowboys, whether on ranch or trail, were generally regarded as good workers, who got along well with others and who took pride in their work. One white Texan, a former cowboy and rancher, even went so far as to say, “There was no better cowman on Earth than the Negro” (Porter, 1971). This testimonial, as well as other claims of near racial equality is directly rebutted by Nat Love in his autobiography, The Life and Adventures of Nat Love, Better Known in the Cattle Country as Dead Wood Dick.

This recollection by a Black cowboy gives a firsthand look at life as an African-American in the West through personal stories and anecdotes. Nat Love claims that although it was probably the most integrated aspect of American culture during the late 1800’s, true injustices arose when the outfit was alone together for weeks at a time. He alleges, “It was the Negro hand who usually tried out the swimming water when a trailing herd came to a swollen stream – either because of his superior ability or because he was regarded as expendable” (Love, 1968).

Although everyone in an outfit had to be a skillful rider and roper, a certain degree of outstandingness was regarded by the title of “bronco buster”. Numerous references suggest that Negroes were widely regarded as the largest group of “bronco busters” in the West. Blacks maintained and even advanced a reputation of the most skilled cowboys on the frontier (Porter, 1971). Nat Love was just one of these “bronco busters” and almost admits that he saw the West differently than that experienced by the lower Black cowboys.

Love was a prestigious man, known around the West for his great skills and illustrated lifestyle. He was given the name Dead Wood Dick by the people of Deadwood, South Dakota, because he won their distinguished roping contest (Love, 1968). There were also many other famous Black cowboys that had notable reputations around the West. Some of these men were Ab Blocker’s Frank, Jess Pickett, Isom Dart, Nigger Jim Kelly, and Jim Perry. Although they still faced many prejudices due to their skin color, they lived a life much more exorbitant lifestyles than the average African-American cowboy (Porter, 1971).

Although there were many Black cowboys who were epitomized by their peers, there was a much greater number of Negroes who were treated relatively close to their slave relatives. According to one estimate, 65% of all Negro cowboys worked in the bottom two tiers of rank and 45% of them worked in the bottom level of the outfit occupying the job of wrangler’s assistant. With living on a ranch or in an outfit comes grotesque and inhumane jobs. When it came time to scrub manure, the black man was usually called. When it came time to chop off a calf’s head, the black man was usually called.

The Black cowboys were made to do the jobs that no one else would do. They were the cleaners of everything, they were the last to eat (if at all), they had responsibilities of far less stature than those who were of equal talent but had white skin. However, this was only one sector of black life in the West. They were still respected, and most of the time they were expecting the harsh treatment due to the fact that they were used to much more severe treatment (Porter, 1971). Blacks had another important role in the West, aside from either being a “bronco buster”, a helpful hand, or a wrangler’s assistant.

High in the hierarchy of cow-country employees was the ranch or trail cook, who ranked next to the foreman or trail boss. The cook ruled supreme over an area of sixty feet around the chuckwagon when an outfit was in camp. In addition to having to be able to prepare a meal for twelve hungry men in a blizzard, cloudburst, or high winds, the cook had to be skilled in muleskinning and capable of driving two or three yoke of oxen attached to a chuckwagon over treacherous terrain or sometimes even through flooded rivers. The cook had a responsibility to make everyone else’s life pleasant.

Many cowboys selected an outfit on the reputation of its cook alone (Porter, 1971). Like any other Western imagery, the African-Americans were left out of the typical description of the frontier cook. The picture regularly portrayed is the rugged, bad tempered, hard featured, aged, and grumpy man who was always eating and always seemed to be hostile towards waiting for the cowboys. This is how many people picture the driver of a chuckwagon because these attributes are not falsehoods. This is primarily how the white cooks behaved.

The black cooks, however, were referred to as passive, and likable characters, who took pride in their work and loved to please the cowboys. Negro cooks were the exact opposite of the hard charactered white cooks. This was extremely well accepted by cowboys of all races. After a tough day of work, they did not want to deal with aggressive white cooks. One trail boss wrote, “For cooks I always prefer darkies” (Porter, 1971). However, Nat Love claims that there have been many scenarios when the black cook possessed too much control over the outfit. Love writes, “Some bosses preferred a native white cook… ome Negroes were good cooks but usually too submissive, and too, white cowboys refused to take orders from them” (Love, 1968). This is only Love’s comments on the truths that he came into contact with. There were thousands of other outfits which he did not see. In most of these outfits the African-American was adored as the cook and essential to the outfit’s success. The black cowboy’s life was hard, tedious, and lonely with very few luxuries. Despite these hardships, the African-American frontiersmen lived a somewhat dignified life. They were not burdened with the constraints placed upon many other blacks throughout the country.

This was especially crucial to those who were previously living in the South and trying to survive as sharecroppers during the enactment of the Jim Crow laws. Instead of remaining prone to harsh treatment, they worked on the ranches, herding and branding cattle. The real cowboys were black, white, brown, and red. They ate together, did the same jobs, spent weeks with each other, and shared the same dangers. Together cowboys rode out of Texas along many notorious trails, such as the Chisholm, Western, and Goodnight-Loving trails that went northward towards Kansas, the Dakotas, Colorado, and Wyoming.

Many of these rugged outdoorsmen were killed in stampedes, frozen to death, exhausted from the heat, or even drowned. Some remained on the northern plains, while some migrated back South, and some, like Nat Love, ended up somewhere in the middle (Porter, 1971). Unfortunately, today the true history of the West has become a nothing more than a myth. History was replaced by fiction, and these falsehoods are perceived by today’s society as facts. The true American cowboy, white or black, no longer exists in the minds of Americans.

It is only as one delves deeper into the facts that the unperceived truth arises. The success of settling the West can be contributed to men such as Nat Love, but one can certainly not omit the hardworking cowboys who did not live such a glamorous life. The Negro cowboys of this era played a crucial role in facilitating any work on America’s new frontier. The Black cowboys were essential to the United States during the late 1800’s, in a time when any Negro needed great perseverance against prejudice. For their valiant efforts the Black cowboys should be given great honor and prestige.

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry

Fortenberry. Just sounds like an American name, doesnt it? Jeff Fortenberry- the kind of name that conjures up your old hometown best friend, the one who was always successful, fulfilling his dreams, and is living a happy life. Hes living the dream. But who is Jeff Fortenberry? He is none other than the United States congressman representing Nebraskas first congressional district. Recently elected in November of 2004, Fortenberry is a newcomer or freshman member of Congress. He is a strong Republican with big ideas and plans for the state he so obviously cares for.

Jeff Fortenberry- though not by name alone- is an exemplary American and a strong leader. Nebraska, as a state, tends not to vary much from district to district. The first district is home to approximately 570,421 people; the total population of Nebraska is 1,711,263 people. Most in the first district (as well as Nebraska as a whole) are white; the first district states that they have only 1. 4% black residents and 4. 2% Hispanic residents. Over 86% of Nebraskans over the age of 25 have high school degrees, and 24% continued on to get a Bachelors degree or higher.

Over 67% of people own homes, with the median of the housing values being $88,000. A majority of the people in eastern Nebraska (Fortenberrys district) are involved in Nebraskas main business- agriculture. Farming and agriculture is a huge part of Nebraskas economy. Corn is a main crop, which lead to the areas as well as Fortenberrys interest in producing ethanol as an alternative fuel. Other than agriculture, a main interest and concern for Nebraskan congressmen, there are various other businesses.

There are many people that work in the retail or education industries, with information services and engineering sciences not far behind. Nebraskans believe that they are ones to set their own star and challenge big corporate powers. They would like to create themselves into a player in the international agricultural markets. This proves where there hearts are located- at home, with their fields and farming. Nebraskas voting trends are often discussed because of their consistent Republican ways that emanate the voting results.

The whole state has voted for the Republican candidate in each presidential election since 1972, most likely earlier also. In the 2004 presidential election, the first district voted for Bush in a majority of 59%. There are only seven counties in Nebraska that have more Democrats than Republicans, and none of these are in the first district. In this strongly Republican state, the first district is arguably the strongest and most consistent. Fortenberrys predecessor, Doug Bereuter, was also a Republican. Jeffrey Lane Fortenberry was born on December 27, 1960 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

He studied at three colleges; he earned a Bachelors degree in economics from Louisiana State University, a Masters in public policy from Georgetown University, and a Masters in theology from the Franciscan University of Steubenville. From 1997-2001, he served as an At-Large member of the Lincoln City Council, working on economic development and community revitalization projects. He also helped balance the citys budget, add new police officers, and build a new hospital. In addition, he has extensive experience in the publishing industry as well as experience in small business investing and work as researcher and economist.

He has strong beliefs that Americas strength lies within her families and communities, and that it is important to create economic strength for these people. He supports stronger national security, efforts of international stability, Nebraskan tradition, and is pro-life. One of the main issues and concerns of his constituents involves agriculture. He has written an AG Plan, an extensive plan devoted to his and his peoples views on agriculture. Since so many Nebraskans work on farms, Fortenberry becomes responsible for upholding such values within the government.

He hopes to encourage agricultural diversity, economic development, and export expansion. He also will promote the use of ethanol, which will add value to Nebraskas economic sector. Being on the congressional committee for international relations, it is only fit that Fortenberry is concerned about homeland security and the war on terror. He supports the troops and the Presidents difficult decision to fight the war on terror. He believes that once we build international support and stabilize the region, then it will be feasible to send the troops home.

He rejects the thought of illegal immigration by way of uncontrolled borders and automatic amnesty. He follows many of the Republican views on other hot issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the right to bear arms, and government control. He strongly supports President Bush and his policies while specifically listening and responding to the concerns of his constituents. Jeffs successful 2004 campaign showed him a win with a majority of 54%. He and his opponent, Matt Connealy (D), both had numerous industrial supporters.

Fortenberry was supported (beginning with the highest contribution) by his leadership PACs, the retired, commercial banks, security and investment firms, insurance firms, and law firms. Connealy was supported by law firms, leadership PACs, building trade unions, his own committees, industrial unions, and public sector unions. Fortenberrys biggest individual/company contributors were Berkshire Hathaway, various Republican PACs, Associated Builders and Contractors, Farmers and Merchants Investments, Pfizer Incorporated, the Credit Union Nation Association, and the American Medical Association.

The campaign was very heated, showing supporters of both major candidates talking dirty and making some strong arguments. Connealy criticized Fortenberry for his supposed poor attendance to city council, an issue that became large and important. As it turns out, Fortenberrys minimal absences were due to the event of his daughters open heart surgery. TV ads with these arguments were subject of much discussion. Both candidates vied for the best endorsements, and had debates on issues such as health care. Besides normally being a Republican state, this election resulted in a Republican win.

When the state was redistricted, a much more democratic county (Saline county) was districted into the 3rd district instead of the 1st district. This county would have given the 1st district a higher number of Democratic voters, possibly enough to pull the election. The districting leads to a Republican win. Since there are far more registered Republican voters than Democrat voters in Nebraska, this trend is very likely to continue. In Fortenberrys term, he is likely to work very hard for his constituents in order to be re-elected. He will fight for what they believe in and achieve their needs within the government.

His main priority, judging by his AG Plan, is and will be agriculture and creating Nebraska into a state that is strong and has power. Being a strong Republican, he will continue to support President Bush and the war on terror, as well as other views that the President supports. He will remain being pro-life and anti-gay marriage, views which will affect any votes he must make on this topic. Based on his views on taxation, he will support tax relief, because he believes that it stimulates economic growth. He also will support an elimination of the Marriage Tax and Death Tax, arguing that they are unfair and are burdens to everyone.

He will most likely do whatever will make the people in his district happy, since he will be a very strong candidate for re-election. He will fight to prove that he can be influential and make the best decisions within his inaugural term. Though he may be new to the House of Representatives, Jeff Fortenberry shows very strong potential. He appears to be a role model for all Nebraskans and Americans, living a successful life and supporting what he and others like him believe in. Within his first term, he will likely find further success which will lead to his re-election and increased popularity.

History of Labor in America

The Industrial Revolution was dawning in the United States. At Lowell, Massachusetts, the construction of a big cotton mill began in 1821. It was the first of several that would be built there in the next 10 years. The machinery to spin and weave cotton into cloth would be driven by water power. All that the factory owners needed was a dependable supply of labor to tend the machines. As most jobs in cotton factories required neither great strength nor special skills, the owners thought women could do the work as well as or better than men.

In addition, they were more compliant. The New England region was home to many young, single farm girls who might be recruited. But would stern New England farmers allow their daughters to work in factories? The great majority of them would not. They believed that sooner or later factory workers would be exploited and would sink into hopeless poverty. Economic “laws” would force them to work harder and harder for less and less pay. How, then, were the factory owners able to recruit farm girls as laborers? They did it by building decent ouses in which the girls could live.

These houses were supervised by older women who made sure that the girls lived by strict moral standards. The girls were encouraged to go to church, to read, to write and to attend lectures. They saved part of their earnings to help their families at home or to use when they got married. The young factory workers did not earn high wages; the average pay was about $3. 50 a week. But in those times, a half-dozen eggs cost five cents and a whole chicken cost 15 cents. The hours worked in the factories were long. Generally, the girls worked 11 to 13 hours a day, six days a week.

But most people in the 1830s worked from dawn until dusk, and farm girls were used to getting up early and working until bedtime at nine o’clock. The factory owners at Lowell believed that machines would bring progress as well as profit. Workers and capitalists would both benefit from the wealth created by mass production. For a while, the factory system at Lowell worked very well. The population of the town grew from 200 in 1820 to 30,000 in 1845. But conditions in Lowell’s factories had already started to hange.

Faced with growing competition, factory owners began to decrease wages in order to lower the cost–and the price–of finished products. They increased the number of machines that each girl had to operate. In addition, they began to overcrowd the houses in which the girls lived. Sometimes eight girls had to share one room. In 1836, 1,500 factory girls went on strike to protest wage cuts. (The girls called their action a “turn out. “) But it was useless. Desperately poor immigrants were beginning to arrive in the United States from Europe.

To earn a living, they were willing to accept low wages and poor working conditions. Before long, immigrant women replaced the “Yankee” (American) farm girls. To many people, it was apparent that justice for wage earners would not come easily. Labor in America faced a long, uphill struggle to win fair treatment. In that struggle, more and more workers would turn to labor unions to help their cause. They would endure violence, cruelty and bitter defeats. But eventually they would achieve a standard of living unknown to workers at any other time in history.

In colonial America, most manufacturing was done by hand in the home. Some was done in workshops attached to the home. As towns grew into cities, the demand for manufactured goods increased. Some workshop owners began hiring helpers to increase production. Relations between the employer and helper were generally harmonious. They worked side by side, had the same interests and held similar political views. The factory system that began around 1800 brought great changes. The employer no longer worked beside his employees.

He became an executive and a merchant who arely saw his workers. He was concerned less with their welfare than with the cost of their labor. Many workers were angry about the changes brought by the factory system. In the past, they had taken great pride in their handicraft skills; now machines did practically all the work, and they were reduced to the status of common laborers. In bad times they could lose their jobs. Then they might be replaced by workers who would accept lower wages. To skilled craft workers, the Industrial Revolution meant degradation rather than progress.

Caudillo System in Latin America

The caudillo system established in Latin America after the wars for independence consisted of unstable transitional governments that achieved few of the goals recognized in an effective democratic government. Despite these shortcomings, the caudillo system maintained a predictable social order and prevented chaos. This system was the best available until the formation of a middle class could be achieved, resulting in a more democratic political system.

The caudillo system came to be a common form of government in Latin America for several reasons. The first, and most apparent, reason for the establishment of the caudillo system, was the weak, precarious, and unstable governments left in place after independence was achieved. These countries, once colonies, had been under the rule of Spain, which meant that all government control came from an outside source that was imposed upon the inhabitants.

Local armies, the only organized group prepared to take control, assumed power once the Spaniards were defeated. The transition from a military government to a government controlled by a “hero” from the army, the caudillo, was both logical and easy. The caudillo often came from the creole aristocracy, which was supported by the military and the Roman Catholic Church. Occasionally, a mestizo or mulatto took power who quickly adopted the characteristics of the upper class.

The main problem with having a creole in power was that his constituency, the creole class, was not interested in nor had no intention of, the reformation of land ownership or labor systems. This group wanted to stay on the top of the social ladder and had no incentive to make changes for the benefit of the majority and would not support any leader that would deprive them of their privileges. The caudillo maintained the status quo, therefore, lessening the potential conflict that could be created by a society with a constantly changing social order.

Both upper and lower classes seemingly benefited from the predictable social environment. The lack of literacy among the Indians prevented any resistance to the existing social order. John Chastyne opined that the poorest groups identified with the conservatives because their culture and way of life depended on the continuation of their traditions. The liberals, who were in favor of change were not supported by the groups they were trying to assist because they were breaking from tradition.

For example, the liberals were in favor of the ownership of small plots of land by individuals; the native Indians believed in a communal form of land ownership. The indigenous peoples belief facilitated the consolidation of land into the hands of the few and wealthy. The caudillo system, while imperfect, served as bridge between the feudal colonialism left by Spain and the development of democratic society. The caudillo system was supported by both the upper and lower classes because it promoted a traditional form of government.

The world of American radicalism

The world of American radicalism has changed greatly over the past century. Organizations ranging from the Ku Klux Klan, founded in 1866 to more recently organized groups like the Militia Movement, only about ten years old show the transitions in American radicalism, and the different states it has endured. It is believed that the first incarnate of the racist right, as a political position started during the French Revolution with the myth of a Jewish conspiracy.

Over many years this spread into the 20th century gaining popularity in the 1920’s. This was an added inspiration for the Ku Klux Klan, and added to their anti-black and anti-catholic agendas. The Ku Klux Klan was started by six young men who organized a fraternal club where they would wear costumes and ride around after dark. They soon realized they were instilling fear into the community, but predominantly in the areas where the former slaves were living.

Seeing this effect they quickly gained members, and within a year they began to structure rules for their organization. Inciting terror was their first goal, but it didn’t take long for them to act out further by harassment, arson and even murder of not just Blacks, but also Northern teachers, judges, politicians, or anyone they felt went against their code. From 1915 until 1924 the Ku Klux Klan enjoyed a huge growth in membership.

At one point they claimed more then 100,000 members, and at one point 40,000 of them marched in Washington D. C. during a Democratic National Convention. The Klan was so influential that it actually attracted new allies and members from the political body, primarily in the Mid-West. As the Klan grew it became increasingly violent and uncontrollable. This went against the image they were trying to present of “Law and Order. ” Shortly after, in 1929 the Ku Klux Klan dissolved into many dozens of smaller, local groups.

Though currently suffering its greatest decline since the 1940s, with its three most prominent national units of the era: the United Clans of America, the Invisible Empire Knights of the KKK and the Knights of the KKK, either defunct or factionalized, America’s oldest hate group, the codes of the Ku Klux Klan continues to operate on a local level, in some instances still engaging in illegal acts of violence and intimidation. The Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan was formed in 1985 by Virgil Griffin and based in Mount Holly, North Carolina.

The Christian Knights are active in North and South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee. A suspect in two June 1995 arsons of predominately Black South Carolina churches, part of an apparent epidemic of church arsons occurring throughout the country since January 1995 carried a card identifying him as a member of the Christian Knights. The Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan are a breakaway faction from the now-defunct Invisible Empire Knights of the KKK; the Keystone Knights was founded by Barry Black in 1992 and is based in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.

The Keystone Knights publishes an anti-Jewish, anti-Black newsletter called The Keystone American. The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Texas Realm and the Knights of the White Camellia, a Texas Klan group led by Charles Lee, along with the Texas chapter of Thom Robb’s Knights of the KKK, has been linked to a number of incidents of racial intimidation and harassment in Vidor, Texas. These incidents, which occurred in 1992 and 1993, involved efforts to prevent the desegregation of an all white federally assisted housing project in Vidor.

Among the reported acts of intimidation was the threat to blow up a housing unit to prevent its integration; residents of the project additionally alleged that the White Camellia Knights carried automatic weapons on a bus they drove through the housing complex and that one Klan member offered white children $50 to beat up African-American children. The Texas Commission on Human Rights has brought a civil suit against both Klan groups in response to these incidents. The left over factions of the Ku Klux Klan are not the only group that is still actively pursuing it endeavors to instill its’ initiatives in the United States.

Other radical groups consist of the afore mentioned Militia Movement, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance. In fact, according to a project called The Klanwatch, which began monitoring hate related crimes in 1981, there are over 700 hate groups in the nation. The Aryan Nation is a group that is interested in “preserving the Aryan race” and claims to be proactively doing this for over 25 years. They are operating by dispersing literature and leaflets to anyone of the Aryan race that will take them.

They seem to be particularly preoccupied with the “Jewish Problem,” not that that is where the movement stops. They publish anti-Mexican immigration flyers that not only go in the face of undocumented citizens, but also those who have legally immigrated. Their anti-black agenda is somewhat more concealed on their Web site; however by claiming America belongs to Aryans they overtly impose their position on African Americas too. The National Alliance was founded 1974 by William Pierce and is an Aryan only group that basis its beliefs on the natural hierarchy of life.

They follow the postulation that the hierarchy which they belong to is evolutionary. They state through evolutionary history, philosophy, and psychology that the Aryan race is superior. As part of their mission they state: In spiritually healthier times our ancestors took as theirs those parts of the world suited by climate and terrain to our race: in particular, all of Europe and the temperate zones of the Americas, not to mention Australia and the southern tip of Africa. This was our living area and our breeding area, and it must be so again.

After the sickness of “multiculturalism,” which is destroying America, Britain, and every other Aryan nation in which it is being promoted, has been swept away, we must again have a racially clean area of the earth for the further development of our people. We must have White schools, White residential neighborhoods and recreation areas, White workplaces, White farms and countryside. We must have no non-Whites in our living space, and we must have open space around us for expansion. It is their goal to do whatever is necessary to reach this point.

They call to the government for help by reforming as an Aryan only government and have made plans to change the educational system aside from the obvious segregation. In a book titled, “The Turner Diaries,” written by the founder under the pen name Andrew MacDonald, he calls for the violent overthrowing of the federal government and the systematic killing of the Jews and non-whites to replace the current America with an all Aryan population. The National Alliance produces White power music through Resistance Records, and has also been linked to many hate crimes and terrorist threats.

Not all American radicalism groups are bastions of racially based hate crimes. For instance, the Militia Movement is an anti-government and conspiracy oriented organization. They are a younger organization, founded sometime in 1993. The idea of a militia is not a new one though; originally the idea of militia is over 100 years old. A militia is defined as an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. They are a right-wing paramilitary group with the objective to, “take the country back.

Due to the conviction of their conspiracy theories, they believe the government is in league with the, “New World Order” creating a one-world socialist government using the United Nations as its’ foremost imposition of rule. They feel the United Nations socialist impositions have already taken over most of the world, and in order to protect the sovereignty of the United States the must fight at any cost. A group of radical members of a Michigan militia planned to bomb a large number of targets in Michigan, including a federal building and an I.

R. S. building; they constructed a variety of pipe bombs and even discussed assassinating various government officials. By 1995 nearly every state has some form of militia or another. So much attention was given to the militia after the Oklahoma bombing which killed 150 people; many people who were not formally aware of such organizations became so. This drove the number of recruits up and at the same time called to the F. B. I. for investigation. Under investigation many illegal firearms were confiscated, and resulted in major militia arrest.

By 1996 many radical militants left the organizations due to lack of backup from other militias during standoffs with the government, and many “less hard-core” militants left because of the amount of arrests being made. Though many of the militias have disappeared, they have not done so evenly across the United States. Because of this there has been a resurgence of militia activity in areas like: Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky. As long as the Militia Movement is active in any form it is likely that their anti-government activities will continue.

Over time the world of American radicalism has changed substantially, and has taken many forms. Some are directly confronted by the government, while others are protected in part from the government and the 1st amendment. American radicalism is instituted due to a set of convictions, and though many seem to fade with time, many more new groups appear in new forms and with new missions. Ultimately if the is enough support to opposition of one sort or another, radicalism with continue to thrive in the United States.

Energy Crisis: Is America In Trouble?

CHICAGO (April 17, 1997) — An impending global energy crisis with potentially massive impact on American industry and jobs can be avoided if America strives for a portfolio of energy systems, a distinguished scientist said here today. In advocating an end to name-calling between energy advocates and environmentalists, Alan Schriesheim said, “We cannot set effective energy policy in an environmental vacuum, nor can we set effective environmental policy in an energy vacuum. ”

Schriesheim, director emeritus at Argonne National Laboratory, spoke at a gathering sponsored by the Chicago Academy of Sciences at the University Club of Chicago. Energy demand will soar worldwide over the next 20 years, he said. “What do you think might happen,” he asked the audience, “to the world’s energy needs and environmental concerns if we added a new United States to the planet every three years for the next 20 years? This is not an academic question. The world population today is growing at exactly that rate, and it is projected to continue growing at that rate through 2020.

The bulk of that population growth will come in the poorer countries, Schriesheim said, “places where talk of energy policy comes second to talk of food and shelter and survival; places where, if the only affordable fuel is growing in the rain forest, you will take that fuel today without a moment’s thought of the consequences tomorrow. ” The Argonne scientist’s talk was titled “What Every High School Graduate Should Know About Energy,” and was part of the Chicago Academy of Sciences lecture series “Science Literacy for the 21st Century: What Should Every High School Graduate Know? ”

Schriesheim told the audience that world population growth of more than 86 million people per year is “the equivalent of adding two cities the size of Chicago to the planet each month. ” “So not only will all the Earth’s current population demand more energy in the years ahead,” he said, “those billions of new people are going to want their share too. ” Schriesheim chided energy executives who dismiss environmental concerns, and environmentalists who dismiss the energy production potential of fossil fuels, flowing water, and uranium in favor of so-called “renewable” energy sources such as solar energy.

He said that for the next several generations renewables — such as solar, wind, and farm-grown energy crops — are expected to provide only 2 to 4 percent of global energy supplies. Those who argue that these largely undeveloped sources can replace traditional fuels, Schriesheim said, “seem to believe that a bird in the bush is worth two in the hand. ” Everyone agrees, he said, that the perfect fuel would be renewable, non-fossil, environmentally clean, and would have reliable conversion, storage and delivery methods already developed.

Unfortunately, no such fuel yet exists,” he said. “No matter how hard we might wish it to be otherwise, there is an environmental price to pay with every fuel choice. No one fuel and no single technology will be the best environmentally in all cases, so choices must be made if we are to meet energy needs at the lowest possible environmental cost. And choices only are possible with a portfolio of options. ” Both energy advocates and environmentalists must acknowledge each other’s legitimate concerns if the nation and world are to meet exploding energy demand without hardships, he said.

The alternative, one we’ve been practicing for far too long, is to stand still, regret the past, and find ever-increasing objections to any course for the future,” he said. “Our discussions today are marked more by acrimony and stagnation than they are by progress and understanding. “If we continue this negativism,” Schriesheim said, “we will find ourselves halfway through the 21st Century with exactly the same energy picture we have today: We will still be burning fossil fuels, we will still be depleting those finite resources, we will still be spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and we will still be arguing.

A noted chemist who holds 22 patents and is scheduled to speak to a world technology conference next month in Istanbul, Turkey, Schriesheim also took aim at the notion that expanding energy needs are for trivial purposes. “In talking about increasing energy demand,” he said, “we are not talking about energy to power a third family TV or an electric toothbrush. According to one estimate, as many as 2. 4 billion people — that’s a quarter of the projected world population — will live in water-scarce countries by 2050. Africa and parts of western Asia appear particularly vulnerable.

Also, the U. N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the number of undernourished people could rise from 175 million to some 300 million by 2010. ” “We must have energy available to desalinate water and to grow and ship food to those people,” he said, “or they will die of thirst or hunger. In a sense then, ensuring an adequate energy supply is a matter of life and death. ” Jon Miller, vice president of the Chicago Academy of Sciences, said the lecture series is intended to help today’s society ensure that “we and our children are prepared for tomorrow. ”

The series began last November and is organized by the academy’s International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Literacy, which Miller said is the leading research organization in the world studying public understanding of science and technology. Miller said the project’s goal is to “bring together community, regional, and national leaders to think about and focus on one of the critical issues of our time. Today’s technologically advanced society demands a high level of scientific understanding. “In the future,” he said, “a scientifically literate population will be even more important.

CNN) — As rolling blackouts swept through parts of California in March, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham warned the country that it faces its “most serious shortage” since the 1970s. Soaring utility rates have been the subject of much debate in California as the wholesale prices of electricity have skyrocketed, jumping from an average of $30 per megawatt hour last year to $330 in January. The Bush administration, warning the crises will spread far beyond California this summer, is scheduled to unveil its long-term energy policy in April or May.

Meanwhile, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has ordered some wholesalers to justify $124 million in charges sold to California utilities in January and February or pay refunds. The commission is asking for refunds whenever prices rose above $273 per megawatt hour in January and $430 per megawatt hour in February. The suppliers defended the increases, blaming them on a shortage of power and uncertain finances of the state’s two major utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Edison International.

Responding to consumer outrage, the California Senate has formed a special committee, scheduled to meet in early April, to investigate soaring prices. The committee’s chairman, state Sen. Joe Dunn, recently told the Los Angeles Times that while demand in California has increased 4 percent over the last year, wholesale prices have jumped 266 percent. At the same time, Dunn said, the profits of some wholesale suppliers have soared an average of 508 percent. The state’s lawmakers and energy executives are blaming each other for the energy crisis.

I think the people that insisted that we get into deregulation in 1996 made a huge miscalculation,” California Gov. Gray Davis told CNN. “They did not anticipate the huge [economic] recovery California experienced and the needs of the tech companies here in California. Secondly, there was no effort to build new plants to meet the demand. ” But critics of Davis counter that while his Republican predecessor Pete Wilson signed the deregulation bill, Davis, a Democrat, failed to act when early power shortages signaled a looming crisis.

California was the first state to deregulate its electricity market in 1996. The move was supposed to lower the bills of consumers by preventing most utilities from passing rising costs on to their customers until at least March 2002. Under deregulation, the state’s investor-owned utilities sold most of their power generating plants. Now they must buy back that power at market prices. Meanwhile, the neighboring states where California has been buying surplus electricity grew rapidly, boosting the price of wholesale energy.

PG&E and Edison say that this year’s higher natural gas prices, dry weather conditions in the Pacific Northwest and an unusual number of plant maintenance outages have also contributed to spikes in wholesale energy prices. They claim that if they keep shelling out more money to buy electric power — and are prevented from passing on that cost to consumers — they will go belly up. Others have argued that there is no energy shortage in California, but an energy cartel of companies that is manipulating the supply to raise prices and profits. The power industry in California is now the target of six investigations by state and federal agencies.

The people of this state are being taken to the cleaners and billions of dollars are going to out-of-state [power] generators,” said state Sen. John Burton (D-San Francisco). Gary Ackerman, executive director of the Western Power Trading Forum, representing buyers and suppliers of electricity, countered: “We have been investigated up and down and sideways, and after all these months, nobody has found any evidence that there is any price manipulating or any wrongdoing on the part of the [power] generators here in California or in the Western region. ”

California’s struggle to come up with a long-term solution to its energy crisis has nationwide implications. Increased use of computers and other appliances and the lack of adequate new power plants are the norm across the country. The 25 other states that are moving toward deregulation are watching the developments in California closely. The Associated Press and CNN Correspondent Charles Feldman contributed to this report. What Energy Crisis? It is difficult to deny the fact that humans are using more and more energy every year. And no one is questioning if we will ever run out of fossil fuels, but when we will run out of those fuels.

At the current rate of energy consumption (which by even conservative estimates is expected to increase by 50% around 2010), those non-renewable sources of energy such as oil, natural gas, and coal are quickly going to be depleted. Such fuels are also harmful to the environment when burned to create energy and harm the entire planet when used. Suggestions are made for using such renewable resources for fuel as wood (which is used extensively in homes throughout the Northeast United States), but even a fuel that is renewable, like wood, faces limitations on use.

There simply isn’t enough wood to provide for the energy demands of the United States, much less any other developed or developing nation. Nuclear Fission One of the proposed solutions to this problem has been using Nuclear power, specifically fission power plants. Unfortunately fission plants have many negative qualities. They are potentially dangerous in the event that a meltdown ever occurs because their reactions are not as controllable as fusion. They also produce masses of radioactive waste that is harmful to the environment and takes thousands of years to dissolve.

Obviously fission is not an adequate option. Solar and Hydroelectric Solutions Many people today advocate using Solar and Hydroelectric sources for energy production. These methods, too, have their faults. There simply aren’t enough rivers to provide for an adequate supply of power from Hydro plants. Damming up rivers for the plants is also destructive to the natural ecosystems of the area. Solar power is not much better in that respect. In order to provide the energy necessary to sustain the United States miles and miles of solar panels would need to be developed and deployed.

This has a small effect on the environment. The greatest problem with Solar power, however, is in its inefficiency. Of the energy reaching the earth from the sun, only about 1. 5-3% reaches the surface, less on rainy days. A proposed method of deploying solar panels to capture a greater percentage of the sun’s rays is orbital stations, but there is still a question of the safety involved in using powerful microwave beams to transfer the energy to the Earth. The Promise of Fusion Fusion is generally regarded by scientists and politicians as an excellent hope for our energy future.

The fuels used in the proposed commercial reactors are abundant on Earth and in the universe. There is some question regarding the time frame for the first commercial fusion reactors, but they will revolutionize the planet when they arrive. This is a diagram depicting the possibilities for using fusion power to produce electricity. The amount of energy produced by the fusion of hydrogen isotopes is shown by the left-hand blue arrow and the energy produced by fission is depicted by the right-hand blue arrow.

You can see that fusion produces much more energy per reaction than fission. Fusion is not a benevolent gift from the gods, however. In tritium-deuterium reactions, which are easier to sustain because of their lower temperatures, there are small amounts of radioactive byproducts in the form of neutrons. Energy production facilities which employ fusion will need to utilize substances that negate the small amounts of radioactivity to ensure harmless operation.

Funeral Customs of African Americans and American Jews

The chaos of death disturbs the peace of the living. This unsettling fact of life has proven to be a rich source of inspiration for human efforts to find order in disorder, meaning in suffering, eternity in finitude. Religion, culture, social structures, the vitality of these rudimentary elements of communal life depends upon ritually putting the dead body in its place, managing the relations between the living and the dead and providing explanations for the existence of death. – Gary Laderman – 2003 A melting pot is an accurate description of Americas cultural diversity.

Everywhere across the country many people from different countries and cultures have migrated to the United States. Some form subcultures or communities while others are dispersed and isolated. Over time, many of the ceremonies and traditions, such as funerals, associated with a particular culture have been influenced by or mingled with Euro-American customs, causing people to loose touch with the context of their own traditions. For example, some conform to American burial customs and adopt secular attitudes about bereavement, which tend to underestimate the power of grief and the impact of loss.

This is particularly true with younger generations born in the United States. Also, K uniquely American is the mass use of embalming, as it is the base of the American economic funeral industry. (Mitford V 1998, Introduction) However, many prideful people keep the traditions and customs of their indigenous cultures alive, retaining their distinct ethnic or religious traditions. This paper will compare the similarities and differences in funeral practices between two large populations and sub-cultures of the United States; African Americans and American Jews, and also how American influences have affected their traditional funeral customs.

In the past, when a person died no one asked, When should we schedule the funeral? or How much would you like to spend on a casket? Members of the community simply appeared and began preparing the body for burial and the mourners would provide comfort to the bereaved. Death itself has become something of a stranger because it used to be that death was an everyday occurrence of life, for example people did not live as long, higher infant mortality rates, etc. People usually died at home, surrounded by loved ones. Funerals, like weddings, were not invitational events, but community-wide gatherings.

But today, it is possible to reach the age of forty without ever attending a funeral or visiting a house of mourning. In addition, death and dying are removed from the flow of daily life as most people die in hospitals and nursing homes. Thus death comes as terrifying shock, leaving the bereaved unprepared and adrift. (Diamant – 1998, Page 4) The funeral service then, in any culture, is a social function in which the deceased is the guest of honor and the center of attention. A funeral service is a ceremony held in the presence of the body, with either an open or closed casket.

There is also a ritual called a memorial service. This is a service held after the body has been removed. It can be either a substitute for a funeral service or in addition to it. It performs much the same function as a funeral service but tends to have a more positive atmosphere, because it is focused on the virtues of the person who has died instead of on the dead body. (Morgan – 2001, Page 81) The funeral service, memorial service, or both may be followed by a committal service. A commitment, or committal service is a brief, optional service held at the graveside or in the chapel of a crematory.

It is usually in addition to a funeral or memorial service and is the occasion at which the immediate family and possibly a few close friends bid good-bye to the body. (Morgan – 2001, Page 81) With death we experience loss and with the loss, grief, which is the process by which loss is healed. Therefore no matter what the cultural beliefs or traditions, the funeral or some type of death ceremony is an important function, bringing together the grieving survivors and strengthening the bonds among them. The funeral also inspires a resurgence of the cultural ideals and values that are meaningful.

Humankind, from the earliest times, has practiced death ceremonies and procedures in great variety. Such procedures are important to the healing process, recognizing that death ceremonies and related customs are important in meeting the social and emotional needs of survivors. (Morgan – 2001, page 77) Therefore, whatever the cultural customs, funerals fulfill the following basic needs in dealing with the death of a loved one: ,X Reestablishing relationships: After a death in the family we are not quite the same people we were before.

We must therefore rediscover ourselves in a new set of relationships. This relates directly to the process of mourning. (Morgan – 2001, Page 78) For example, lets say a child dies suddenly, coming as a great shock to the family and community of friends and neighbors. A simple service is held just for the family. A few days later, the family members run into friends or neighbors who feel the need to convey sympathy, which then comes at the expense of unhappiness to themselves and of rubbing fresh salt in the wounds of the family.

Had the funeral service been open to all, the individual condolences could have been replaced by a single meeting, the relationships reestablished, and life resumed in a more normal way. ,X Identification: The ceremony can cultivate a sense of identity with the deceased. The survivors can be helped to recognize the that they have shared the persons life and that they are now, in their own lives, the custodians of the values that he or she lived by. In a sense, their lives can be a memorial. (Morgan – 2001, Page 78) X Affirmation of values: It is almost a universal experience that at time of death survivors are prone to think seriously of the meaning of life and to mediate on its values. Therefore, the ceremony should be used for the enrichment and refinement of life. (Morgan – 2001, Page 78) ,X Relief of Guilt V At a time of death, the surviving members of the family are commonly torn between their feelings of love and grief and the shock and revulsion they tend to feel in the presence of the dead body. It is normal, in this situation for them to recall their shortcomings with respect to the deceased and to reproach themselves.

This is a major factor in many costly and ostentatious funerals. One of the functions of death ceremonies is to gently and quietly remove this sense of guilt through the process of reaffirmation of the values of the deceased. Perhaps the strongest force in lifting the sense of guilt is the reacceptance that the survivors experience from their friends. (Morgan – 2001, page 79) ,X Rehabilitation: When an old person dies after a their health has declined, it is helpful to the survivors to have the memory of this person redirected to the better years of his or her life. (Morgan – 2001, Page 79) X Religious Observance: The occasion of death is an important time to deepen spiritual life, draw on the strength of religious experience and tradition, and unify a congregation. Services planned with the familys religious beliefs can help greatly in this process. (Morgan 2001, Page 79) ,X Emotional Support: A death in the family can leave the survivors feeling as though they have lost a part of themselves and it is common to experience intense loneliness and insecurity. The gathering of family and friends can be a great source of encouragement and strength. (Morgan – 2001, Page 79)

In the African American community death is very much an important aspect of culture. For an African Americans death is viewed not as a time of sadness, but a time to rejoice, for the deceased no longer has to endure the trials and tribulations of the earthly world. This does not mean that the deceased are not mourned or missed, but rather their lives are celebrated. Many African American funeral traditions and customs can be traced back to African roots of the Bakongo and the LaDogaa tribes, which have been passed down from generation to generation in the form of expressions, sayings, superstitions, religious beliefs, and music. North by South Web Site – 2003) Many of these stories and superstitions are still believed today in the United States, particularly in the South. For example, the belief between the distinction between the body and spirit, and the existence of a separate world of the dead, transferred easily to Christian beliefs of Americans. Other distinctly African American funeral customs are rooted in their history as slaves and from the severe economic and social limitations placed upon blacks for many, many years afterwards.

The conditions of slavery rendered the funeral an especially significant occasion for African Americans, who savored it as one of the few opportunities given to slaves to gather and socialize. (Center for Historic Preservation Web Site – 2003) Funerals emphasized the spiritual rather than the physical aspects of death and presented it as a natural transition from one life to the next. Therefore services usually took on a hopeful, almost celebratory tone as family and friends rejoiced in the fact that a loved one was going home to be with the Lord.

Thus, in the African American community when someone died, a series of events took place. First, all family members (not just immediate family members) and friends were immediately notified because the celebration of the deceased life was a community event. The whole community practically shut down as friends and relatives arrived to console the family of the deceased. (Center for Historic Preservation Web Site V 2003) Economics were a secondary concern to the type or scale of grandness of the funeral itself, because the entire community was required to contribute to the expenses, food and necessities of the family.

An old belief was that the dead could not be buried on a rainy day, as the sun was a positive sign that the heavens are open and welcoming in order to receive the deceased. Rain was a sign that the devil had come for the deceased soul, so burial would be held off until a sunny day. (The Mariners’ Museum Web Site – 2002) There was also a belief that the dead should be buried with their faces turning west.

This comes from an old African tradition of facing the same way as the sun is facing when it rises, but it combined with a Christian tradition as well – the slaves read in the Bible that the angel Gabriel would come from the east, and so they wanted to be facing in the same direction as Gabriel did when he came at the end of time. (The Mariners’ Museum Web Site V 2002) Slaves often buried their dead with food, in order to sustain the slave on his trip to the next world. This practice came straight from Africa, as did another unique custom, that of placing broken earthenware on the new grave.

The pieces of earthenware were used to symbolize the broken body of the dead slave. (The Mariners’ Museum Web Site – 2002) Another tradition slaves often insisted on was that the funerals were held at night. This practice came from West Africa, but it also served a practical purpose on the plantation: at night, slaves from neighboring plantations could sneak away to join in the funeral celebration. (The Mariners’ Museum Web Site – 2002) Traditionally there was a five to seven days of a mourning period before the actual funeral.

This is known as a wake and At this time, close friends of the family pay respects to the family and view the body. This is a time when everyone gathers and eats food cooked by the family members, and shares in memories of the deceased. (North by South Web Site – 2003) The wake was held in a funeral home, house of worship, or the familys home. Coins were placed on the eyes of the dead to keep them closed. However, coins were also sometimes placed in the hands as the deceased persons contribution to the community of ancestors, or perhaps, as a token for admittance to the spirit world.

For the same purpose, coins are also always placed at the gravesite. (The Center for Historic Preservation Web Site – 2003) Occasionally, they also allowed blacks to receive accolades for accomplishments not safely recognized publicly during life. In the first half of the nineteenth century, for example, the clandestine work of African Americans who served as conductors on the Underground Railroad or provided schooling for blacks was often made public upon their deaths and commemorated in a descriptive epitaph. (The Center for Historic Preservation Web Site – 2003)

Burial associations, which gained popularity among African-Americans during the late nineteenth century, served as a kind of insurance that helped offset the cost of funerals. For a weekly premium of 25 cents, burial associations agreed to provide a casket, burial garments, and funeral services, K thus fulfilling the twofold need of most African Americans to practice frugality while ensuring their loved one could be put away nicely. ” (The Center for Historic Preservation Web Site – 2003) Fraternal organizations for men and women also played a significant role for African Americans in both life and death.

Blacks belonged to affiliate chapters of traditionally white organizations such as the Masons and the Elks, as well as to local African-American fraternities such as the Circle of Liberia. It was not unusual for such organizations to conduct special burial services for their members, a practice that continues today. (The Center for Historic Preservation Web Site – 2003) Customs related to death and burial often reflected the resourcefulness and resilience of the black community, as well as the challenges it faced.

African-American funeral homes and mortuary businesses, for example, which appeared for the first time in the early decades of the twentieth century, were products of the black self-help movement that emerged during segregation. Along with the church and the school, the funeral home became a center of the black community. The funeral home was one of the first black-owned businesses whose entrepreneurial owners were willing to perform a service that whites were unwilling to offer to blacks. Funeral home directors, generally well educated and well respected, were considered leaders in the community.

The local population depended on them to provide a myriad of services, from death benefits to investment advice, as well as to contribute generously to community functions and needs. (The Center for Historic Preservation Web Site – 2003) Since the turn of the century, increasing educational and economic opportunities have gradually transformed African American burial rites. As growing numbers of African Americans reached middle-class status, their mourning and funeral traditions began to reflect more closely the artistic traditions and symbolism of white funeral customs.

Predictably, more elaborate monuments and tombstones indicated the increasing affluence of some members of the African-American community. Anglo-American symbols and motifs, such as the cherub, the dove, or the gates of heaven, began to appear in black cemeteries. Some cemeteries even developed a spatial hierarchy, with the community’s most influential members buried in the cemetery’s most prominent or desirable location. (The Center for Historic Preservation Web Site – 2003)

With the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, African-American funerary practices became more mainstream, changes in specific funeral rituals that tend to be more secular versus religious. For example, activities of funeral services took on a shorter, less spontaneous format, and funeral homes began to offer printed programs. Contemporary funerary practices also tend to place less emphasis than before on the spiritual aspects of death and many of the funeral services are held in the funeral home rather than the church.

The music is more contemporary, for example songs like Frank Sinatras My Way or other more current songs have replaced the traditional playing of Amazing Grace. (The Center for Historic Preservation Web Site – 2003) The wake has also changed. For example instead of a five to seven daylong wake, it is now only two or three days. The wake itself may also include a video presentation of the life of the deceased with her or his favorite music playing in the background. The religious items historically placed in the casket have been replaced with the favorite items of the deceased, such as compact discs.

Alterations in the outward rituals, however, have not decreased the importance and the sacredness of the burial in African-American life. The funeral home continues to play a central role in the community, providing such important services as insurance, counseling, and investment planning. The activities surrounding death and dying continue to possess cultural significance for African Americans and to serve as a galvanizing force in the black community. (The Center for Historic Preservation Web Site – 2003) To be sure, there is no one set of practices that apply broadly to the entire African-American community.

There is great diversity based on region, class, religion, and personal preferences. This is also true of American Jews for Judaism, just like African American traditions, has many laws and customs regarding funerals and mourning practices. Like African American funeral traditions, Judaism’s response to death comes from a long history (about 3000 years old) and similarly from the onset of death, to the funeral and burial, Jews reflect on life rather than mourn death itself as well. Two basic principles govern the Jewish approach to death and mourning.

The first is called Kavod Ha-Met (meaning to honor the dead). It is extremely important to treat the body with respect and care from the time of death until the burial is completed. The second is the view that death is a Natural Process: Death is considered a natural part of the life cycle and the body is returned to the earth whence it came. Hence everything associated with the body for burial is that which will decompose with the body, facilitating its return from ashes to ashes, dust to dust. (Scheinerman – 2003) Traditional Jewish funeral customs include the following steps: ,X Mitzvot of Bikur Cholim, the act of kindness or visiting the sick ,X Kavod Ha-Met, honoring the dead ,X Shomer, religious watchman praying over the deceased ,X Chevra Kadisha, Holy Society who prepares the body for burial ,X Taharah, purification ,X Takhirkhin, burial shrouds ,X Service and Prayers ,X Eretz Yisroel, earth from Israel ,X Shiva and Yahrzeit, remembrance (Techner – 1998)

Much like with African American traditions, generations ago, when the Jewish customs and traditions surrounding death and grieving were formulated, hospitals, extended-care homes, hospices and other similar institutions did not exist where death was commonplace. Rather, people died in their homes, frequently the same homes in which they were born. It was standard practice to transport the deceased directly from the home to the cemetery. (Techner – 1998) There were no funeral homes to contact or government agencies to notify.

When death did occur, most often the family was there for support, as much as for each other as for the deceased. This is very similar to the African American funeral traditions and like them, this is also why Jewish funerals were and still are conducted as soon as possible following death; there is no reason to wait. Thus when death occurs, the focus is to honor the deceased. (Techner – 1998) Judaism equates a dead body with that of a damaged Torah scroll, no longer fit for its intended use, but still deserving reverence for the holy purpose it once served.

This is why, from death to burial, the body is never left unattended and the soul is prayed for by a religious watchman … This ancient custom has provided invaluable comfort to survivors. (Techner – 1998) Another Jewish custom or law that is different from African American funeral traditions is the definition of a mourner. For African Americans, a mourner is anyone saddened by the loss of the deceased and who has come to pay their respects. For Jews the definition of a mourner is: father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife. Other relatives are not considered “mourners” unless they are the next of kin. Louchheim – 1997) Also, the tearing of a black ribbon or garment prior to the funeral is traditional. It allows the mourner the opportunity to express anguish and anger. This tear is an outward sign of grief and mourning and signifies that the mourner is confronting death head-on. The prevailing custom is to tear the ribbon on the mourner’s right side, but on the left side (closest to the heart) for someone mourning a father or mother. (Louchheim – 1997) Also in ancient days, the family immediately contacted members of a Holy Society called Chevra Kadisha when a death occurred.

The Holy Society’s role was to prepare the body for burial according to traditional Jewish practices. (Techner – 1998) These individuals were truly performing an act of kindness called Mitzvot, because their actions were performed out of the kindness of their heart, with no concern or regard for reciprocation. In addition to the physical cleansing and preparation of the body for burial, the Chevra Kadisha also recited required prayers asking God for forgiveness for any sins that may have been committed by the person who died.

Prayers are also asked for God to receive the soul of the deceased, guard the person and grant them eternal peace. (Techner – 1998) It is the start of these prayers, called the Kaddish, which starts the official funeral services. A parent, if they are alive, recite the Kaddish for eleven months and by other family members for thirty days following the death. Today, rather than the Holy Society, Kaddish is usually said by the son. If there are no sons, family members can designate someone else to it for the deceased. It is considered a privilege for the deceased soul to have someone say Kaddish for them. Soudakoff – 2003). After the initial prayer is said for the deceased, which is required for purification called Taharah, a 2000-year-old tradition of being wrapped in burial shrouds, called Takhirkhin are implemented, preceding the placement of the deceased in the casket. (Techner – 1998) This tradition originated in the first century when a Rabbi named Gamaliel asked that he be buried in a very simple garment, stating that he came into this world like everyone else and he should return to God in the same manner. Rabbi Gamaliel’s act of unselfishness brought true democracy to Jewish tradition and death.

Wealthy or not, all are created equal before God; what determines their reward is not what they could afford to wear on the outside, but the person they were on the inside. (Techner – 1998) Unlike traditional African American funeral traditions, Jews did not typically have a wake. It is tradition for the burial to take place as soon as possible, even on the same day of the death. It was considered disrespectful to keep the body from being buried as soon as possible. His soul has returned to God, but his body is left to linger in the land of the living. That would be considered a matter of great shame. Soudakoff – 2003). However today, it is common to have a one-day viewing of the deceased because unlike long ago, when families lived close together in small communities, burial could be completed by sundown of the day of death (the Jewish day begins at sundown and ends the following sundown, hence burial was completed on the day of death). Today, there are often relatives living far away and the burial may be delayed for one day or even two days to accommodate these relatives. Also against traditional Jewish law, is cremation because the K Torah makes it clear that man must return to the dust. Trepp V 1980, Page 329) However todays reformed Jews do not necessarily uphold this tradition. Also traditional and still applied today is the fact that only K wood coffins are used in Jewish funerals because the Judaism belief is that the body does not have to be preserved, because as the body decays, the soul ascends to Heaven. (Soudakoff – 2003) Today, if the family is associated with a well-organized congregation, they will for the family, make the standard arrangements with the funeral home to pick a simple pine coffin. (Greenberg V 1983, Page 289) This spares the family from the task of having to do it themselves.

Traditionally, as a further symbol of Jews’ oneness with God and Israel, the Chevra Kadisha used to place ground soil from Israel, called Eretz Yisroel, into the casket. It does not mean the person will be buried in Israel, rather that their body will always be in contact with the Holy Land. (Techner – 1998) Also traditionally Jews were always to be buried in the ground. Today however, it is not uncommon to see Jewish cemeteries that have mausoleums and not all deceased have soil from Israel available to them to put in the casket. However in most cases, a Rabbi can provide this.

The funeral service may take place in the synagogue or at the graveside. In many communities, a simple graveside funeral is the custom. There is no Jewish requirement for a synagogue funeral service. Any Jewish person can be buried in a Jewish cemetery. In certain cases, however, if one marries out of the faith or committed suicide, the person would be buried in a separate part of the cemetery. (Scheinerman – 2003) At the burial itself, pallbearers carry the casket to the grave, K a custom dating back to biblical times when Jacob’s children carried him to the grave.

Seven stops are made while Psalm 91 is recited. The stops represent the seven stages of life. (Louchheim – 1997) It is traditional for the mourners to symbolically complete the burial by shoveling dirt into the grave, to symbolize the last commandment they are able to perform on behalf of the deceased. The back of a shovel is used for this purpose, signifying that this act of using the shovel is different from every other occasion of using a shovel. (Scheinerman – 2003) This tradition is still upheld today, even in non-Orthodox families.

It is customary to place a bowl of water with a cup at the entrance of the home for those returning from the cemetery. This is a tradition from the early post-Talmudic period. It is done “to dispel the spirits of uncleanness” which cling to one’s person, these being “the demons that follow them home. ” It can be seen metaphorically as a ritual cleansing from a place of death to a place of life. The mystical custom is to pour water over each hand three times. (Louchheim – 1997) For the next seven days following the burial, the immediate family will observe a mourning period called Shiva.

The Shiva candle is lit immediately upon returning from the cemetery, starting the Shiva period. During this week, any family member and friends can come to comfort the mourners, regardless of their religious beliefs. It is customary to bring food and at the first meal after the funeral, mourners eat a hard-boiled egg and something round to indicate that life is like a circle and the mourners have no words to describe their loss. (Soudakoff – 2003) Traditionally, for thirty days after the death, mourners do not attend weddings, bar/bat-mitzvahs or other events that have music.

The children of the deceased do not attend for one year. They also do not shave or cut their hair. Due to American influences, these traditions are not always implemented today; it depends on how orthodox the family is. Unorthodox Jewish American families typically do not wear the traditional all black clothing for a whole year and many do get haircuts and shave. My own father did not dress in mourning clothes after his fathers funeral and he did get a haircut and shave within that same year.

However, still traditional is that on the one-year anniversary of the death, the mourners will attend a service in a Synagogue and recite the Kaddish and then go to the cemetery itself to perform what is called an unveiling. The unveiling is when the grave marker is uncovered and the mourning period comes to an end. In the Torah, we read that Jacob set up a marker for Rachel (Genesis 35:20). Hence Jewish graves are marked with the name of the deceased. Rabban Gamaliel’s instructions for burial emphasized equality and simplicity and thus large, ornate stone markers were discouraged.

In fact, stone markers were not normative until the Middle Ages; Rabbi Solomon Adret (13th century, Spain) prescribed the use of a matzeivah (burial marker). (Scheinerman – 2003) These days, it is traditional to mark a grave with a stone monument or metal plate on the ground, as it more customary in American cemeteries, even if they are Jewish. This is generally done some time during the first year, prior to the Yahrzeit, which is the first year anniversary of the death, but traditions differ widely. Some communities feel it is important to unveil the marker prior to the Yahrzeit; others do not do so until the Yahrzeit has passed.

In my own family, we do it on the exact one-year anniversary, with a graveside ceremony. The ceremony for unveiling itself is brief and usually involves close family members and friends, who gather at the grave to remember the deceased and honor his or her memory. When people visit the grave, the often leave a small stone on the marker as a sign that they have visited. This has been explained as a reflection of the eternality of the soul: Just as the stone lasts forever, so too does the soul live forever. Scheinerman – 2003) Therefore the Jewish way of death K contains within its strictures an abiding sensitivity to the living V the survivor, the bereaved, the mourner, the grief-stricken. (Greenberg V 1983, Page 287) Thus, two distinct yet similar cultures in America share similarities in their history, which have affected their funeral customs. For example, both African American and Jewish funerals customs have roots that trace back to their homelands and their history as slaves. However differences, such as religion and ethnicity, have led to some distinctions between these cultures as well.

For example, African Americans used to have up to a seven-day wake, while traditionally Jews had no wake at all. Since most are usually bereft to one degree or another while attending a funeral, it might be hard to see past the grief and celebrate the deceaseds life, but a traditional African American or Jewish funeral is truly a celebration, an acknowledgment of gifts that were given to those mourning, as a result of the life they are memorializing. The funeral is rich in history and filled with religious or cultural significance that should make people proud of their heritage.