Tumultuous Sixties Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Tumultuous Sixties - Essay Example However, their hopes were crushed when President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Lyndon Johnson replaced Kennedy as president and brought the culture of working actively to promote the lives of Americans. Johnson believed that the only way to improve the livelihoods of the American people is through education and ending poverty. Johnson introduced the Civil Rights Act from the urging of the Congress, which then outlawed discrimination that is openly based on race, color, sex, religion, national and origin in the American federal programs (Nicholas, 2012). There was an introduction of mechanisms for enforcement to the American culture where there was an open application for voting, employment and public accommodations of American citizens and residents regardless of the race, color and religion.President Johnson introduced new student loans and grant programs that were free from racial discrimination and supported the consumer-protection legislation act. The presidentâ€⠄¢s ambitions to end poverty in America led to the effort of championing for better education and job training. However, the effort enjoyed mixed success, as it was not fully successful. In essence, the federal programs and economic expansion that Johnson initiated increased the number of problems that the poor Americans faced (Nicholas, 2012). What Americans had thought of the administration of Johnson turned out negative and critics pointed out at the numerous assassinations and unrest that occurred during his rule.

Not a Privilege, but a Right Essay Example for Free

Not a Privilege, but a Right Essay The times are ripe for civil disobedience. Not a full year ago was the act of defiance by the populace of Myanmar and their subsequent bloody repression displayed before the televisions around the world, sparking outrage and sympathetic demonstrations. The streets of Pakistan were also filled with protests, first against a President who would let an advocate of justice—a Supreme Court Justice—to be thrown to the jails for pursuing his conscience, and then again for the same President’s attempt to perpetuate his rule through an act of â€Å"emergency rule†. The world is now again made witness to a wave of international protests, sparked by violent protests by Tibetan secessionists and their repression by the Chinese government. Everywhere in the world, these acts of assembly and disobedience are criticized or hailed as acts of free expression based on the then-current sentiment. Many times, these same democracies that hails the voice of liberty and sound judgment and rule, condemn protests and demands for redress as â€Å"anarchistic in character† and â€Å"break the order and thus inconvenience the public†. Generally, if without the backing of any government, a protest is localized, and belittled as an act of unnecessary activism. Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr. , though living in different periods of history, fought under similar demeaning circumstances, and faced similar opposition from their government. They asserted that the act of civil disobedience was a God-given right granted to people to correct the fatal defects of government. Their separate acts of defiance were considered â€Å"illegitimately born†, â€Å"with malicious intent†, and â€Å"unwise and untimely†; these same categories echo now in the criticisms of our movements. For their sakes, then: what constitutes a valid exercise of the People’s will? Studying Thoreau and King’s works, that is, on the Duty of Civil Disobedience and Letter to a Birmingham Jail, respectively, we can identify two primary characters of a legitimated act of defiance: a legitimated cause and legitimated means. Legitimated Cause Why did we choose the term â€Å"legitimated† rather than â€Å"legitimate† or â€Å"lawful†, in characterizing a valid act of the people? This is due to the fact that the act of defiance, seeks as its purpose the overthrow of the unjust system of government. In Martin Luther King’s time, this was the segregation between â€Å"whites† and â€Å"blacks†, which though inherently unjust, was nevertheless valid under passage of law. If one were to require a â€Å"lawful† cause, it would bar any protest against any injustice that is protected under the mantle of law. The cause is â€Å"legitimated† not because of its opposition to any system, but because the system lost its mantle of legitimacy by its promotion of injustice. Thoreau wrote that if a system causes some injustice to be inflicted though it is merely incidental in its application, one would be unjust to apply a level of severity to attack it, for eventually the system will soon be smoothened out and these flaws corrected. If, however, the system compels one to cause injustice to another, then the system may be validly attacked. This is to say that in all governments, flaws are to be expected—in fact, the imperfection of the system of government lies within the need, at all, of a system of government. In view of this, Thoreau stressed not the need for a no-government, as he believes the people to be unprepared for this event, but at once a better government, which does not promote injustice and does not speak for the stronger few. The legitimated cause of a civil disobedience is dependent on the measure of injustice inflicted by the present system of government the act is made to oppose. King further elucidated this by expounding on St. Thomas Aquinas’ expression that an â€Å"unjust law is no law†. There are two ways by which a law is made unjust: if it is made contrary to natural and divine law, or, if in consonance to it, it is implemented as to make it unjust. A government, then, that enacts a law ordering the execution of every second son of every family violates the natural law against murder, promotes its agent to violate the same, and is consequently unjust. Likewise, if a government would inflict a severe punishment for the infidelity of a wife yet will only inflict a punitive penalty for the same committed by the husband, by virtue of its disproportionate application of justice the government would likewise be unjust. This injustice, then, must be inherent within the system, and so prevalent as to inflict the severity of oppression. If, however, the system is merely suffering â€Å"momentary lapses† of injustice that are incidental to its improper application, the system could be corrected without the use for excessive violence, and hence, disobedience. For example, a government erroneously enacts laws as to regulate traffic when in effect such traffic is worsened; this is no cause for civil disobedience. If however, the same law was enacted to provide for a path reserved for â€Å"white† people, as opposed to those of other races, then the system is inherently unjust. Legitimated Means The qualifying word â€Å"legitimated† is also as important here as it was in qualifying the proper cause. For any act of civil disobedience to a system is, by nature, unlawful; as paramount to a government’s duty is to make sure that its people will follow laws, however unjust it may seem to be. Dura lex, sed lex. The law, however harsh in its implementation, remains the law. Besides, which, it is in the government’s best interest that these laws are followed, as these inherently perpetuate their power. King opined that oppressors, in light of historical precedent, would not voluntarily give up their power. Nevertheless, the act of disobedience is legitimated in light of the injustice inflicted. As Thoreau explained, when something is stolen from a man, or injustice inflicted on him, he will not content himself with exhausting all lawful procedures provided for him by law; he will only be satisfied upon the return of the stolen item, and consequently his vindication. The two civil advocates differ only in the interpretation of the purpose of legitimated means: Henry David Thoreau, believing fully that the State is unjust from its inception, considers his act (in this case, the non-payment of a poll tax) as one of exclusion; he will not be part of a system that promotes injustice, in this context the propagation of slavery and the aggression inflicted on the Mexican War. King, however, considers this act of civil disobedience as an act of inclusion, and recognizes its unlawful nature and is willing to suffer its consequences. In this act, however, he hopes to unmask the oppressiveness of the system and its persecution of the advocates of equality and free expression. This distinction is further substantiated in King’s denunciation of two other camps: one that would do nothing in the face of oppression, and another that would set itself against the State and employ violent action. A proper legitimated means is one that will exhaust methods of petition provided by the State, and, having been refused, act in defiance of the system in order to promote tension and force the State to negotiate. This formula of defiance has been employed by the likes of Nelson Mandela, Mohandas Gandhi and Aung San Suu Kyi. Conclusion: Not a Choice, but an Obligation. A final word remains of civil disobedience: Thoreau warns that those who do not stand in opposition to a system that promotes injustice will necessarily aid it, and participate in it. This is the concept of collective guilt—the nation is naturally responsible for excesses inflicted upon it by the government, in their silent acquiescence to its measures. Those criticizing the untimeliness and impropriety of civil disobedience can well be reminded King’s remarks that a revolution, and an act of civil rights will never be timely, and will never be proper in the eyes of the oppressive government. Those who passively let their rights be trampled upon are equally guilty of the oppression inflicted on them. This is a harsh truth, but it remains the truth: the State will not provide for an individual who â€Å"sleeps on his rights†. So long as the people are deficient in fighting for their cause, the State will, by virtue of the previous maxim, take what it can in the name of the few and escape with impunity.

Americas New War :: Politics Government Essays

America's New War America is currently at war against some intangible entity called Terrorism. I know that seems like and unnecessary statement of the obvious, but sometimes I feel the need to be reminded of the fact that we are really fighting a war. It is almost laughable how easy it is to avoid thinking about â€Å"America’s New War†. How can a nation go to war without the involvement of its population? The American public is not being asked to unite in support of our troops overseas; there has been no request for sacrifice or conservation of resources. Instead, we are being urged to consume, travel, and go on with our routine lives. According to an article titled, â€Å"Our World War†, by Jonathan Rowe, â€Å"the advertising industry has wracked its clever brains to conjure from the ashes of the World Trade Center an upbeat buying mood† (Adbusters Jan/Feb 2002 no. 39). The world has changed and we are asked to return to life as usual. I find this concern with consumer confidence somehow incongruent with the events that are taking place in Afghanistan right now. The economy is, without a doubt, a defining characteristic of the American way of life, and a weakened economy would jeopardize its stability and security. "’Sept. 11 dealt a very serious blow to the economy, demonstrating the cost of inaction,’ says White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan. New security measures are needed ‘for the sake of the economy and the safety of the American people’" (Ramstack). Our economic stability should be monitored and increased security measures should be taken after an attack like the one on September 11th. However, I feel a lack of concern for the lives that are at stake in the Middle East. I have to question whether our economic status is more important than the thousands of soldiers that are engaged in the war abroad. So much emphasis has been placed on the continuation of the â⠂¬Å"American Dream†, that after the drama of the attack wore off, the American unity and mobilization have been directed towards malls and car dealerships. Maybe someone can explain to me how my next purchase will benefit those sacrificing lives on the front lines.

Comparing Three Poems ‘Half-Caste’ Essay

Each of these three poems talk about certain problems faced by specific groups of people in today’s society. The poems have been written specifically to illustrate to people who have been brought up with derogative ideas about different types of people, that there are people who are different, but are neither superior nor inferior to themselves.  The main themes that run common in all 3 poems are the ideas of individualism, respect, culture and equality. The poem ‘Half-Caste’ by John Agard talks about the stereo typed judgement about half-caste people in society today. John Agard’s main argument in the poem is that being a half-caste person does not make you half a human being. He talks about how people make ‘assumptions’ about half-caste people.  Ã¢â‚¬Å"†¦and when I’m introduced to yu I’m sure you’ll understand why I offer yu half-a-hand†¦Ã¢â‚¬  This quote suggests that non half-caste peoples attitudes towards half-caste people is that they are not human, and do not do everyday things the way they would do themselves. Agard exaggerates his ideas in order to make his argument a lot clearer.  Ã¢â‚¬Å"..an when moon begin to glow I half-caste human being cast half-a-shadow†¦Ã¢â‚¬  It is obvious that half-caste people do not caste shadows different to anyone else, but the emphasis on the ridiculousness of the mere idea of a different type of shadow makes the idea of half-caste people being ‘different’ just as ridiculous.  He explains quite cleverly how degrading the term half-caste can be by comparing half-caste people like himself to very worldly ideas that you would not title ‘half-caste’. â€Å"Yu mean when light an shadow mix in de sky is a half-caste weather†¦Ã¢â‚¬  His examples are all of things that people would associate with beauty, such as nature, art and music. His point being that if people call humans of two colours half-caste, then everything else with mixed colours must be aswel. People wouldn’t think twice about labeling a human half-caste, but when talking about nature or music and it would again be completely ridiculous to call Tchaikovsky’s composition a ‘half-caste symphony’. The poem itself also relays the message of individualism. It is written in phonetics to demonstrate his own personality with the language being English, but with his own Guyanan dialect. The readers are then forced to read the poem in a certain way, which enforces the message behind the poem.  Tom Leonard also uses this effective technique in his poem from ‘Unrelated Incidents’. This poem talks about status and social acceptance. Leonard talks about how people are reluctant to sit secure in the knowledge of a person with an accent, compared to someone who speaks with what is thought of ‘proper’, standard English in an English accent. He puts across the idea of how naà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ve and narrow-minded people can be. â€Å"†¦if a tokaboot thi trooth lik wanna yoo scruff yi widny thingk it wuz troo†¦Ã¢â‚¬ Ã‚  He suggests that people would believe anything from the mouth of a ‘proper’ speaking person, no matter how insane it may be and totally dismiss what a person with an accent like his, is saying. Even if it was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so to speak. The way in which he has put this idea across is by using what is very commonly known to be quite English a typical example of where this sort of discrimination occurs. The news, where you will mainly hear the news read from a person who speaks with the ‘right’ accent. â€Å"This is thi six a clock news thi man said n thi reason a tok wia BBC accent iz coz yi widny wahnt mi ti talk aboot thi trooth wia voice lik wanna yoo scruff†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The poem is a parody of a typical British news broadcast, it is ironic the way in which Leonard has used his own dialect and spoken in the style of the commonly known news. It is obvious that Leonard is frustrated and angry at the fact that him and others alike would be looked down upon because of the way they talk. Similarly with John Agard we can see the resentment towards those people who treat half-caste people differently and Tom Leonard with the way society looks upon people with accents that differ from their own. However, Sujata Bhatt’s â€Å"Search For My Tongue† discusses society and culture from a different perspective. The problem she finds herself faced with is trying to make a correct balance with her own culture and heritage and the culture in which she lives in. She explains her fear of losing her ‘mother tongue’ and never being able to be totally accepted by the ‘foreign tongue’. Her concern with the mother tongue being lost is very explicit in the poem: â€Å"And if you lived in a place where toy had to speak a foreign tongue, you mother tongue would rot, rot and die in your mouth until you had to spit it out†¦Ã¢â‚¬  She explains how hard it is to keep your mother tongue healthy in a place where there is no use for it, and eventually it would become useless and you would eventually forget it about it. She talks not just about language but her whole culture and how she was brought up, what she was brought up to believe and live by and how society and different cultures sometimes make you forget. However she gets across to the reader that somehow, sub-consciously while she dreams, she dreams in her own language and reminds herself of her language and that she is still who she has always been and always will be.  Ã¢â‚¬Å"modhama pakay chay†¦ it blossoms out of my mouth.† The tongue is described to blossom out her mouth jus as she thinks she has forgotten it. This imagery of blossoming is beautiful and emphasises how important it is to be who you are because it is beautiful from whatever background and culture you belong to.

Bullying: America’s Worst School Issue Essay

Did you know that a massive amount of students in America are being bullied? What is bullying? According to Webster’s New World Pocket Dictionary, bullying â€Å"is the act of threatening weaker people.† There are many different types of bullying that we will be discussing too. This subject has a huge impact on students that are against bullying. Bullying is the most important issue in schools, because it can cause insecurity, suicidal thoughts and public embarrassment. Bullying can cause insecurity. To be insecure means not to be confident or think less of his or her self. This can cause an individual not to trust anyone, and feel as if they do not have any friends. The child has no choice, but to put up with it because they do not confide in anyone. Insecurity can affect his or her performance in school. According to huffingtonpost.com â€Å"The study shows that students who reported being bullied in the 10th grade saw a slight decrease in GPA by 12th grade — but the change is sharper for black and Latino students who tend to earn high grades. While the overall decrease in GPA for bullied students over the studied period was 0.049 points (on a GPA scale with 0 being the lowest and 4 being the highest), black students saw a 0.3-point decrease in 12th grade GPA from a 3.5 GPA in 9th grade — before they were bullied.† Without a doubt, insecurity can lead to depression; which is like the torrent of tears. Bullying can cause suicidal thoughts. What are suicidal thoughts? They are thoughts about killing oneself. The person being bullied thinks it is the only way out; by murdering themselves. For example; according to japantoday.com, on December 10, 2012 in Japan, a 13-year-old girl was hit by a train in Zama, Kanagawa Prefecture. She committed suicide as a result of bullying. Insecurity can also lead to the act of suicide. Again another suicidal thought can be caused by the child not being heard by anyone to speak to about the bullying. As a result many students do this because of stress, pressure, and a result of helplessness. They are crying out for help and don’t know how else to get it. Bullying can cause a great amount of public embarrassment. Being embarrassed publicly is the worst way to ever be embarrassed. People you know or do not know will see, and laugh at you. Bullying includes public embarrassment, because the bully may bring a crowd or have a entourage with them. Since technology has rapidly advanced, the bullying may be videotaped and put on YouTube or Facebook. Many instances of Cyber Bullying come from these websites. According to huffingtonpost.com â€Å"15-year-old Amanda Todd committed suicide October 25, 2012, many blamed cyber bullying as the cause.† Todd had posted a video to YouTube documenting instances of cyber bullying that included texts and Facebook posts; Todd also indicated she was bullied physically. Public embarrassment by a bully may leave you with injuries that will heal, but the memories last forever. Therefore, we need to stop this! Bullying is wrong and it affects a child’s future enormously. Although there are other problems students face in schools, like stealing or plagiarism, bullying can have the most severe and long-lasting effects for adolescents during the critical years. We as students should not let anyone else feel inferior. The bullies should be sent to psychologists to discuss why they chose to display their anger in such a format. According to bullyingstatistics.org 1 in 4 students are being bullied in the United States on a regular basis. We need to end this America! If you see someone being bullied, report to higher authority. As reported by bullyingstatistics.org 35% of teens have been bullied online; let’s end it! As stated on bullyingstatistics.com 77% are verbally abused; let’s that! Bullying is very serious, and we need stop it to create a better future for the children.

Chechen Rebels essays

Chechen Rebels essays In the course of Russian history, there has been one territory that has caused a lot of controversy. The area is Chechnya, which is located in southwestern Russia near Dagestan and Georgia. Most of Chechnyas population is Muslim and doesnt like the rule of the Christian Russians because of the practice of Islam in that area. Russia first took over Chechnya in the 19th century and immediately found resistance there. The resistance has lasted over time and reached a high point in the 1990s, and violence is still going on now. Recently there has been a paramilitary group in Chechnya that are extremists and want independence for Chechnya. This group is much like a terrorist organization. Although people are pressing for peace, it looks like the fighting will continue. The first invasion of Chechnya was in the 1830s by Czar Nicholas I (Johnson, 2000: Infoplease.com Timeline of Key Events in Chechnya). He met fierce resistance and many bloody battles where fought. However the Russians were victorious. In 1859 Russia had conquered their land and incorporated the Caucuses into their territory(Johnson, 2000: Infoplease.com Timeline of Key Events in Chechnya). Russia took Chechnya in a time of Russian Imperialism, and they took Chechnya by force and pressed a government and religion on the people that they did not agree with(Johnson, 2000: Infoplease.com Timeline of Key Events in Chechnya). The difference in ethnicity and religion will be the fuel for all of the blood that is to be split up to current day. There was peace for a short time until the early 1900s. In 1917 during the Russian Revolution Dagestan and Chechnya declared their independence from Russia (Johnson, 2000: Infoplease.com Timeline of Key Events in Chechnya). Bolshevik troops were sent in to occupy the area. The occupation period lasted for 6 years. In 1923 the Bolsheviks reclaimed Da...

Myths Declaration of Independence

Myths Declaration of Independence Free Online Research Papers Before we can examine if there are myths surrounding the Declaration of Independence we need to examine under what circumstances Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration (After the Fact pg. 75). By the spring of 1776, the patience of many congressmen had been sorely tried by bitter wrangling over the question of whether or not to declare independence. Many of the legislators thought it nonsensical to fight a war for any purpose other than independence, yet others disagreed. They held out hope for a resolution with England. For month after bloody month Congress had sat on its hands unable to offer a resolution, this angered many including John and Sam Adams of Massachusetts (After the Fact pg. 77). They felt that America was fighting a war it could not win unless it declared independence from Britain. Opposition to Parliament had been growing since it enacted the first American tax, the Stamp Act of 1765. At the First Continental Congress, which met in Philadelphia in September 1774, some delegates wanted to force repeal of Parliament’s repressive measures through a trade embargo. A more conservative faction had pushed for a compromise to provide American representation in Parliament. In the end, Congress adopted the trade boycott, and war had come (US a Narrative History pg. 114-115). The greatest reluctance to engage in Independence came from the middle colonies (After the Fact pg. 76). New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware and in South Carolina, all had long since been drawn into the economic web of the Atlantic world. Before the war, the products of the backcountry- furs, hides and lumber- as well as grain, had moved through New York and Philadelphia to markets in the Caribbean and England. Charleston exported indigo and rice. In return, English-manufactured goods entered the colonies through these ports. Business had flourished during most of the 18th century; in recent years Philadelphia’s merchants had routinely enjoyed annual profits of more than 10 percent (American History pg. 218-219). The great merchants in Philadelphia and New York, who constituted a powerful political force, had other compelling reasons for remaining within the empire. Many relied upon credit supplied by English bankers. The protection afforded to transatlantic trade by the Royal Navy minimized insurance and other overhead costs. Independence, Philadelphia merchant Thomas Clifford asserted in 1775, would â€Å"assuredly prove unprofitable.† The â€Å"advantages of security and stability,† said another, â€Å"lie with . . . remaining in the empire.† But Adams was confident that those who favored reconciliation would be driven inexorably toward independence. In time, he believed, they would discover that London would never give in to America’s demands. Furthermore, he expected that war would transform the colonists’ deep-seated love for Britain into enmity, necessitating a final break (American History pg. 220). On June 11, Congress created a five-member committee to prepare a statement on independence. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman of Connecticut and Robert Livingston of New York were given until July 1 to complete their work (After the Fact pg. 77). Once again it was to Jefferson that a panel turned, this time for the fateful task of drafting the declaration (After the Fact pg. 79). Jefferson and his colleagues beat the deadline by two days, submitting on June 28 a document that explained and defended independence. By July 1, the final consideration of Lee’s motion to declare independence was taken up. That day’s session, John Adams told a friend in a letter written early that morning would see â€Å"the greatest Debate of all† (American History pg.222). When debate began midmorning on that Monday, Dickinson was first on his feet to make one last speech against independence. Speaking for two hours in the stifling heat of the closed room (windows were kept shut to keep spies from listening in), Dickinson reviewed the familiar arguments: America could not win the war; at best, it could fight Britain to a stalemate, and deadlocked wars often ended in partition treaties in which territory is divided among the belligerents; therefore, after all the killing, some colonies would remain part of the British Empire, while others would pass under the control of France or Spain (American History pg.223). It was John Adams- soon to be christened â€Å"the Atlas of Independence† by New Jersey’s Richard Stockton- who rose to answer Dickinson. Striving to conceal his contempt for his adversary, Adams spoke extemporaneously in subdued tones. Once again, he reviewed the benefits of independence. Although his speech was not transcribed, he surely invoked the ideas he had expressed and the phrases he had used on many another occasion. Breaking ties with Britain, he argued, would ensure freedom from England’s imperial domination; escape from the menace of British corruption; and the opportunity to create a republic based on equality of representation (American History pg.223). Others then took the floor. The speeches stretched past the customary 4 o’clock adjournment and into the evening. The business was â€Å"an idle Mispence of Time,† Adams remarked sourly, as â€Å"nothing was said, but what had been repeated and hackneyed in that Room a hundred Times for Six Months past† (American History pg.223). After the Congress reconvened the next morning, July 2, the delegates cast their momentous votes. Twelve states- the colonies would become states with the vote- voted for independence. Not one voted against the break with Britain. New York’s delegation, which had not yet been authorized by the New York legislature to separate from the mother country, did not vote. Adams predicted that July 2 would ever after â€Å"be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other forward forever more†(After the Fact pg. 78). He was wrong, of course, for July 4, the date that Congress approved the formal Declaration of Independence, would become the commemorative day. Although we celebrate July 4 as the official Independence Day it was not until at least August that all of the members signed the document. So why is it that most Americans think that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence? If it was a committee of five, what did the others contribute? Surely they had to contribute something. I think that it is easier to accept the fact that it was written by Jefferson and that everyone agreed with him. We have to remember that people have not changed all that much. We know what happens today when a group of opinionated people get together. How long have we been debating health care? So if it was a group effort or if Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence by himself, it was a remarkable achievement in such a short amount of time. Research Papers on Myths Declaration of IndependenceQuebec and CanadaAssess the importance of Nationalism 1815-1850 EuropeDefinition of Export QuotasAppeasement Policy Towards the Outbreak of World War 2Twilight of the UAW19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraBringing Democracy to AfricaThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationPETSTEL analysis of IndiaWhere Wild and West Meet