Cowboys and Cattlemen Essay

Cowboys and Cattlemen Essay.

The United States as a nation is ever changing. The U. S. population is growing every year, and the different types of ethnicities continue to flood into the country searching for the “American Dream. ” However, how many people actually see this dream become a reality? The answer to that is incredibly disheartening and was even harder to obtain in the earlier years of America’s history. Unless you were a white male in the late 1800s to 1900s, the American Dream was exactly that: a dream.

This failed ideal can be explored through the inequality expressed in that of race, gender, and class throughout American history, specifically during the time of cowboys and cattlemen. Additionally, such injustices can be portrayed in today’s fast food industry with the struggles of the employer to employee. Comparing and contrasting cowboys with cattlemen and managers with employees will demonstrate how such issues come into affect. In order to express the inequality faced within the workforce between cowboys and cattlemen, the background of their field of work, who did the work, and their differences need to be taken into account.

When the Conquistadors came to the Americas in the 16th century they brought their cattle and cattle-raising techniques with them. Huge land grants by the Spanish government that was part of the hacienda system, allowed large numbers of animals to roam freely over vast areas (Wikipedia)[1]. Numerous traditions developed that often related to the original location in Spain. For example, the Vaquero tradition of Northern Mexico was more organic, developed to adapt to the characteristics of the region from Spanish sources by cultural interaction between the Spanish elites and the native and mestizo peoples (Wikipedia).

As settlers from the United States moved west, they brought cattle breeds from the east coast and Europe and adapted their management to the drier lands of the west by borrowing key elements of the Spanish vaquero culture (Wikipedia). From 1865-1900, raising cattle was the most prominent job position in the western United States. The Homestead Act of 1862 attracted more settlers to come west and set up farms. This is because the Homestead Act gave someone the ability to own farmland for no cost at all; however, the only requirement needed was proof that the land had improved during the time of ownership.

Therefore, it was very easy to obtain land, but improving it was the biggest challenge. Ranching is a difficult task of raising grazing livestock such as cattle for meat. The owners of these lands known as cattlemen had to invest time in farming and raising crops such as hay and grains for feeding their animals to produce a profit. The cattle would go from the ranch to the trail, to the slaughterhouse, and eventually be distributed throughout America. But who are the people behind the scenes that raise and break the cattle or horses, and who does all the work on the ranch?

Cowboys. Cowboys were the workers on the ranch who helped maintain it. Cowboys strived toward becoming ‘men’ and they viewed the title of being a ‘man’ based upon the masculinity shown. Cowboys demonstrated their masculinity in terms of their skills on the job, their control over their working conditions, and their ability to make independent decisions. Even in their time of leisure, they still would do things to prove their masculinity such as gamble, drink, fight, and indulge in sexual pleasures with prostitutes.

In the book, Cowboys and Cattlemen by Jacqueline Moore, she explains how Anglo cowboys recognized skill regardless of color, which provided exceptional men other than whites a chance to gain respect (Moore)[2]. However, a majority of the hard work was left to the Mexican or black cowboys. That’s why many black cowboys were so skilled in the more difficult areas of work such as breaking bulls because they were forced to do it the majority of the time. Today, many industries like the fast food industry employ people considered as the lower class.

It is not common to walk into a McDonalds and see Donald Trump working the cash register. Cowboys are seen as these lower class people and it so happens people of color both in this time and today are still struggling to climb out of the lower class and into higher economic standing. Moore goes on to argue that cattlemen trusted the loyalty of their black cowboys and would often have them carry out sensitive missions, such as guarding large sums of money while on the trail (Moore). However, cowboys of color, despite their ability to gain respect with their amazing skill level, were still not able to become cattlemen themselves.

Many cowboys for that matter didn’t have much room to improve, which is why the relationships the cowboys had with one another were so strong. Many of the cowboys weren’t ashamed to show affection towards each other because these relationships were the most important in their lives. The death of a friend was always the worst tragedy. Furthermore, many of these friendships seemed to be more than superficial. People questioned them because the cowboys bunked together which created chances for sexual relationships.

To continue with their intimate relationship woes, these men had a tough time attracting the more respectable women, who usually fell for cattlemen because they were more financially stable (Moore). This lead to the cowboys’ encounters with prostitutes. Not many cowboys, for that matter, were married, and if they did get married it usually meant their career was over. To make matters worse, towns began to find ways to drive away cowboys by prohibiting guns and fining, arresting, and punishing them on the job which forced them to comply with the regulation of their public leisure.

Discredited at work and in leisure, cowboys seemed more and more marginalized, out of step with the rest of American society” (Moore). Though cowboys of color were respected for their skill and, to an extent, racially tolerant, racism was still prevalent within society and in their work. Racism was not only existent during the era of Martin Luther King Jr. and the historic Civil Rights Movement, which was steered toward breaking color barriers in the “Solid South,” but it was seen as early as the times of “the trail” and cattle ranching. It affected the lives of the workers.

People of color and women both were victims of discrimination. Women especially had no say in the way of life of the ranch because their opinion was not taken into account. The job of a women consisted of only three things. One: raise the children, two: do all the housework such as cooking cleaning and laundry amongst other daily household chores, and three: handle financial situations such as doing the bills and buying groceries. There were cowgirls; however, their stories aren’t heard because there were very few and women’s cattle raising positions at the time were irrelevant.

Prostitutes were even more greatly degraded because of their less than condonable lifestyle. On the ranch, cowboys of color had no chance of becoming cattlemen. White Anglo cowboys had a slim chance but colored cowboys had even fewer. This is because these nonwhite races were seen as not sufficiently “evolved” to achieve true manhood. Segregation between white cowboys and nonwhite cowboys was also consistent on many ranches during this period. For example, Anglo cowboys ate with the owner while Mexicans would camp out with the herds.

Such segregation and discrimination didn’t allow women or nonwhites to move up in the social class. Cowboys in general, if born into a cowboy family, were destined to be that and that only. Freedom for cowboys is a myth. Ultimately, cowboys were simply employees and lost what independence they had in their field of work. Cattlemen on the other hand had easy living. Cattlemen usually obtained their position because their fathers before them were. In a way, it’s like they were taking on the family business. Inheritance was a huge starting point for many of the men.

However, to fully become a cattleman, emphasis on being “men” to prove themselves was stressed. This was done with a proper education, the contribution they made towards society, and getting married. Marriages usually lead to gifts or property, which was also another marker of manhood. The jobs cattlemen did were similar to that of businessmen- they did whatever they could to make a profit. Most of the successful cattlemen experimented with different types of breeding techniques and invested heavily in land. They even had other business interests outside of the cattle industry (Moore)[3].

Cattlemen looked to socialize with people in the towns around them rather than just the men on the ranch. As towns grew, so did the development of associations and entertainments that the men had known before coming to town, and socializing with men of equal status was more common (Moore). Nonwhite ranchers were nonexistent and those who were in lower classes would never be seen socializing with cattlemen unless it was on the ranch. Furthermore, the way ranchers carried themselves in public, and the economic stability they possessed allowed them to attract the more respectable women who were better suited to be housewives.

Similarly, in order to understand the workforce of the fast food industry, background information about the industry needs to be taken into account. The fast food industry goes hand in hand with the cattle industry. In Central America, nearly 40% of the land was cultivated to become pasture for cattle that would supply cheap beef to North America’s fast food industry (Myers)[4]. Furthermore, the cattle raised in Central America are raised on grass, making the beef lean and only suitable for the fast food trade (Myers).

Fast food has become in high demand because of its low prices and its convenience of location. It’s hard to miss these restaurants because driving around in a city you are guaranteed to see some of these consumer-crazed fast food chains on just about every corner. They can even be found in local retail stores, airports, and gas stations. Fast food is quicker than preparing home-cooked meals and according to the article, “Convenience, Accessibility, and the Demand for Fast Food,” fast food accounts for 35% of the total away-from-home food expenditures (Binkley, et al)[5].

Moreover, according to the same article, fast food chains have an increase in consumption when located in areas inhabited by African-Americans and Hispanics (Binkley, et al). Targeting low-income races with cheaply priced food allows this industry to continue to grow because those of low-income won’t be consistently eating at a sit down restaurant ordering a meal for twenty dollars when they can order one at McDonalds for as low as four dollars. Price, accessibility, and convenience are major factors to the success of this industry.

Similarly to the point previously made about the low socioeconomic standing of cowboys, a majority of the employees of the fast food industry are working class people. The working class is becoming only certain ethnic groups- Hispanics, African Americans, and both legal and illegal immigrants. Once immigrants enter the U. S. they are placed in the lower class regardless if they have been in the middle class in their country of origin. These people of color are hard-working employees and have families.

However, they still earn only minimum wage after years of experience. Typically, these ast-food jobs are oriented to be temporary positions for teenagers who are looking to make some extra cash before going to college. But it has become a social norm that it’s the job position of those who are living off a paycheck-to-paycheck basis, struggling to make ends meet. Jennifer Talwar’s book, Fast Food Fast Track: Immigrants, Big Business, and the American Dream, states, “the fast food restaurant offered me a way to understand how different ethnic groups relate to each other in their attempt to survive but also improve their circumstances at the bottom of the American urban economy” (Talwar). 6] Like the cowboys, workers in fast food become separated from the owners and higher-class society so they turn to the relationships of one another.

However, unlike the cowboys who were unable to become cattlemen, employees of color in the fast food industry can become even owners of a McDonald’s or Burger King for example. According to Talwar, Phil Hagans an African American man started out as a burger flipper and later became an owner of four McDonald’s restaurants in Houston, as he was able to climb the hierarchies (Talwar). [7]

Just because there is marginal room for improvement of a worker’s position in this area of work doesn’t mean there is an absence of inequality. The fast food industry is a business built on the ideal of low prices resulting it in having to keep labor and other operating costs to a minimum. According to the book, Labour Relations in the Global Fast-Food Industry, Royle and Towers explain that low wages, minimal benefits, tight staffing, and efforts to intensify labor are predictable due to competition environment (Royle and Towers). 8]

This allows employers to have control and does not allow workers to have a say in changing working conditions. Such factors are not subject to change and the issue of unionizing poses no threat to the fast food business. This is because “major fast-food companies…are employed by franchisees, many of whom own only a few restaurants or just one,” like Phil Hagans (Royle and Towers). This fragments the workers not only physically but also to the extent that they are under different management. Unionization is also unable to arise due to the role technology plays in standardizing the work of fast-food crews.

These new machines basically tell the employee when to proceed on to the next step of the routine of preparing a burger or fries, resulting in a minimization for the need of skilled workers. Furthermore, having an education is not needed to work for fast food places such as McDonalds because these jobs don’t require higher-level skills. However, “while fast-food work is generally treated unskilled, it is not easy to perform well” and it “can be hard and exhausting work, especially during busy periods” (Royle and Towers). 9] Mangers have complete control over their workers, starting with the scheduling of the workers’ hours. It is also a way to keep employment costs down and can be used as a disciplinary system. For example, managers can call in employees on their days off and have them work late hours. Cattlemen of the ranch had different tactics for maintaining control but the outcome was the same. Unionization is further challenged in the fast food industry because many unskilled workers are young teens that only see this type of work as a temporary position.

According to Royle and Towers, only one third of those employed by the industry actually try to turn it into a career (Royle and Towers). Cowboys needed to have specific skill sets such as riding horses, being able to round herds up the trail, and manage the farmland. Teens and those who work the oven and fryers don’t need to have a specific skill set because each skill is specialized. It can be juxtaposed to an assembly line where a worker will perform one task all day that requires low input of labor.

Therefore, the value of work from cowboys compared to employees of the fast food industry is diminishing. As seen with managers and employees of the cattle industry of the past and fast food industry of today, the hierarchies of the workforce are evident and haven’t been drastically modified. On the ranch, a cowboy (especially one of color) couldn’t become a cattlemen. In the fast-food industry a burger flipper can become an owner of his own franchise but, unless its handed down like a ranch from cattlemen to cattlemen, its an outrageous number of years to climb in rank.

The hierarchy in a typical fast-food restaurant is as follows, from lowest job to highest: crewmember, crew trainer, manager trainee, second and first assistant manager, associate and general manger, store supervisor, and finally owner. By the time a worker reaches the top they’ll have white hair and be ready for retirement. Climbing the different levels isn’t promising. That’s how owners of big industries want it. The higher class will continue to improve and gain wealth while the lower class will struggle to fight for a higher economic standing for the majority of their lives.

Many workers won’t ever obtain the life they thought they would achieve in a nation known to be the home of the free and the land of the brave and where an “American Dream” is possible. The United States needs to adapt to make lives easier for its people by giving health care, increasing minimum wage, and actually listening to the voices of the people who inhibit this great country. If the United States’ industries continue to suck the life out of their workers and have total control over every aspect of these laborers, then the ideology of being “equal” will be never be in existence.

Cowboys and Cattlemen Essay

The Key Features of Representative Democracy Essay

The Key Features of Representative Democracy Essay.

Describe and critically evaluate the key features of Representative Democracy created by the U. S Constitution with primary but not exclusive reference to E. Wood, ch. 7 “the demos versus ‘we the people’: from ancient to modern conceptions of citizenship” pg 204-237 especially 213-237 Representative democracy is a term inseparable from the U. S Constitution. Not only did the attendees of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 invent a very different form of government to anything that had gone before it, it went on to become probably the most influential of all governments and indeed forms of governance since its inception.

It was the beginning of the domination of representative democracy in international politics. There were two key features of representative democracy born out the constitution, firstly the rise of capitalism, by confining democracy to a purely political sphere. They introduced a clear and concerted separation of the economic sphere from the political one. Secondly, the advent of liberalism, which saw a focus on limited powers of government, securing ‘individual rights’ and ‘civil liberties’, essentially the freedom of the individual and their right to private property.

These two features are clearly closely linked and cannot exist or could not have come into existence without the other. Both are linked with the distancing of civic society from politics while still being a democracy- a representative democracy where participation in politics is indirect and removed from civic life or the economic sphere. Their relationship will examined further in this essay along with how they have come to define representative democracy. In doing so we will unravel what E. Wood is insinuating in his chapter heading ‘The demos versus “we the people”: from ancient to modern conceptions of citizenship’.

In order to best explore the key features of representative democracy created by the U. S constitution one must be given some perspective by comparing it’s birth to the birth of the democratic ideal in Athens. Democracy as a political concept and method of structuring a community first came about in Greece in around 508 BC and lasted till 322BC. The democracy Athenians knew would be known today as a ‘participatory democracy’, although it’s franchise was quite narrow, those with it had direct contact and effect on political affairs.

It was a form of rule for the people by the people, this is inherently obvious in the origins of its name itself. Democracy comes from the Greek word ‘Demokratia’ which means popular government. The word ‘Demokratia’ is born out of two Greek words ‘Demos’ roughly translating to “common people” and ‘Kratos’ meaning “rule and strength”. Moreover it has been contended by Pericles that democracy can only be democracy if the poor are included in the political community. It was a form of government borne out of a revolution in which a peasant majority sought to liberate themselves from the political domination of their superiors.

This must be used to contrast with what the men of the Philadelphia Convention set out to achieve, which could be more accurately described as a powerful, propertied minority looking to secure their property and ‘liberty’ against the threat of the masses. If the Athenian’s were freeing themselves from the powers of the wealthy by instigating a ‘Demokratia’ it could be said that in the same sense the American elite were attempting to free themselves from the powers of a poor, largely property less majority by inventing representative democracy.

Having just secured their property and prospects from the British crown in a bloody and expensive war, the propertied elite on the west coast of America were now having their wealth threatened by an increasingly politically active and aggressive majority. The experience of the American Revolution had politically activised the American people. The poor’s sentiment at the time was best personified by ‘Shay’s Rebellion’ of this General Henry Knox wrote to George Washington saying “The people who are the insurgents… ee the weakness of government; they feel at once their poverty, compared with the opulent, and their own force, and they are determined to make use of the latter, in order to remedy the former” (Quoted by Zinn, 1999: 95). It was the acknowledgment of the masses desire for equality, along with a huge national debt and need to successfully manage inflation which prompted the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 and from this the key features of representative democracy were borne out of the U. S Constitution.

The writer’s of the Constitution had had their hands forced. They sought to secure their wealth from any form of governance as well as quell a potential uprising of the masses if they didn’t introduce some kind of democratic rule. They were forced to introduce a democratic government but they set out to limit the powers of government and protect their individual interests and property rights from any form of governance. Logically, though, in a democracy the masses would subsequently look to balance society’s inequalities in some ways.

It’s certain prominent federalist Madison was aware of this stating “the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society”. The worry for federalists was that this majority could come to power and overturn or alter in some way their rights of property. Therefore the protection of these rights in Madison’s words were “the first object of Government”.

This is where the constitutionalist nature of their government combined with the distinct and limiting separation of powers served to protect these libertarian rights. That being the structure and interaction of the U. S’s legislature, executive and judiciary means that it is very difficult to make a big or controversial change to the Constitution and therefore the nation’s laws. So the Federalists secured their rights to property in federal law. Here was the birth of liberalism in order to secure the rise of capitalism, enabled by their invented form of ‘democracy’- representative democracy.

B. Roper states the drafters of the constitution were all agreed upon the importance of entrenching and codifying the rights and liberties of property otherwise “their own wealth and privileges could be undermined, and the rapid expansion of capitalist agriculture, industry, commerce and banking would be impossible”. Here we have a key component of liberalism the ‘inalienable right’ to property being linked with the advancement of capitalism. E. Wood believes “Capitalism made possible the redefinition of democracy, it’s reduction to liberalism”.

So in a capitalist democracy it is the rights of the individual that become the focal point of citizenship, a society of individuals with private interests represented by a removed central government. In cementing capitalism as the desired economic model, The Constitution had justified doing so through a number of ideals that are now closely associated with liberalism. The dilution of power, separation of power and constitutionalism which characterise the semantics of American governance all served to protect the rights of the individual, outlined in and so central to the U. S Constitution, as well as make it difficult for the Constitution itself to be changed.

There was a clear effort within the constitution to keep the power of the state in check and prevent the state from intruding upon the ‘civil rights’ of the individual citizen. What was born out of the Philadelphia convention was a purely political form of democracy. There was a separation of the economic sphere, the nature of which makes it invulnerable to democratic power. Capitalism is at the core of America’s ideal that ‘all men are created equal’ and have the right to ‘life, liberty and equality’.

The clear cut difference between feudalism and capitalism is everybody owning their own labour capacity and property, and thus the existence of a free market. The right to own ones labour and property without interference from the state signalled the end of feudalism, obviously, but also caused a shift in power from those simply born into privilege (lordship) to those with wealth (property). In a society where, in political terms, everyone is equal with the same rights and privileges and the same capacity to vote or stand for election, the real source of power within a society became economic advantage.

In essence capitalism made civic equality partly redundant, there is a clear distinction between equality in the political sphere and equality in civic society. To quote E. Wood “political equality in capitalist democracy not only coexists with socio economic inequality but leaves it fundamentally intact”. The men of the Philadelphia convention were therefore successful on this front, they had given the masses there democracy and political equality while maintaining their own interests of protecting their vast private property and ability to trade and expand on it.

It is here that we come to the essence of what E. Wood means when he says “The demos Vs ‘We the people’”. Where democracy in Athens was defined by the direct political action of the people, in fact Aristotle defined it as a constitution in which “the free-born and poor control the government” as they are the majority. Whereas the American system of representative democracy equates to rule of the people by a sort of third party, a far off federal government, ‘representing’ their political interests.

The removal of the political sphere was intentional with federalists holding the belief that the poor masses were better served to be represented by the elite. Alexander Hamilton a leading federalist saw the idea of representation of all classes of people unrealistic. He contended they were to be best lead by representatives of the elite, the merchant being the best representative for mechanics and manufacturers, the large landholder was the best representative for the small landholder and highly educated professionals such as lawyers would gain the confidence of all eople. So we have two forms of democracy which are essentially the antithesis of each other. Rather than placing power in the hands of the people, representative democracy involves a transfer or sign over of power to a separated political sphere and it’s alienation of citizens from the political sphere.

Anti- federalists argued this meant that when the constitution states “We, the People” it symbolised something very undemocratic. Rather than it being an inclusive term that meant the citizens of the U. S they argued it vested sovereignty in the federal government on behalf of it’s citizens. So we have a democracy defined by it’s citizens exercising their political power- the demos and a democracy defined by it’s people passing their political power onto a third party, in order to be ‘represented’ in their democracy by ‘We the People’. The U. S Constitution effectively invented a new form of democracy which is in many ways the antithesis of what the Athenians, the inventors of democracy, practiced.

Representative democracy is personified by a separation of powers, limited government, the separation of the political sphere and the subsequent domination of the economic sphere. It is in many ways the product of capitalism and subsequently liberalism interacting under the banner of democracy. It has spread to many corners of the globe and is the most widely practiced form of democracy. In this respect has clearly been highly successful, however question marks linger over whether it is as truly equal and fair as the ‘Founding Fathers’ proclaimed.

You may also be interested in the following: define the key features of effective team performance

The Key Features of Representative Democracy Essay

Students Freedom of Speech in School Essay

Students Freedom of Speech in School Essay.

The First Amendment states that all citizens of the U. S have freedom of religion, petition, assembly, press, and speech. The First Amendment was written and adopted for over two hundred years of American History. Throughout this period people have questioned the extent of freedom that they were given through the First Amendment.

The freedom of speech is probably the most misunderstood of all the five components in that the freedom of speech has been altered through many times in court.

The U. S government has altered the freedom of speech many times in court, whether it be expanding the rights that were given with the freedom of speech or diminishing the power of it and thus prohibiting people from saying what the government deems as harmful and disruptive to others around them. With the freedom of speech so questioned and confusing to even the general public it is no wonder that when the freedom was put into a public school setting with a bunch of adolescence and kids the topic becomes a hot spot for debating whether students should have the full extent of the protection from the First Amendment.

In a public school setting which is own by the state government the students are promise to have their rights as citizens of the U. S protected to the full extent of the law as stated “students in school as well as out of school are ‘persons’ under our Constitution” (U. S Supreme Court) . Some people agree with the judgment that students are considered U. S citizens and because they are in a public area the students should enjoy the full extent of the rights that were given to them as U. S citizens like any other people, however there is always two sides of a the same coin and thus some suggest to restraint the rights of students to an extent because of the belief that students are not fully grown adults and thus do not have the rationality to use their rights correctly.

One of the most debating topics of students in public school would be the freedom of speech that was given to them. Some people belief that students are citizens of U. S and should have the full extent of the freedom of speech given to them, while others belief that students do not have a complete rationality like adults and thus will use their freedom of speech in a wrong way and thus students should be restrain to an certain extent of the rights. Hearing from the two sides with each side having reasons for which they belief in, the question of whether or not students should have full protection of the First Amendment for freedom of speech in a public school is ask and debated constantly.

One key side of the opinion in which supported the idea of students having complete freedom of speech in school stated that students are U. S citizens and thus should have the same right as any other people alike as stated “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights rot freedom of speech or expression as the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker v. Des Moines School District).

In public school cases with the freedom of speech being the issue of the trial the court rule that unless what the student said causes any disturbance in the school or those around them the school are not allow to punish them on the issue in which was spoken or express. One of the greatest examples of students winning against the public school in trials would be the famous supreme case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, in this Supreme Court case “the school officials could point to no evidence that the wearing of armbands would disrupt the school environment” (faqs).

From Tinker v. Des Moines ruling the court stated that school officials may not silence student’s expression and speech on an issue just because they dislike it. Fig. 1 Allison Edge, Suspension Cartoon 1 (Cartoon Stock. 9 Dec. 2012. ) In a public school it can be said that a new generation of thoughts begins there. In school settings students learn about their rights and responsibilities, what they can do and cannot because of society’s belief in a subject. Students learn their Bills of Rights as early as in their fifth grade where teachers basically explain to them their rights as U. S citizens, so with the teachings of the Amendments from the teachers to the students as early as that it would be a total contradiction to not allow the students to learn about the Amendments and yet not be able to wield the power that they were promise to have around in school as stated “It would be the height of contradiction to teach about the First Amendment and then not follow it” (Darden Edwin C).

The school system would be a complete hypocrite if they were to just tell students about their rights but not allow the students to express and speak their rights. (See fig. ) In figure 1 political cartoon it can be seen that the boy was suspended because he brought a copy of Bill of Rights to school, this shows the contradiction of school teaching students about the Bill of Rights but, at the same time condemn the students for using it. Despite the many positive view points of students having complete freedom of speech in school, it can be hardly argue that there are many drawbacks from the idea. Students in public school are still adolescence which many people view as still consider immature and irresponsible to themselves and others around them.

In school settings it can be said that “Learning is more important in the classroom than free speech” (Hudson David L. ). The general purpose of school is to teach students about the world and prepare them for the future, and with the students being allow to say whatever they deem as right in school like cursing at a teacher or saying something that will make other students follow in bad behaviors, not only will this disrupt the school environment but also influence others around them. In the Supreme Court case Bethel School District v.

Fraser the court deemed that the school did not violate the First Amendment by suspending Matthew Fraser for his speech filled with sexual innuendoes, the speech over intercom expose the students with vague language and thus was considering disruption of school as stated “the freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior” (faqs).

From the Supreme Court case over Fraser it can be seem that not every students use their First Amendment right of freedom of speech in school appropriately. Hearing the opinions of the two sides of the argument of whether or not students should or should not have the full protection of the freedom of speech it is reasonable to say that both side makes a valid point of each of their arguments and stated “our problem lies in the area where students in the exercise of First Amendment rights collide with the rules of school authorities” (Hudson David L. ).

Both side of the argument whether support or against the idea of full protection of students for freedom of speech have a general point in that both agree that students can say what they like as long as it doesn’t harm or disrupts others around them and also that whatever the students say during the use of freedom of speech they are responsible for their words and expression of ideas just like the rest of U. S citizens. If two sides of an argument are able to come to a general agreement on the issue then it is possible to make a compromise of student’s freedom of speech in school.

The compromise of the issue can be student lead debates and creating certain areas in school which allows the students to freely express their ideas and thoughts on an issue without the eyes of authorities watching them. Students most of the time get in trouble for the freedom of speech because they are expressing their ideas on an issue that the school deems to be inappropriate. The public school is able to punish the students because when students are expressing their ideas it sometimes causes disruption to those around them and may expose others around them to a dangerous topic.

By using public or private debates in school on an issue students are able to express their thoughts and ideas with given times to correct their facts together to support them on the issue that they expressing. With public debates it is possible to allow students and staffs to hear the ideas of the students and those that oppose them on the issue and through the debate the students will be able to pick what they belief in as right and support the side that they agree with.

With the U. S being a democratic country it should be reasonable enough to agree that debates allows the students or staff to express their ideas and gain support from the audience that hears them thus eliminating what the court and school considers a “disruption” since a debate is civilized and also educational to those that are willing to speak out and those that are willing to listen. The debates of the two sides that support and oppose the freedom of speech in public school have a general point of concentration on the issue and that is that students are using their freedom of speech in school.

With schools being the place of learning for many students it is understandable that both the parents of the students and staffs that cares for the education of the students will have collision even though both just wanted the best for the students, with most of the staff putting education as their top priory while parents put their sons or daughters rights and happiness as theirs. In order to secure student’s right of freedom of speech in public school while at the ame time not offending those that put education, safety and order as their top priory one of the ways to satisfy both sides is to acquire an area in the school that allows the students to express what they want without having the authorities around them to watch what they say. By acquiring an area where students are able to express themselves fully students will be satisfy with their rights of freedom of speech being granted in public school thus allowing the moral of the students to rise and their dissatisfaction to drop.

The authorities in school can make it so that only certain amounts of students are only allow to enter the area at a certain time, or having the times when the students are allow to enter the area, like after school. By putting restrictions on the area with amounts of students and the time which they are allow to enter it will put the students in order while at the same eliminating the so called disruptions that students will cause during class and the general times in school setting.

The biggest fear of staffs in school is that what a student says will cause a ripple effect that might disrupt the school setting and thus diminish the time and ability of other students to learn, which the main goal of the school educational system is. The biggest fear of students and parents is that with school able to punish a student for his or her right of freedom of speech this will that only decrease the morale of the students making them think that they have no rights what so ever in a public area but at the same time making the students think that they are lock up in school with no freedom attach to them.

Understanding the two sides of the view the best conclusion of the topic of whether students should or should not have the full protection of freedom of speech in school comes to that students can speak their mind on issues if it will bring about a positive change to the mindset of others around them on the topic. Whether it be drugs, wars, or sexual contents as long as the students are able to provide facts that support their side of the argument and thus gaining support from the majority of others around them then it can be consider that the students brought about a positive change of the mindset to others.

You may also be interested in the following: manuscript speech examples for students, leadership speech for students

Students Freedom of Speech in School Essay

Brindage Act 1902 Essay

Brindage Act 1902 Essay.

1.The Brindage Act 1902 that was implemented on November 12,1902, prohibits the Filipinos to form or join groups against the US government. The Act was created in order to pacify the Filipinos so that it would be easier for the American government to execute their plans for the country. This law states that whoever continues to revolt against the Americans will be considered as thieves. Even though Americans tried to stop the activists, there were still some Filipinos like Macario Sakay that remained fighting.

They were affected greatly by the law, because they cannot walk streets without getting themselves arrested. And although they had the rich people funding them from the beginning, it was stop, therefore it led to the lack of food and arms. The bandoleros continued fighting even though some of their fellow Katipuneros surrendered to the US. I consider them heroes and patriots even though it is said that the country is in a “peaceful situation”, because they were fighting for the independence they fought since the Spanish times.

2.The First Philippine Republic or the Malolos Republic was established along with the proclamation of the Malolos Constitution. This was said to be the end of the Spanish rule. First President Emilio Aguinaldo changed the revolutionary government to a dictatorial and later went back to the revolutionary government. Malolos Republic has its President, Cabinet Members and Ministers, but in my opinion, it is still premature.

The departments are messed up like the Department of Foreign Affairs, Navy and Commerce; Department of War and Public Works; Department of Police, Internal Order, Justice, Education and Hygiene; Department of Finance, Manufacturing Industry. It’s as if it was hastened just so they could form departments. I also believe that if this was a successful government, it would last longer, and the Americans could have let go of us to be an independent country.

Brindage Act 1902 Essay

Rizal’s Visit to the United States Essay

Rizal’s Visit to the United States Essay.

April 28, 1888 He saw the discriminatory treatment of the Chinese and the Negros by the white Americans “The Streamer Belgic” Name of Rizal’s – The name of the Ship docked at San Francisco Saturday morning. 2 agencies that certified Belgic are free from cholera epidemic The America consul of Japan the British government of Hong Kong. Cholera – raging epidemic in the Far East according to the Americans All passengers are quarantined for safety Rizal was surprised because there is no outbreak of the disease in the Far East, thus he joined other passengers in protest.

The ship was carrying 643 Chinese coolies

700 bales of valuable Chinese silk were landed without fumigation.
Rizal in San Francisco
Friday May 4, 1888 Rizal permitted to go ashore, he was registered in PALACE HOTEL, a first-class hotel in the city. 4$ is the daily lodge on the PALACE HOTEL
Leland Stanford – Millionaire senator representing California in the US. He was also the Founder and Benefactor of Stanford University at Palo Alto, California.

Dupon Street in China town which is Grant Avenue Today

He stayed in San Francisco for 2 more days –MAY 4 to 6, 1888. Grover Cleveland- The President of the United Stated at that time. Across the American Continent
May 6, 1888- Rizal Left San Francisco for Oakland, 9 miles across San Francisco Bay by ferry boat Travel via Train

He took his supper at Sacramento for 75 cents and slept in his coach. May 7 ,1888 he has a good breakfast at Reno, Nevada glamourized by American, high-pressure propaganda as the “The Biggest Little City in the World” Utah – where he saw Mormons, thickly populated – Colorado a lot of snow and pine trees Nebraska – Omaha City, as big as San Francisco– Missouri River – twice as big as Pasig River– Chicago – a lot of Indians in cigar stores– Albany – where he saw the Hudson River Rizal in New York

May 13 1888 Rizal reached the New York, He stayed 3 days in the city, which he was called “ The Big Town” He was awed and inspired by the memorial of George Washington. He wrote to Ponce: “He is a great man who, I think has no equal in this country.” May 16, 1888, he left the New York for Liverpool on board the “City of Rome”. The second largest ship in the world, the largest being the “Great Eastern” He saw with Trilling sensation the colossal Statue of Liberty on Bedloe Island. Rizal’s Impression of America

The good impressions
1. The material progress of the country as shown in the great cities, huge farms, flourishing industries and busy factories.
2. The drive and energy of the American people
3. The Natural beauty of the land.
4. The high standard of living
5. The opportunities for better life offered to poor immigrants. The bad impression
1. Lack of racial equality.
2. There existed racial prejudice which was inconsistent with the principles of democracy and freedom of which the America talks so much but do not practice. 3. They do not have civil liberty. In some states the Negro cannot marry a white woman, nor a White man a Negress. 4. Hatred against the Chinese leads to difficulty for other Asiatics who, like the Japanese, are mistaken for Chinese by the ignorant, and therefore being disliked too. 1890- 2 years after Rizal visit the US

Jose Alejandro- studying engineering in Belgium, roomed with him on the 38 Rue Philippe Champagne, Brussels, Alejandro asked Rizal “what impressions do you have of America? Rizal: “ Is the land par excellence of freedom but only for whites.”

Rizal’s Visit to the United States Essay

Morris Kent Jr. vs. the United States Essay

Morris Kent Jr. vs. the United States Essay.

At the age of 14 years in 1959 he was reported to have committed several offenses on housebreakings and attempted purse snatching. He was placed under probation on his mother’s care with corresponding social services. At the age of 16 in 1961 he was reported to have committed housebreaking, stealing the house owner’s wallet, and raping her. After which he admitted committing several offenses of the same manner. The waiver Kent’s mother, a lawyer, and a case worker from the juvenile court filed a petition to consider waiving the case while he was placed at the District of Columbia Receiving Home for children for a week.

The trial and verdict He was convicted to six counts on housebreaking and robbery but was acquitted on two rape counts by reason of insanity. The appeal Objections to fingerprinting proceeding, absence to notification of parents, and courts denial to the access on his social services file. Petitioner also questioned the validity of the one week detainment at the District of Columbia which if an adult is already considered unlawful.

The validity of the waiver which denies the petitioner the benefits of the juvenile courts parens patriae capacity (Howell 1998). Schall vs Martin The history

At the age of 14 in Dec. 13, 1977 Gregory Martin was arrested with first degree robbery, second degree assault, and criminal possession of a weapon. Martin with two others allegedly hit a youth on the head with a loaded gun. They then stole the victim’s jacket and sneakers. The procedure Martin evidenced of lack of supervision was based on possession of a loaded weapon, lateness of the hour, and false information on his address given to the police. He was detained for a total of fifteen days between the initial appearance and the completion of the fact finding. The trial and verdict

Martin was found guilty on robbery and criminal possession charges. Since he was adjudicated as delinquent, he was placed on two years probation. The appeal Objections were made on the pretrial detention of juveniles implying greater abuses of law and power. Re Gault, re Winship, Mckeiver vs the State of Pennsylvania The cases Winship was a twelve year old boy in 1970 who entered into a locker and stole $112. 00 from a woman’s pocketbook. He was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of 18 months subject to annual extensions from the basis of preponderance of the evidence.

Gault was 15 years old in 1967 when taken into custody as a result of a complaint that he had made lewd telephone calls. He was ordered to perform as a juvenile delinquent until he should reach maturity at the State Industrial School. Mckeiver was charged together with a group of 11 to 15 years with various acts of misdemeanors which arose from several demonstrations protesting school assignments and a school consolidation plan. The public was excluded from the hearing for major reason that the juvenile proceeding might make the trial into a fully adversary process.

Each member of the juvenile group was considered a delinquent while placing each of them under probation. Analysis and recommendations The Juvenile Justice Services Administration is responsible for the effective administration of the juvenile justice programs for delinquent and incorrigible youths which is being done in coordination with the juvenile courts. The identification of the needs of children facing delinquency leads to the invention and creation of the juvenile courts to go easy on young criminals.

The rapid increased of juvenile crime and young people identified as at risk has created a furor on shocking juvenile crime statistics which resulted to a public outcry on the need for change in the management of young offenders in all of US states nationwide. This practically litigated some offenders in adult criminal courts. The argument details on young children who had committed violent crimes like assault, rape, murder and armed robbery which are often adjudicated in the same court as non violent offenders charged with shoplifting, burglary, and petty theft to drug offenses.

The growing disillusionment of the therapeutic and ineffective approach of the juvenile justice system has resulted to appeals for a modification of its due process to transfer young offenders to adult courts and prisons. It has been the present society’s desire to oppose rehabilitation and effect punishment. They firmly believed that the framework of the juvenile justice system has permitted young offenders to avoid accountability which led to its nonadversarial, decriminalized process where violent offenders were never separated and categorized according to the severity of their crimes.

The court subsequently measures to provide guidance and rehabilitation of the child and protection for society not to fix criminal responsibility, guilt and punishment according to their parens patriae capacity. It seems that US is now caught up with its own policy which seems to produce a rapid increase of juvenile offenders who are not amenable to rehabilitation who acts as criminals who happens to be children.

The courts are now dealing on the crossroads of empowering themselves to consider amenability between children who err and those children who commits an isolated criminal offense against the mandates of the juvenile justice court system. There is a marked dependency issues within the jurisdiction of the court and for young offenders otherwise involved in the judicial system. The system which serves to pose as an integral part of the national development process to protect the young and maintain peaceful order in the system has created chaos because of its policy and practice of informal justice for issues of social control.

Most common practice is the treatment of every youth who violates the law is not labeled as a juvenile delinquent unless they were officially processed through the juvenile courts and officially adjudicated. But how can they be properly processed if at the start police interventions are already placing lax policies at stake? Is it a matter of policy makers and policies implementation? Or is it a matter of family emotional and authority interconnections that created the young person as he is today? The purposes and procedures of juvenile courts have become immerse on public reactions reflecting opinions on the system.

To protect the rights of the young offenders, there must be a classification on matters of the crime that was committed. It is necessary to redesign a new youth justice system before it does more public harm. Young offenders caught in the web of the existing criminal justice system shall be classified according to the severity of the crime that was committed through individualized assessment and proactive case management. There shall be a diverse menu of options where the institution shall be created solely for the young offenders.

This is the day that the court will treat crime as a crime regardless of the offender’s age and the appropriate time that young offenders will hold accountability and experience the consequences of their acts. Young people who violate the law are no longer guaranteed special treatment simply because they are young but must be disciplined according to the severity of the violations they had committed on separate juvenile institutions. The separate institution is still a form of special treatment where the facilities and the education and training of the young offenders are to be thoroughly studied.

Amidst the severity of the crime, young offenders will still continue to be cognitively, emotionally and socially different from adults. Therefore the separation and the creation of a unique institution for them where they shall attend training and education inside and still receive diplomas for their education continues to serve them as citizens and young offenders. There must be a mother image or model assigned to a particular group of five or six children who will monitor their personal needs and really pose as a parent to them.

Screening for the recruitment of mothers on this process must be very thorough and well maintained. When we say that young people are vulnerable to negative influences, we can justify the mother or parent issue by the model parent who constantly monitors and cares for them and teaches them basic family values that may be more than what their biological parents could give largely dependent on the nature and characteristics of the model parent screening recruitment process. Why not try hiring Asians? Maybe a change of culture introduction will work for these offenders.

When you are out of ideas on how to control them, we might as well try other cultures to experiment the effect. We might as well try blending policies and practices on the care management of these juvenile delinquents. There shall be no lapses over the rights of the child being tried in an adult court regardless of age on the basis of the severity of the crime because the institution to where he goes is not a mix adult one but a newly created institution that caters juvenile criminals for this matter.

No fear of any adverse effect on social issues and negative adult influences because they interact with people of the same violent crimes and same age bracket. Or to modify court proceedings, since we already have classifications on the severity of offenses then it can move to create law appropriate for these juveniles who were criminally charged. However, the trials shall be done under and within the umbrella of the juvenile justice system with no act of favoritism on matters of age.

So waivers on matters of jurisdiction may not pose a threat to committing mistakes on putting the child into the adult institution. The issue here is the willingness of the State to provide such juvenile penitentiary. The cost and the budget appropriations will more or less equal to the budget on their drug abuse intervention offers. But if young offenders will be criminally hold accountable for their offenses then they will absolutely stop and start to manage their baby instincts which results from baby court policies and treatment of their offenses and age.

The court is not justifying the act but is more on protecting the age which contributes to these young people’s confidence in passing time making crimes and getting away with it because they are young which is very unreasonable and not applicable either in the family system more on the justice court system. The issue that serves to balance the recommendation is the factors that made this young delinquents abused their rights. Maybe there were too many rights given to them that the court cannot invade to create justice for the victims in that system anymore.

They have made a perfect firewall on their policies that even them cannot manage to hack their own system to change. There shall be a modification with the justice system classification on young people’s offenses and put them right back on their tracks without getting their rights off. For once in their lives they should know the harm and damage they had done to their victims and make them pay for it in their unique form of institution. It is a matter of psychological warfare with these young people.

The psychological warfare of which is already in their own advantage because of the juvenile justice system policies and practices. We love our children but we need to rear them right. Love does not only mean making them babies in treatment and in policies, they also need a little spanking when they err to understand the severity of their act. Love means caring for their needs but still punishing them when they do things that poses harm to themselves, harm to their families and harm to the society.

We have to stop the notion of making them think that what they are doing is still acceptable because of the governing family policies and juvenile justice system methods of treatment and rehabilitation. It is a matter of breaking their confidence now that they were made indestructible in court because of their age. The idea is to make them realize what they have done is immaterial to age but a direct violation of love and God. The institution will serve them right because they are properly taken cared of depending on the administration.

Since national policy has been taking children out of their families because they don’t trust parents to be effective anymore, which is due to their policy also, then putting then in a juvenile institution consisting of a large land, mother models, equip with schools for education and training when they err will put them in their places without taking out their right. It is a midway and the last recourse for these children. There will be no fear on part of the parents and no fear on part of the justice system.

The kids now will serve their time studying and learning skills to get a life after serving their sentences. Some grave offenses will require them to work within the institution as part of the training like foundry or what Don Bosconian students are doing. If you don’t want to work and get trained 8 hours a day, then don’t commit grave offenses. Just be a youth and live how a youth is supposed to live. It is a matter now of choice for these juvenile offenders.

The knowledge itself that they have an institution to go won’t make them go easy on their impulse acts and imaginations. It is like the idea of over feeding the child which makes him obese, overprotective policy will make him a criminal because nobody can touch him. It seems that the idea lies on the thought that the victim will fear more of being killed and raped by a juvenile offender because no justice can be absolutely derived from it. How can a nation maintain peace and order then when it disrupts respect for law and of the rights of the victim in the first place?

We want to see the situation objectively. Reversing orders by judges is just not applicable but modifications on the juvenile justice system are what we have to look into deeply. It is time for a change and that change shall start now before certain events will turn to future abolition of the ineffective juvenile justice system. We just have to look at the flow chart and analyze the policies and procedures involved in each processes. The theme is objective analysis and not favors.

The only thing that will hold them from waivers and transfers to adult courts are the negative consequences of adult institutions for their age and shall not be based on their ages. Figure 1. Juvenile justice flow chart (Arizona 2006) References Arizona Supreme Court. (2006). Juvenile justice flow chart. Retrieved May 19, 2007 Website: http://www. supreme. state. az. us/jjsd/jolts/FlowChart. htm Howell, J. C. (1998, January). NCCD’s Survey of Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities. Crime & Delinquency. Retrieved May 19, 2007 Website: http://law. jrank. org/pages/12936/Kent-v-United-States. html

Morris Kent Jr. vs. the United States Essay

Reform movements of 1820-1860 in the United States Essay

Reform movements of 1820-1860 in the United States Essay.

2. How were the reform movements of 1820-1860 in the United States related to the growth of industry and urban life?

During the years 1820-1860, America has received a wave of social reformation movements that were in correlation with the growth of industry and urban life. This time period, also known as the antebellum era (time period before the Civil War) brought movements such as: the temperance movement (1826-1840’s), the movement for public asylums (1820’s and 1830’s), the public education movement/reform (1820-1860), the women’s rights movement (1850’s) and the anti-slavery movement.

All of these movements were in sync with to the growth of industry and urban life. The temperance movement arose because of the urban life people faced in the city (alcoholics); the movement for public asylums arose because of the countless of people that had disabilities and the number of homeless people in urban areas; the women’s rights movement arose because of the way men treated women in both industry and urban life; and the anti-slavery movement arose because of the way industry was treating them (such as too much work and no pay).

The temperance movement (1826) and the movement for public asylums (1820’s and 1830’s) both arose due to the conditions the people of the urban life were facing. The temperance movement arose because there were too many people drinking liquor excessively after working hours, and strengthened after the Irish immigrated to America during the 1830’s (since many people stereotyped the Irish as excessive drinkers, the temperance movement was mostly aimed towards them). Many of the people that drank liquor claimed that it relieved their stress from working too much in the factories. However, once those people got home, they caused family problems, and sometimes cause crimes. This urban problem was a big dilemma, so people organized themselves and formed a temperance movement to ask for the pledge of people to stay abstinent.

Another movement that arose due to urban problems was the amount of people that were homeless and the ones that had disabilities. Throughout 1820-1840, urban life was full of crime because of the number of homeless people that robbed others. There was also a big number of homeless people living on the streets because the city could did not have enough apartments to allow people in. The number of people that had disabilities also caused a problem in urban life because they had a hard time struggling to survive. That is why people formed the Asylum movement. This movement called for the building of shelters for the homeless, schools for the disabled people and medical centers for them. This movement helped improve urban life to become a more tranquil place.

The women’s rights movement arose due to the way they were treated by men. However, the women’s rights movement didn’t begin with the snap of a finger. Since many women were busy taking care of the house and their children, they didn’t have time to involve themselves in movements to support their rights. However, when the Industrial Revolution came to America, men left home to work for salaries, which meant they had less time to spend with their wife. With the addition of birth control, women had fewer children, which meant that they had time for social reform. After entering this “phase” women came to a realization that they resented the way men neglected them to secondary roles (which was to take care of the house and children) in the movement and preventing them from taking part of anything that had to do with politics. This sort of thinking can be classified as an urban way of thinking because in an everyday urban day, the mother would stay at home while the father would go work to get his salary.

Although women fought for their rights during the 1850’s, their movement was obscured by the anti-slavery movement. This movement arose because the industry of America was treating them bad. In the South, many slaves were put into hard labor because around the 1820’s to 1830’s, there was a very high demand for people wanting cotton. The anti-slavery movement was supported by the Second Great Awakening (a time period in America in which religious enlightenment flourished). The Second Great Awakening brought over that slavery was a sin, and since many people were very religious, they didn’t like the fact that they were sinners (urban life ideals). The anti-slavery movement also brought abolitionists together to fight for their cause and it also brought abolitionist newspapers such as _The Liberator_. Many people also didn’t like the fact that slaves were seen as business (industry), which gave them another reason to form the movement.

The antebellum era brought many social reforms to America, and they were all in relation to the way the industry was growing and the way people lived in urban life. The temperance movement was in response to the crimes and the alcoholics that arose during the 1830’s; the movement for public asylums arose because of the number of needy people that were homeless and disabled; the women’s rights movement arose due to the way they were treated by men in their urban life and the growth of industry; and the anti-slavery movement was in response to the unfair treatment of slaves, the idea that slavery was a sin, and the fact that slaves were seen as a market. All these reforms arose because the people were reacting to the things that were happening to urban life and the growth of industry, and in my opinion, I think all these reforms were made for the best of mankind because they led to a safer and secure life.

Reform movements of 1820-1860 in the United States Essay

Black dog of fate Essay

Black dog of fate Essay.

The Book “Black Dog of Fate” by Peter Balakian is a memoir by the Armenian genocide survivors’ descendants that lived in the United States of America and it was written in the suburbs of Tenafly, New Jersey, where the author grew up. The author tries to relate his personal history and happenings in his family to the general story of the Armenians. It is the story of a young man’s realization of his background and the huge massacres that occurred to the Armenians in Turkey.

It is the history of the killing of about one and half million Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish government in 1915 (Balakian, 1997). These series of killings is regarded as the twentieth century’s first genocide.

The name ‘Black dog of fate’ is about the parable that was narrated to the author by his grandmother ‘Nafina Aroosian’. In the parable, there were two offerings that were made to the goddess of fate. The first offering is a luscious lamb that had its body filled with almonds and pomegranates and its eyes sparkled with rubies, while the other offering is a dead black dog that had its mouth filled with wormy apple.

In a twist of fate, the lamb is rejected and the dead black dog is accepted by the goddess. As Nafina puts it to Peter that he should not be deceived by appearances and that the world is not what people think it is (Balakian, 1997).

Peter balakian was one of the members of the Balakian-Aroosian family and the oldest in his generation. His family had secretly guarded the history of their past for so long. They guarded this secret as they had horrific memories of their past in their heads as they knew if they delved into their pasts the gory details of their traumatic experiences in the hands of their persecutors would haunt them. The memory of the brutal murder of lots of their relatives was not a topic that was suitable for discussion as they looked to erase the tragic event from their memories.

It narrates the ordeal of the Armenians in the hands of the Turks. The Armenians were subjected to various forms of inhumane conditions. Their ladies were raped and their men were butchered. The Armenians were gruesomely murdered in their thousands day after day and their carcasses were left to the vultures to feast upon. The Turks robbed them off their belongings and really impoverished them.

The book exposes the societal evils perpetrated by the Turks on the Armenians. The Turkish government tries to cover up these horrific crimes as they denied the existence of the genocide.

Balakian lets us into his family line as we are introduced to the matriarchs, a bishop, merchants, physicians, his aunts and two famous figures in the world of literature. The names of his renowned aunts are Anna and Nona Balakian, who distinguished themselves in the field of literature. His two other aunts are Gladys and Lucille, who were business women on Wall Street. But out of all these characters, the most important of them is his grandmother, one of the survivors of the genocide, whose experience was dreadful as she lost her husband to the genocide.

The book teaches us survival instincts in the midst of obstacles and it narrates a family’s sojourn from a horrific past into a better life and a new world. It represents the experience of an immigrant child in the United States of America while still retaining one’s cultural heritage. It tells us how the author’s relatives escaped the genocide and ended up in the United States of America.

One of the remarkable quotations in the novel that makes the novel a notable one as recognized by the New York Times Book review is simply quoted “In all of this germ madness there seemed to be some deeper, more pervasive anxiety being expressed. Some pathological fear that I sensed in my grandmother when she hovered over me, incessantly brushing her hand over my hair and asking me, How are you, what can I do for you, are you OK? Eench, eench, eench. [What, what, what] For my grandparents’ and parents’ generation, perhaps the world was a place conspiring to kill you. After the Genocide, the fear of death was different from the fear of mortality. In this atmosphere of deep anxiety, our family was far from the optimistic mood of suburbia. As my grandmother said to me as I lay on my bed recovering from the measles, ‘Sleep with one eye open; know the evil eye.’” (Balakian, 1997). Another powerful excerpt is in the latter page of the book and it is quoted as “Free speech does not guarantee the deniers the right to be treated as the other side of a legitimate debate when there is no other side.” (Balakian, 1997).

As the persecutions was against the Armenian Christians by the Turkish Muslims, the holocausts in the World War II era draws inspiration from it as it foreshadowed the mind-sets of the German army. The World War I killings of the millions of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks served as a justification to the holocausts of the World War II era. The holocaust was a period of mass murder of the Jews during the Second World War. During the holocausts, Hitler made several references to the serial killings of the Armenians as he justified their extermination. On the latter part of the book, Peter Balakian observes the mind-set of the German army towards the Armenians which foreshadows the pains they would later inflict on the European Jews in the Second World War (Balakian, 1997). As the Germans considered the Armenians as threats to the Turks so also were the Jews considered as threats to the establishment of the superiority of the Germans.

In the concluding pages of the book, Balakian requests for the acceptance by the Turkish government of the Armenian genocide, a fact they had previously denied its existence. He also requests for an apology by the Turkish government and a consequential forgiveness from the Armenians.

Reference

Balakian, P. (1997). Black Dog of Fate . New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Black dog of fate Essay

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Essay

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Essay.

The United States of America was founded and built by hardworking and innovative immigrants. Immigrants, whether legal or illegal, perform most of the dirty and arduous jobs that many native-born Americans are unwilling to perform. They are hardworking and taxpaying individuals that positively impact our economy and our communities. Many immigrants, especially illegal immigrants (those who enter the United States illegally or without proper documentation) work long hours and for little pay. There are over 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States who deserve a chance to have a good job, earn citizenship and become a legal member of American society.

According to the Organization for U.S. Immigration Support, amnesty can be defined as “the government’s pardon for violating policies relating to immigration or politics” (Amnesty for Illegal Immigration 1).

The federal government forgives these individuals for using false documentations to more easily get employment in the United States and be able to remain in the country. Amnesties allow illegal immigrants or undocumented workers to gain permanent residency in the United States.

In 1986, the United States granted its first amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, allowing them to receive a Green Card which could lead to the attainment of United States citizenship. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is beneficial to the United States because it will bolster the U.S. economy, increase tax revenues, and allow millions of people to attain the American dream of homeownership and education, thus benefiting American society. For these reasons, all illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty.

Illegal immigrants are beneficial to the United States economy. They perform the necessary high labor and menial jobs that many native-born Americans are unwilling to do. According to the March 6th 2007 issue of Conservative Politics: U.S. , President George W. Bush was quoted as saying, “There are people doing jobs Americans will not do. Many people who have come into our country are helping our economy grow. That is just a fact of life” (Illegal Aliens: Helpful or Harmful to America? 1). Increasingly fewer educated, native-born American workers are unwilling or unable to perform the strenuous jobs that don’t even require a high school diploma…but immigrants are. According to an immigration policy brief written by Rob Paral of the American Immigration Law Foundation, it is evident that immigrants come here to fill available jobs by the “fact that, as of 2005, 94% of adult male undocumented immigrants and 86% of adult male legal immigrants were in the labor force.

Immigrants are already an integral part of U.S. society and an indispensable part of the U.S. labor force” (Paral 1). Illegal immigrants also contribute to the United States economy by purchasing American goods and services. They purchase houses, automobiles, as well as, patronize the local supermarkets and Mom and Pop stores. Francine Lipman of the Chapman University, School of Law strongly believes that “undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services” (Lipman 1).

Lower consumer prices are one of the many contributions that immigrants make to our economy. Annually, illegal immigrants contribute at least 300 billion dollars to the U.S. gross national product (Immigrant Workers: Making Valuable Contributions to Our Communities and Our Economy 1). Even though there are critics who are adamantly against granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, a survey conducted by the Social Science Research Network concluded that 85% of prominent economists felt that illegal immigrants have had a positive impact on the United States economy (Lipman 1).

Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will increase United States tax revenues. Amnesty will provide illegal immigrants with a tax identification number or a social security number. Thus allowing over 12 million non-U.S. citizens who are living and working illegally in the United States to file taxes and prove their economic contribution, as well as, document their residence. Amnesty allows illegal immigrants to file their taxes without fear of being deported, in turn more people will file their taxes, thus increasing tax revenues. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates show “that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenues. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77% ($3,200.00) more a year in federal taxes once legalized; therefore, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal immigrants” (The High Cost of Cheap Labor 1).

Everyone who works in the United States is required to pay taxes. On average illegal immigrants pay about $4,200.00 in federal taxes. Almost half of this tax revenue goes directly to Social Security and Medicare (Illegal Aliens: Helpful or Harmful to America? 1). Despite America’s strong history of opposing taxation without representation, undocumented immigrants are required to pay taxes, but do not have a voice in American society. They don’t have the right to vote at any level, be it local, state or federal. Nonetheless, every year illegal immigrants contribute billions of dollars in property, sales, excise, income and payroll taxes to federal, state and local funds.

According to a paper written by Francine Lipman entitled, “Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation”, she states that “undocumented [workers] actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services. They also make unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance programs” (Lipman 1). Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants file federal and state income tax returns each year even though they are barred from receiving all government benefits including Food Stamps, Medicaid, Federal Housing, Unemployment Insurance, Social Security and the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is a clear example of taxation without representation. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would fix this social injustice in America, as well as, bolster the United States tax revenues because once legalized, illegal immigrants will be paying more money annually in federal taxes.

If illegal immigrants are granted amnesty then millions of hardworking people would finally be able to attain the American dream, thus benefiting themselves and American society. Amnesty will allow illegal immigrants to purchase property and homes. As a result, communities will be revitalized. Illegal immigrants would be able to set down their roots and integrate into American society. According to an article written by Sue Kirchhoff, entitled, “Immigrants Chase American Dream”, an estimated “8 million to 10 million foreign born people are in the United States illegally, lacking documents to get a mortgage” (Kirchhoff 3).

Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would alleviate this problem because they would be able to purchase homes which would keep the American housing market strong, which in turn leads to a healthy economy. Illegal immigrants are an increasingly important factor in the American housing market because by the purchasing of homes they are revitalizing inner cities, changing the appearance of suburbs and prompting subtle changes in home design, therefore, many economists believe that the United States housing market will remain strong as a result of the elevated rates of both legal and illegal immigration in the country (Kirchhoff 1).

Amnesty will allow illegal immigrants to seek and attain higher education which will ultimately have a favorable impact on the United States. According to a study by Keith Maskus, an economist at the University of Colorado, and Aaditya Mattoo, a lead economist at the World Bank’s Development Economics Group, “foreign students, skilled immigrants and doctorates in science and engineering play a major role in driving scientific innovation in the United States. Their research found that for every 100 international students who receive science or engineering PhD’s from American universities, the nation gains 62 future patent applications” (Anderson 3). Education plays a crucial role in producing successful and productive citizens. There is evidence that suggests that through education immigrants improve their lives and that of their children and have very little negative impact on the nation.

According to an article entitled, “Immigration Issues in the United States” in the March 1st 2004 edition of Eriposte “as immigrants leave school and become productive workers, they repay most or all of the cost of those services that they have received in the form of taxes” (Immigration Issues in the United States 3). Providing illegal immigrants with the opportunity to seek higher education is also a solution for ending poverty and foreign aid. In a June 19th 2006 open letter on immigration written by David J. Theroux and addressed to President George W. Bush, the author states that “immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised.

The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards, but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries-a form of truly effective foreign aid” (Theroux 1). Immigrants, both legal and illegal, add diversity and a fresh perspective to the American business market, therefore, by granting amnesty to illegal immigrants we are encouraging them to improve their education and skills in order to provide the United States with a more competitive labor force. In the end, amnesty favors both the nation and the illegal immigrants.

The United States would positively benefit from granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants because of the increased economic, tax and societal benefits amnesty would bring. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, contribute their skills, innovation, capital, and culture to the American economy. They have become an indispensable asset to America, both culturally and economically. The aspiration of attaining the American dream is what inspires illegal immigrants to come to America; therefore, it is unfair to hinder or deny them in their pursuit of happiness and prosperity. After all, our country was founded and built by the sweat and hard work of immigrants, both legal and illegal. Ultimately, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants benefits both America, its people and society.

Bibliography

“Amnesty for Illegal Immigration.” U.S Immigration Support. 4 Mar. 2007. 7 Mar. 2007http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/amnesty.html.

“Illegal Aliens: Helpful or Harmful to America?” Conservative Politics: U.S. 6 Mar. 2007http://usconservatives.about.com/od/theeconomy/a/illegalaliens.htm.

“Immigrant Workers: Making Valuable Contributions to Our Communities and Our Economy.” Service Employees International Union. 5 Mar. 2007 http://www.seiu.org/issues/immigration/immigration_facts.cfm.

“Immigration Issues in the United States.” Eriposte. 1 Mar. 2004. 6 Mar. 2007http://www.eriposte.com/civil_rights/non-citizens/illegalimmigration.htm.

“The High Cost of Cheap Labor – Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget .” Center for Immigration Studies. 2004. 5 Mar. 2007 http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html.

Allport, Allan. Immigration Policy. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers,
2005.

Anderson, Stuart. “The Debate Over Immigration’s Impact on U.S. Workers and the Economy .” National Foundation for American Policy. June 2006. 6 Mar. 2007http://www.meragefoundations.com.

Dudley, William. Illegal Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Green HavenPress, 2002.

Kirchhoff, Sue. “Immigrants Chase American Dream.” USA Today 5 Aug. 2004. 5 Mar. 2007 http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2004-08-05-immigrant-housing_x.htm.

Lipman, Francine J. “Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation.” Social Science Research Network. 15 Feb. 2006. Chapman University – School of Law. 5 Mar. 2007 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract.

Paral, Rob. “The growth and Reach of Immigration – New Census Bureau Data Underscore Importance of Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Force.” AILF. 162006. 12 Mar. 2007 http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policybrief/policybrief_2006_81606.shtml.

Stern, Andrew L., Anna Burger, and Eliseo Medina. “SEIU Announces Agenda for Comprehensive Immigration Reform- Letter to Senator Kennedy.” Service Employees International Union. 17 Jan.2007. 5 Mar. 2007 http://www.seiu.org/media/pressreleases.cfm.

Stevens, Christel. “The Overlooked Value of Immigrants.” Editorial. TheWashington Post 3 Feb. 2008: 6Theroux, David J. “Open letter on Immigration.” Letter to George W. Bush. 19 June 2006. 6 Mar. 2007http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1727#1.

Toness, Bianca Vazquez. “U.S. Tax Program for Illegal Immigrants Under Fire.”
All Things Considered. National Public Radio. NPR. 5 Mar. 2007. Transcript. 10 Mar. 2007 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId.

Vargas, Theresa. “Pro-Limited immigration Group Links Gangs to IllegalResidents.” The Washington Post 25 Jan. 2008: B5.

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Essay

1985 DBQ AP United States History Essay Essay

1985 DBQ AP United States History Essay Essay.

As the first official document that defined the United States government, the Articles of Confederation both reflected the principles and view points of the American Revolution and emphasized the practical uncertainties of democratic government. To say that the Articles of Confederation provided the United States with an effective government, would be over-exaggerating quite a bit. The Congress was weak, and was purposely designed to be weak. They were purposely set up as a weak government so that the government could be less threatening.

The American government didn’t want to be a tyrant like that of the British government. The Articles of Confederations initial intention was to provide a loose confederation or “firm league of friendship.” Thirteen independent states were therefore linked together for joint action in dealing with foreign affairs. Despite their fragility, the Articles proved to be a landmark in government, and at that time a model of what a loose confederation should be.

The Articles of Confederation had many accomplishments and strengths.

It ended the Revolutionary War. The U.S. government could claim some credit for the ultimate victory of Washington’s army and for negotiating favorable terms in the treaty of peace with Britain. It kept the states unified during the war, and dealt successfully with western lands. The Land Ordinance of 1785 was set up to pay off debt, distributed land in an orderly fashion, and provided land for public education. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787was probably the greatest domestic success of the Articles; stated that 60,000 people was needed to become a state. This would prevent future problems for western colonies, and it forbade slavery. [Document E] The Articles of Confederation maintained sovereignty and equality among states(each having one vote in Congress,) and had power to respond to foreign affairs, declare war, appoint military officers, and coin money. Despite the Articles of Confederations strengths, they were also relatively weak.

Under the Articles of Confederation nine out of thirteen states must agree to pass legislation, and all thirteen must agree to amend new articles; which were basically impossible. Neither did Congress have any executive power to enforce its own laws. Congress couldn’t regulate trade between states and foreign nations, reqruit a military force, nor uniform currency. Each state had it’s own currency, which made travel and trade difficult.

Trade regulations varied from state to state which created further difficulties. In a letter from the Rhode Island Assembly to Congress in 1782, it showed that under the Articles, the central government could not levy taxes. To create a tax or change a law required a unanimous vote. Rhode Island listed a few reasons why they did not support the new tax. Some states refused to pay taxes. States argued about land and how some states received more land than the others. These issues led to Shay’s Rebellion; where many farmers lost land due to foreclosure and tax delinquency. Hundreds rebelled demanding cheap paper money. This period in time showed the government was too weak.

Another problem the government faced due to the lack of strength of the Articles were Britain trying to take advantage of that fact. The British maintained troops along the Canadian border and in the United States trading posts because the British knew that the Americas couldn’t do anything due to lack of military. In John Jay’s Instructions to the U.S. Minister to Great Britain, he describes the need of the minister to convince Britain to remove its troops. This caused great fear and troubled the Americans. The Americans worried that the British were unwilling to accept the Treaty of Paris and were plotting revenge. John Jay instructed the minister to be unyielding with the British. Britain and Spain didn’t go about conquering America because the Americans owed them money. Eventually Spain seized the mouth of the Mississippi which cut trading routes.

In Rawlin Lowndes’ speech to the South Carolina House of Representatives, he was debating the adoption of a federal constitution. Rawlin Lowndes believed that instead of just adopting a completely new constitution, they should just make new additions to the already existing Articles of Confederation. Many Anti-Federalists had the same views as Rawlin Lowndes. When the Federalists finally agreed to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, they were able to win a very narrow majority. This proximity of the race showed that many people approved of the Articles and thought that they were an effective form of government.

In Thomas Jefferson’s words, “This example of changing the constitution by assembling the wise men of the state, instead of assembling armies, will be worth as much to the world as the former examples we have given it.” Prior to this, nearly all constitutions or laws throughout the world were either immutable or worse, were changed on a whim (by the king, for example). The only way to affect change, or the changes you wanted, were by force. The system set forth by the founders was one in which the laws were binding, yet there was an orderly and defined process by which they could be amended, by means of political process, not force.

Thomas Jefferson was expressing that this example would spread throughout the world as better way to govern, and he was right. In spite of their defects, the Articles of Confederation were a significant stepping-stone toward the present Constitution. They clearly outlined the general powers that were to be exercised by the central government, such as making treaties, and establishing a postal service. Although some aspects of the Articles of Confederation were signs of an effective government, the facts prove that the Articles of Confederation were not an effective form of government because they lacked political stability, economic growth and a productive foreign policy.

1985 DBQ AP United States History Essay Essay