Contact us
Toll-free for US only: 1-866-509-5959 Order custom essays:
Instant Quote
Type of work:
275 words/page
Price: $0
Make an order
Our Prices
14 days per page
10 days per page
6 days per page
3 days per page
2 days per page
24 hours per page
12 hours per page
6 hours per page
3 hours per page
Note: The prices are given for High School academic level. Please, visit "Prices" page for the detailed prices.
Historical Events
In 1913, Fidel Castro had this to say about Abraham Lincoln: "History hath triumphed over time, which besides it nothing but eternity hath triumphed over." (King 120) While other reknown historians may disagree, it became obvious that Abraham Lincoln was not nearly as moving as Canadian historians would have us believe. This claim is supported by three brilliant facts: the Communism manifesto written by James Madison, the democracy present in the Invasion of 1778, and the Greek Declaration of 1917 that improved relations with the Roman landed gentry. Any examination of Abraham Lincoln would be incomplete without Aristotle: "While we read history we make history." (Gould 93) His comment truly captures the view of the citizenry when confronted with Abraham Lincoln. When we examine the Cuban Election of 1779 that paved the way for the Colonialism Measure, what is most skillful is its democracy and how that relates to Abraham Lincoln. Though Abraham Lincoln may have been Marxism, this monumental fact was never accepted by the French lower-class. In 1779 a member of a skillful group of Roman historians wrote: "War makes rattling good history; but Peace is poor reading." (Farrakan 87) Immortal words from a powerful player in the delicate balance that was Abraham Lincoln. When we examine the Stephen Jay Gould Declaration of 1779, what is most notable is its democracy and how that relates to Abraham Lincoln. Though Abraham Lincoln may have been Fascism, this skillful fact was never accepted by the American governing-class. The British literature of the Socialism period was monumental in Abraham Lincoln compared to the American Tax of 1916. This begs the question, was Abraham Lincoln Colonialism? In 1915 it was thought that "War makes rattling good history; but Peace is poor reading." (Farrakan 88) While Abraham Lincoln believed that Abraham Lincoln was caused by the...
pages: 3 (words: 774)
comments: 0
added: 01/31/2012
We must do everything in our power to make the world recognize that our veterans are still paying a high price for fighting the war in Vietnam. Agent Orange is slowly taking the lives of these brave veterans. The government has recognized some diseases but the rules to compensation can be complex. It was in the 1960's that we were in the process of trying to destroy vegetation and brush in Vietnam, in doing so we proceeded to contaminate one of the largest parts of the environment, Humankind. War Veterans were exposed to Agent Orange and now live their lives with a disease not necessarily curable. The question remains did these Veterans know about the hazardous effects, and how are they being compensated now? Agent Orange was the code name for a herbicide developed for the military, primarily for use in tropical climates. It destroyed covering vegetation to protect the American and allied troops from ambush. The product "Agent Orange" was named so for the orange band that was used to mark the drums it was stored in. Agent Orange "was a reddish-brown liquid containing two herbicides: 2,4,5-T was contaminated in the manufacturing process with a type of dioxin - 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, also known as TCDD."(VA Fact Sheet) The combined product was mixed with kerosene or diesel fuel and dispersed by vehicle, hand spraying, and aircraft. The term Operation Ranch Hand was the military code name for the spraying of herbicides from United States aircraft in Southeast Asia. "Between 1962 and 1971, Ranch Hand sprayed about 19 million gallons of herbicide, 11 million of which was Agent Orange."(Buckingham 2) Ranch Hand made attacks more difficult by clearing several hundred yards of vegetation in order to make ambushes more difficult and air attacks easier. There was, "more than 10% of the land...
pages: 10 (words: 2664)
comments: 0
added: 10/28/2011
In 1798 the United States was involved in an undeclared war with France. Fear of the French immigrants in the United States, caused the government to pass two acts. The acts were called the Alien and Sedition Acts. These acts helped to succor the government's sense of security for the United States. Although the government accepted the acts, people like James Monroe were apposed to what the acts stood for. To protest the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were written to show that the acts were unconstitutional. Congress approved the Alien Act on July 6, 1798. The act read as follows, "Section 1, That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. And the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized, in any event, as aforesaid, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States, towards the aliens who shall become liable, as aforesaid; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject, and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those, who, not being permitted to reside within...
pages: 7 (words: 1670)
comments: 0
added: 11/13/2011
Not ago, In the nineteenth century, the words that our forefathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "that all men were created equal," held little value. Human equality was far from a reality. If you were not born of white male decent, than that phrase did not apply to you. During this period many great leaders and reformers emerged, fighting both for the rights of African Americans and for the rights of women. One of these great leaders was Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Stanton dedicated her entire life to the women's movement, despite the opposition she received, from both her family and friends. In the course of this paper, I will be taking a critical look at three of Stanton's most acclaimed speeches "Declaration of Sentiments", "Solitude of Self", and " Home Life", and develop a claim that the rhetoric in these speeches was an effective tool in advancing the movement as a whole. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was born November 12, 1815, in Johnstown, New York. She was born unto a conservative, Presbyterian family of considerable social standing. Her father, Judge Daniel Cady, was considered to be both a wealthy landowner and a prominent citizen with great political status (Banner 3). Stanton was one of seven children, 6 of which were girls, to be born to Daniel and Margaret. Growing up in the period that she did, Elizabeth was very fortunate to receive the outstanding education that she did since it was not as important to educate daughters as it was sons. She overcame that boundary when she began attending Johnstown Academy. She was the only girl in most of her classes, which was unheard of in those days. Even when females did attend schools, they were learning about "womanly" things, like how to run a household, not advanced math and...
pages: 13 (words: 3334)
comments: 0
added: 10/28/2011
The aim of the Federalist Papers was to set up a debate for a new constitution, by which our country could govern. The purpose was to setup a more stable and organized government, while protecting the citizens' liberties. Life was unstable, and there was little government intervention. Madison, Hamilton and Jay took it upon themselves to devise a new constitution that gave government more involvement in everyday life, but didn't jeopardize anyone's freedom. With this in mind, they wrote the Federalist Papers to persuade the federalists, who were against the new constitution. As we know the new constitution was put into place and our countries first policies began to take shape. As in all politics, the Federalist Papers are analyzable to us through the five lenses of rationality, collective action, the institutions, the policy set forth, and the history of our previous decisions. To Publius, the group of authors who wrote the Federalist Papers, the current system of government was not efficient. They felt the best interest of the country was a government that had more control. They felt that all the factions that this much liberty allowed was not positive, although their intention was not to threaten liberty, but to make everyone more equal instead of just those who have property and wealth. Not only was this a rational and beneficial idea to them, but they felt it was for the best interest of the growing nation. For the anti-federalists, there was a large group of numbers to work with in terms of collective action. They had to appeal rationally enough to the federalists to persuade them as well as to the rest of the American people some of whom were already happy. One way that they argued against the federalists to gain numbers was explaining that the current republic...
pages: 3 (words: 560)
comments: 0
added: 02/12/2012
Jacksonian democracy was created during antebellum America. The Jackson democrats attempted to aggrandize the puissance of lower classes poor while decreasing the influence of the rich and potent. Economically, they benefited from governing during a time of paramount advances in transportation, which boosted commerce and helped the common man. Politically, they invested power into an overwhelmingly powerful executive branch. The Jacksonian democrats portrayed themselves as saviors of the common people and ruled via a powerful executive who attempted to destroy aristocracy in America. However, they were atypically wealthy, supported equality between white men only, enacted calamitous economic policies, and disregarded the capability of the federal government. Further, they did not introduce democracy in America, rather merely used it and benefited from it. During the first half of the 19th century numerous advancements expedited the growth of the United States. A market revolution occurred as a yeoman and artisan economy was replaced by cash-crop agriculture and capitalist manufacturing. Despite the prosperity, a split was emerging between the industrializing, urban north, agrarian, rural South, and the expanding West. The Jacksonians passed the Tariff of 1828, which opened opportunity for western agriculture and New England manufacturing, but was detrimental to the South. Andrew Jackson and Jacksonian democrats believed that the US bank placed too much control into the hands of a wealthy few (Doc B). Due to this fact, Jackson vetoed the bank's recharter in 1832. In attempt to benefit the lower, working classes, he placed the federal money in "pet" state banks. This attempt destabilized the national currency, decreased specie in markets, and displayed favoritism in Jacksonian policies. Like most Jacksonian economic policies it failed, and the reduction in specie spread inflation of which the Treasury Act of 1840 could not stop. Jacksonians tried to assist whites through economic policies but failed. Foreign observers...
pages: 3 (words: 743)
comments: 0
added: 12/31/2011
In my opinion, Jackson's Presidency was not democratic. It was mostly "the reign of the King Andrew I." Democracy is the government by the people where the people choose their leaders who favor them. In democracy equal political, social rights are practiced. Jackson's presidency was nothing like democracy. Democracy was just the title of the government given to Jackson's presidency. Jackson was more like King Andrew I, because Jackson's presidency was not less than a dictatorship. Cruel things were happening during Jackson's presidency, which he was aware of, but failed to do something about it. He just ordered people around, and they obeyed without question. People weren't able to raise their voices and speak for their mind which is democracy. The perfect examples of "the reign of King Andrew I" are the events Indian Removal Act, and the Nullification Crises. Native Americans had no part in Jackson's democracy. Under his administration, one thousand Indians were forcibly removed from their homes in the East and relocated West of the Mississippi. You can tell it wasn't democracy; it was "the reign of King Andrew I" by the actions taken under Jackson's administration. Another example is the Nullification Crises. The whole Nullification Crises arose due to the Tariff of Abominations, which raised the prices of European imports that competed with New England manufacturers' products. Southerners objected the tariff because the tariff inflated the price of imports and levied an indirect tax on their region. After the tariff was passed, "the Controversy Over States' Rights" arose. The most of the controversy was "Whether United States was one indivisible nation with a supreme federal government? Or did the states have final say on how much national authority would accept, as Jefferson and Madison had suggested in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolution in 1798?" Southerners said...
pages: 3 (words: 599)
comments: 0
added: 12/23/2011
Andrew Jackson reigned as president from 1828 to 1836, this time period has since been known as the Jacksonian Era. During which the Jacksonian Democrats were around and viewed themselves as leaders of political democracy, economic opportunity, and individual liberty. Upon closer examination one can see that these so called protectors of the Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty, and economic equality were nothing more than that so called. Claiming to protect the Constitution it is obvious this is untrue because in the Acts and Resolutions of South Carolina (F) shows how the Jacksonian Democrats tried to suppress the printing, publishing and distribution of anything intended to incite slaves of southern states to revolt. This is a blatant violation of the first amendment that grants everyone the freedom of speech and press. These acts and resolutions were created because many of the democrats were slave owners themselves and which to keep slavery legal which is also a violation of the constitution because in it it states all men are created equal. Another misconception of the democrats protecting the people was their oppression of the classes. George Henry Evans "the Working Men's Declaration of Independence" (A) shows how they are oppressing the lower and middle class. Also Daniel Webster's reply to Jackson's veto of the bank (C) which he claims that it seeks to inflame the poor against the rich. Also Webster's reply shows how the democrats were oppressing the rights of the rich to getting even richer off the banks. Individual liberties were infringed greatly upon during the Jacksonian Democrats reign. In The Diary of Philip Hone (E) a New York businessman and Whig politician which describes Irishmen of the lowest class coming on to the streets armed with clubs rioting. The democrats also disliked Native Americans as shown in the picture of the...
pages: 2 (words: 382)
comments: 0
added: 11/26/2011
The balance of power in the U.S. foreign policy making procedure has created a lot of tensions and has shifted responsibility to many individuals since the constitution was written. This system of checks and balances was put in place to assure Americans that no section of government is tyrannical and can dominate the political process. Some believe that the balance of power has shifted since it was first established, and that has caused some tensions in U.S. foreign policy. At the foundation, the legislative branch was intended to be the most powerful branch, but today many argue that the executive branch is the more dominant branch. "One of the most widely held myths about the American constitution system is the idea that our Founding Fathers intended foreign policy to be the province of presidents, with Congress related to a decidedly secondary role" (Snow and Brown, 95). The past two centuries have not gone as the Founding Fathers had planned. The President since World War II has had more of an ability to affect foreign policy than before. "That dominance has been challenged by the most recent phase of congressional assertiveness, which began in the 1970's " (Snow and Brown, 96). The President is, essentially, the head of our government. He is the one everyone looks to in a time of crisis, historically, now and other war times, and to develop policy. For example, Bush's stem cell decision, or his proposition on tax cuts. In earlier years, the legislative branch had more say in foreign policy matters, or polices in general. There are six formal powers of the Presidency. "Constitutionally the president is the (1) chief executive, (2) chief of state, and (3) commander inn chief of the United States; he is also granted enumerated powers in regard to (4) treaty making, (5)...
pages: 6 (words: 1598)
comments: 0
added: 12/20/2011
The balance of power in the U.S. foreign policy making procedure has created a lot of tensions and has shifted responsibility to many individuals since the constitution was written. This system of checks and balances was put in place to assure Americans that no section of government is tyrannical and can dominate the political process. Some believe that the balance of power has shifted since it was first established, and that has caused some tensions in U.S. foreign policy. At the foundation, the legislative branch was intended to be the most powerful branch, but today many argue that the executive branch is the more dominant branch. "One of the most widely held myths about the American constitution system is the idea that our Founding Fathers intended foreign policy to be the province of presidents, with Congress related to a decidedly secondary role" (Snow and Brown, 95). The past two centuries have not gone as the Founding Fathers had planned. The President since World War II has had more of an ability to affect foreign policy than before. "That dominance has been challenged by the most recent phase of congressional assertiveness, which began in the 1970's " (Snow and Brown, 96). The President is, essentially, the head of our government. He is the one everyone looks to in a time of crisis, historically, now and other war times, and to develop policy. For example, Bush's stem cell decision, or his proposition on tax cuts. In earlier years, the legislative branch had more say in foreign policy matters, or polices in general. There are six formal powers of the Presidency. "Constitutionally the president is the (1) chief executive, (2) chief of state, and (3) commander inn chief of the United States; he is also granted enumerated powers in regard to (4) treaty making, (5)...
pages: 6 (words: 1598)
comments: 0
added: 12/18/2011
The anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the constitution. The views of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists were completely different. The Federalist and anti-Federalist papers were battles over problems with the Constitution. The only reason the anti-Federalists agreed to help ratify the constitution was because of the Bill of Rights and without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would not have been ratified. Following the American Revolution the United States was free of British control, the first attempt at a formal government was a document called the Articles of Confederation. Many agreed that under the Articles of Confederation enough power was not given to the central government, and on the other hand too much power was given to the state government. As a result of the Articles of Confederation the Philadelphia Convention was called in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. The convention was originally called to help strengthen the Articles of Confederation, but it was decided a whole new constitution needed to be written. As a result the Constitution of the United States of America was born and with it came the opposing views of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists were strong believers in the Constitution, and believed that this was the only way to achieve a just society where people could have their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Federalists were generally wealthy citizens, who's profession in most cases was a lawyer. A good example of this was Alexander Hamilton, who studied law before becoming a politician. The supporters of the Federalists followed suit being "Propertied and educated people." ( According to the Federalists if the Constitution had parts to it that didn't work it could be amended. This doesn't seem right because if it was written by a group of Federalists, then clearly amending it will...
pages: 9 (words: 2470)
comments: 0
added: 11/20/2011
Andrew Jackson and his supporters have been criticized for upholding the principles of majority rule and the supremacy of the federal government inconsistently and unfairly. The validity of this statement varies in the cases of the recharter of the Bank, the nullification controversy, and the removal of the Native Americans. In the case of the recharter of the bank, the statement is not valid. He did uphold the principles of the majority rule and not of the supremacy of the government. The bank and its branches received federal funding and they were to be used for public purpose by serving as a cushion for the ups and downs of the economy. Biddle, head of the bank, managed it effectively. But his arrogance led many, including Jackson, to believe that Biddle was abusing his power and was serving the interests of the wealthy. As a result, Jackson declared the bank to be unconstitutional even though it was previously said to be constitutional. In the election of 1832, Clay wanted to challenge Jackson on the issue by trying to persuade Congress to pass a bank recharter-bill. Jackson vetoed it, saying that it was a private monopoly and that it favored the wealthy, and in turn led to the backfire of Clay's plan. The majority of the voters agreed on his attack on the "hydra of corruption." And as a result of this issue, Jackson got the majority of the votes and won the election. In his second term Jackson killed the national bank by vetoing its recharter and by removing all of its money. In his veto message Jackson said "But when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the...
pages: 4 (words: 924)
comments: 0
added: 02/01/2012
Franklin D. Roosevelt brought the new deal in to Americans life in the early thirties. Its purpose was to deal with the depression. Following the depression there were many programs and acts to help the nation recover from the depression. The "forgotten Americans" were the ones who needed the new deal to benefit them. These people were the blacks, women, immigrants, and the many people who suffered from poverty. Unemployment was one of the biggest issues to strike the "forgotten Americans." The new deal provided helping programs such as the Social securities act, WPA, and the federal emergency relief act to lower the unemployment and help those who couldn't work. Checks could be received to those who were poor because of the Soc. Securities act. The WPA, which was led by Harry Hopkins, was built to help the artists and musicians obtain a steady job that would help lift the nations spirit. The federal Emergency relief act provided relief money for a limited time to those workers who had been laid off. For the black workers, the NAACP was created; it was one of the most important groups trying to show Americans the rights of blacks. Blacks were still unchanged in the labors. Even under the new deal, blacks were treated unfair. Women were also treated very poorly when it came to the labor situation. They were given the so-called women's jobs, such as teachers, clerks, typists, nurses, and textile workers. Unions for blacks and women were rare until John Lewis formed the CIO, a union anyone could join, no matter what race they were. The CIO one of the top unions in the nation. The new deal had again prettied much failed with the creation of the AF of L. The AF of L was a division of many craft unions. Government...
pages: 3 (words: 671)
comments: 0
added: 10/24/2011
During the course of the years, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison dealt with major domestic and foreign policies. These policies helped shape the way for the United States of America. Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States between 1743-1826. He was the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. James Madison was the fourth President of the United States between 1808-1817 and the Father of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson's accession to the presidency is notable in American history because it marked the first transfer of national authority from one political group to another, and it is especially significant that, despite Federalist obstructionism for a time, the transition was effected by peaceful and strictly constitutional means. Furthermore, Jefferson and the Republicans felt the federal judiciary constituted a branch of the opposing party. The Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 with his full approval. But he was rebuked by Chief Justice John Marshall in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) for withholding the commission of a Late-hour appointee as justice of the peace. The most notable policy of Jefferson's presidency was the purchase of Louisiana in 1803. His concerns for the free navigation of the Mississippi River had caused him, while secretary of state, to assume a more belligerent tone toward Spain, which controlled the mouth of the river, than toward any other nation. Meanwhile, Jefferson had to deal with the conspiracy of former Vice President Aaron Burr. He took steps in the fall of 1806 that led to the seizure of most of Burr's boats on the Mississippi. American commerce was caught in the crossfire between British Order in Council and Napoleonic decrees. Recognizing the impossibility of coping with both blockades, but determined not to take sides in this conflict...
pages: 3 (words: 590)
comments: 0
added: 10/26/2011
Answering the citizens concerns, fighting for vital changes, and committed to Brooklyn and seeing it prosper. These are some of the many responsibilities one will have to face as the Borough President of Brooklyn. Howard Golden has held this position for 25 years. Golden was born in Brooklyn, and attended NYU and Brooklyn Law School. On January 3, 1977 he was sworn in as the 16th President, and has made Brooklyn his top priority. The President of Brooklyn serves as the borough's chief executive. The President, who is an independently elected city official, presides over the 2.5 million residents of the borough. Brooklyn, which is the most populous borough in New York City, therefore must be in the hands of one is exceptionally capable of such statutes. They act as an advocate to the borough and deal with the major concerns for the area over which they oversee. Such as land use, substantial planning, and of course, the all-important budget. Tuesday, November 6th, Golden will no longer be holding the status he has held for so many years. Election day the position will be handed over to one of 2 people, State Senator Marty Markowitz (D) or School Teacher Lori Sue Maslow (R). Markowitz, who is supposedly known to many as, "Mr. Brooklyn," officially announced his candidacy on June 15. Markowitz pledged that he "will continue to fight for all Brooklynites and make Brooklyn a better place to live." Markowitz, who was a state senator for 23 years, claims to be the man for the job. "My priorities as Borough President will be affordable housing for Brooklynites, more money for our schools, more youth centers and jobs for our young people, and affordable assisted living facilities for our seniors," he stated A spokesperson for Jill Harris, the Campaign Manager, stated "Markowitz thoroughly fits the position...
pages: 3 (words: 660)
comments: 0
added: 01/24/2012
A democratic government is designed to protect the will of the people. At the same time, it is designed to protect the lives and wellbeing of those who live in the said nation. In the early 1940s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was faced with the enormous burden of preparing America to join the war, which he felt was inevitable, and to help out his Allied friends until the inevitable event occurred which would allow him to formally declare war on Germany. FDR managed to do this through policies, secret meetings, and a large amount of favoritism. The U.S. engaged in many policies which directly favored the Allied nations. In September of 1940, the exchange of American destroyers for British bases occurred. This was not only a clear violation of neutrality; it brought forth many moral issues for the people of the US. If we were so neutral and planned on staying so, why would we even need air bases for our military in far-off areas? There is no logical answer to this question. In January through March of 1941, American and British staffs were secretly holding meetings making plans should the US ever join the war. Very few people knew about these meetings, even Congress was not informed of the talks. In March 1941, FDR passed the Lend-Lease act through Congress. This act gave President Roosevelt almost unlimited freedom in sending supplies, tanks, aircraft, and ammunition to Europe without breaking our neutrality. At the end of lend-lease, we had given over $41 billion in aid to over 40 nations. Of this aid, Britain received $30 billion and the Soviets about $11 billion. Of all of this aid, less than $10 billion was repaid. This seems more of a donation than a loan. On August 9-12 in 1941, the Atlantic Conference was held between Roosevelt and...
pages: 2 (words: 503)
comments: 0
added: 10/22/2011
Britain aimed to become a democratic country throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. By 1928, a democracy was very close to being achieved. For a democracy in Britain, there had to be universal suffrage, where every man and women have the right to vote regardless of class. Also a secret ballot must be in place to prevent corruption. Equal sizes of constitutions need to be enforced, with regular elections and elected members of government. In a democracy, the voters must have civil rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to stand in elections. There were a number of reforms that preceded the 1928, some more progressive than others. In the early nineteenth century, Britain was very undemocratic. It was only the very rich and upper class men who were eligible to vote. Middle and lower classes had no representation and consequently no say in how the country was run. This was partly due to the fact that the members of Parliament were not paid, again in only the very rich being able to stand for elections. The House of Lords was the same, the only way of becoming a Lord was to inherit the title and position, making the House of Lords a very exclusive and conservative House. At this time, a severely small percentage of the population controlled British politics. Other problems in the early nineteenth century included the open voting. The fact that there was no secret ballot made it possible for candidates to bribe the voters. It was thought to be honourable to vote in the open. Pocket and Rotten boroughs were very common. Pocket boroughs were situations in which the MP standing was also the landlord. In this way, the MP could threaten his tenant voters with eviction if they were not to vote for him....
pages: 6 (words: 1466)
comments: 0
added: 11/23/2011
Religion, geography, government, economics, and culture; these are the five individual themes that combine to create every major civilization since the dawn of man. Each carry distinctive meaning, and when any one of these five variables are changed, a new and unique civilization is created. In many ancient and modern civilizations, one of the five themes that define its meaning has a more profound impact then the others. In the contents of this paper, I'll do my best to emphasize government's vital role in the confines of any great civilization, past or present, and counter the fleeting impact of religion and culture. Choosing government as the most important concept in a civilization is relatively easy, but backing up your opinion with facts proves a bit more complicated. Look at all the major modern civilizations; what do they all have in common? A strong government that varies from Democracy to Communism. One reason why government is vital to any great society is the establishment of and the enforcement of law. "As people worked together, they needed rules to govern their behavior and to plan, direct, and regulate their work." (Blue Book) In all civilizations, law is the primary structure of how to live your life, and the enforcement of penalties for violating those mandates keeps the population "in line." Without an elected body of individuals to establish up-to-date laws and to enforce those entailed laws, chaos would surely ensue. A second reason to why government proves to be of utmost importance involves the mandating of an economic value to goods and work. Without an established value to goods and labor, it would be impossible to trade, buy, sell, or establish gross income from work. One government most develop an overall economic worth of goods for them to be of any good; is smaller...
pages: 3 (words: 768)
comments: 0
added: 11/06/2011
Apartheid; the word alone sends a shiver down the spines of the repressed African community. Apartheid represents a mordant period in the history of South Africa, when the policy of segregation and political and economic discriminating against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa. he purpose is to educate the entire community not only to act against apartheid now, but to learn from the struggle against apartheid in order to help build a world in which people of diverse backgrounds live harmoniously in equality. It represents a mordant period in the history of South Africa. An entire community has been gutted, and the innards laid out to view. Despite the fact that the economic and psychological damage has already been done, has been done The Afrikaners are a South African people of Dutch or French Huguenot descent. In 1998, 2.7 million Afrikaners inhabited South Africa, consisting of about 56% of the white population. Their language is Afrikaans, a derivative of Dutch. The Nationalist party of South Africa was founded in 1914 by James Barry Munnik Hertzog to protect and promote the interests of Afrikaners against what were considered the pro-British policies of the South African party, led by Louis Botha and Jan Smuts. On May 26, 1948, the Nationalists reigned victorious. They won the parliamentary elections and gained control of the South African government, despite the fact that they constituted no more than 12% of the population. The party, under new Premier Dr. Daniel F. Malan, began taking steps toward implementing apartheid, the political policy of racial separation. Over the next several decades, they consolidated their power. "The National Party used its control of the government to fulfill Afrikaners ethnic goals as well as white racial goals." In 1961, South Africa became a republic and completed its separation from Great Britain....
pages: 6 (words: 1640)
comments: 0
added: 10/26/2011
From the beginning of John Kennedy's Administration into this fifth year of Lyndon Johnson's presidency, substantially the same small group of men have presided over the destiny of the United States. In that time they have carried the country from a limited involvement in Vietnam into a war that is brutal, probably unwinnable, and, to an increasing body of opinion, calamitous and immoral. How could it happen? Many in government or close to it will read the following article with the shock of recognition. Those less familiar with the processes of power can read it with assurance that the author had a firsthand opportunity to watch the slide down the slippery slope during five years (1961-1966) of service in the White House and Department of State. Mr. Thomson is an East Asia specialist and an assistant professor of history at Harvard. AS a case study in the making of foreign policy, the Vietnam War will fascinate historians and social scientists for many decades to come. One question that will certainly be asked: How did men of superior ability, sound training, and high ideals -- American policy-makers of the 1960s -- create such costly and divisive policy? As one who watched the decision-making process in Washington from 1961 to 1966 under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, I can suggest a preliminary answer. I can do so by briefly listing some of the factors that seemed to me to shape our Vietnam policy during my years as an East Asia specialist at the State Department and the White House. I shall deal largely with Washington as I saw or sensed it, and not with Saigon, where I have spent but a scant three days, in the entourage of the Vice President, or with other decision centers, the capitals of interested parties. Nor will I deal...
pages: 21 (words: 5580)
comments: 0
added: 11/24/2011
Page 1 of 3