Seperate And Unequal, Frederic Essay examples -- essays research paper

Separate and unequal: Blacks and White women. Many may say that blacks and white women had more in common than people thought they did in the pre civil war era. A point worth arguing is that there are a few similarities and too many differences to list. No matter how you twist reality to make it seem the worst for women, they were at least treated as humans and not like barn animals. Before 1861, many white males valued their farm animals higher than their slaves. Although white women were not treated with the equality to white men that we see in the world today, they should not even be classified with blacks of the pre civil war era. Blacks and white women were treated in a common manor, because neither group was really free. Both had to listen to what the white males told them to do without haste or incompetence. At the time, it would be safe to say that America was for the white males. Because they were the only people who had any say in the rules that governed peoples lives. Even from day one, the Constitution of the United States of America contradicts the way that things were and the way they would continue for some time. The first amendment grants freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. It states â€Å" Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise, thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech†¦or the right of the people to assemble.† (Primis, 95). Even with this being law both blacks and white women were not allowed to choose what church to attend or allowed to voice their own opinions; both conditions violate the 1st amendment. The 9th amendment also states something contradictory to the way life actually was, it says: â€Å"The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.† (Primis, 96) This means no person can deny any other person his or her rights given in the Constitution of the United States of America. Evidently the forefathers who founded our government did not consider white women or blacks to be members of our country. But each state sure decided to recognize them when it came time to decide the number of delegates that each state would have in congress. Although blacks only counted as 3/5 of a person they were being acknowledged as members of our society and were denying them their freedom given to them in th... ...south. They were free, except their ideas, thoughts and property became under their husbands control after marriage. According to feminist Sarah Grimke, a South Carolina Quaker, â€Å" the very being of a woman is like that of a slave, is absorbed in her master. All contracts made with her, like those made with slaves by their owners, are a mere nullity†(Primis, 141). She feels like a slave. Why? It is because her husband now owns what she used to before they wed. But how many white women were actually treated like slaves to say that the very being of a woman was like that of a slave? None, if any. What husband would make his wife eat dough out of ashes or sleep on the clay with only a blanket to cover her? To say that white women had even half of the injustices and struggles that blacks had would be unfair to the accomplishment achieved through their fight for equality. Although there are many arguments saying that blacks and women had more in common in the pre-civil war era than normally assumed, I think that there is more than enough evidence to state the opposite. Blacks had so many more injustices than women did and the similarities between the two groups are few and far between. Seperate And Unequal, Frederic Essay examples -- essays research paper Separate and unequal: Blacks and White women. Many may say that blacks and white women had more in common than people thought they did in the pre civil war era. A point worth arguing is that there are a few similarities and too many differences to list. No matter how you twist reality to make it seem the worst for women, they were at least treated as humans and not like barn animals. Before 1861, many white males valued their farm animals higher than their slaves. Although white women were not treated with the equality to white men that we see in the world today, they should not even be classified with blacks of the pre civil war era. Blacks and white women were treated in a common manor, because neither group was really free. Both had to listen to what the white males told them to do without haste or incompetence. At the time, it would be safe to say that America was for the white males. Because they were the only people who had any say in the rules that governed peoples lives. Even from day one, the Constitution of the United States of America contradicts the way that things were and the way they would continue for some time. The first amendment grants freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. It states â€Å" Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise, thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech†¦or the right of the people to assemble.† (Primis, 95). Even with this being law both blacks and white women were not allowed to choose what church to attend or allowed to voice their own opinions; both conditions violate the 1st amendment. The 9th amendment also states something contradictory to the way life actually was, it says: â€Å"The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.† (Primis, 96) This means no person can deny any other person his or her rights given in the Constitution of the United States of America. Evidently the forefathers who founded our government did not consider white women or blacks to be members of our country. But each state sure decided to recognize them when it came time to decide the number of delegates that each state would have in congress. Although blacks only counted as 3/5 of a person they were being acknowledged as members of our society and were denying them their freedom given to them in th... ...south. They were free, except their ideas, thoughts and property became under their husbands control after marriage. According to feminist Sarah Grimke, a South Carolina Quaker, â€Å" the very being of a woman is like that of a slave, is absorbed in her master. All contracts made with her, like those made with slaves by their owners, are a mere nullity†(Primis, 141). She feels like a slave. Why? It is because her husband now owns what she used to before they wed. But how many white women were actually treated like slaves to say that the very being of a woman was like that of a slave? None, if any. What husband would make his wife eat dough out of ashes or sleep on the clay with only a blanket to cover her? To say that white women had even half of the injustices and struggles that blacks had would be unfair to the accomplishment achieved through their fight for equality. Although there are many arguments saying that blacks and women had more in common in the pre-civil war era than normally assumed, I think that there is more than enough evidence to state the opposite. Blacks had so many more injustices than women did and the similarities between the two groups are few and far between.

Philosophy Paper on Gods Existence

Tiera Suggs R. McCashland Philosophy 101 Final Paper Final Philosophy Paper I will oppose Bertrand Russell’s view that believing in God is trivial and that of humans poor imagination. I will use Tim Holt’s â€Å"Philosophy of Religion† to show how believing in God is more logical than not. Russell uses a few arguments to try an disprove the existence of God in â€Å"Why I am not a Christian. † I will address the â€Å"First Cause Argument,† the â€Å"Design Theory Argument,† and the â€Å"Morality Argument. † I will touch briefly on what Russell believes and then use common and widely accepted theories to refute Russell. Russell uses many reasons to support his disbelief of God and refutes many known theories explaining God but I will focus on his main points. First of which being, â€Å"The First-Cause Argument,† which basically means everything we know has a cause and no matter how far back existence is traced, there is chain events of causes leading back to one cause. Russell rebuked this argument by quoting an autobiography by John Stuart Mills,†My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me? ‘ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god? That sentence for Russell confirms that God mustn’t exist, he also says our poor imagination created the idea of God (Russell Why I am not a Christian). Russell fails to logically disprove Gods existence because he did not adequately cast doubt upon the many other arguments that have a clearer, more philosophical standpoint. The Cosmological Argument simply states: (1) Everything that e xists has a cause of its existence.? (2) The universe exists.? Therefore:? (3) The universe has a cause of its existence.? (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.? Therefore:? (5) God exists. It does not seem logical or ideal to use an authors autobiography to try and disprove a widely accepted theory. Any person can take a set of ideas and say, â€Å"this is wrong because†¦ † but one must justify ones point. Russell’s argument carries no weight because it is not adequately philosophical. Even if you try and refute the Cosmological Argument on the grounds of saying, if everything has a cause then shouldn’t God? The Kalam Cosmological Argument takes it a step further by saying there is a difference between God and the universe, the universe has a beginning in time subjecting it to be caused/created. Since God has no beginning in time, then he is not subject to be caused/created (Holt Philosophy of Religion). The Cosmological Argument used along with the Kalam Cosmological Argument make Russell’s standpoint weaken and seem arbitrary. The next point Russell attacks in â€Å"Why I am not a Christian† is the Design Theory, which states: â€Å"Everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. † Russell denies that belief by saying, â€Å"†¦ ince the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it. † What makes his standpoint questionable is the fact that he is trying to simplify the complexity of the nature of hum ans and leaves it to coincidence.. Yes we adapt to our surroundings but how? By chance? That is too unbelievable, organs as complicated as the heart or lungs function sequentially because of chance? That notion is not logical. In â€Å"Philosophy of Religion†, The Teleological Argument however is, stating that the world was created and exists with a purpose in mind. The universe is a ordered system and nothing is left to chance. The Teleological Argument is more believable than Russell’s ‘just because’ so called reasonings. Russell’s next argument is that of morality. He believes God is not the reason for right and wrong, because if you believe in God, you believe he is all good. So how can something all good create wrong? But one can refute Russell’s statement by simply saying, morality is a set of commands so there ust be a commander (Holt Philosophy of religion). The Formal Moral Argument states: (1) Morality consists of a set of commands.? (2) For every command there is a commander.? Therefore:? (3) There is a commander that commanded morality.? (4) Commands only carry as much authority as does their commander.? (5) Morality carries u ltimate authority.? Therefore:? (6) The commander that commanded morality carries ultimate authority.? (7) Only God carries ultimate authority.? Therefore:? (8) The commander that commanded morality is God.? Therefore:? (9) God exists. The Formal Moral Argument seems more plausible than Russell’s theory. It follows a clear system and answers questions of morality, while Russell just bears the conclusion of God is good so there cannot be bad. Again, Russell’s theories are illogical and incomplete compared to ones he is trying to disprove. Russell fails to clarify his statement, his argument is not convincing and is a premature conclusion about God that he cannot even validate. Russell obviously holds some strong convictions against Christianity and God in general. But his reasoning and conclusions are not philosophical, therefore rendering them illogical and mundane. Russell’s argument is not as valid as he thinks. One needs reasons in proving or disproving something, not just banters and foolish inquires. Russell is foolish in saying God was created by humans with a poor overactive imagination, he is filled with more imagination to believe the universe and everything in it was just a random coincidence. Russell’s attempts are weak and vague, not enough to disprove complete logical statements. Works Cited Holt, Tim. â€Å"Philosophy of Religion. † 2008. 23, Nov. 2009. . Russell, Bertrand. â€Å"Why I am not a Christian. † edited by John R. Lenz for the Bertrand Russell Society. 1996. 23, Nov. 2009.

Kuwaits Parliamentary Democracy

Kuwait The Ruling al-Sabah Family The al-Sabah family has been ruling over the region since 1756, when it emerged as the most powerful clan among the al-Utub tribal grouping. The tribe had migrated from the Saudi heartland to escape famine. Unlike other ruling families on the Arab Peninsula, the al-Sabah family didn’t seize power by force so much as accede to it by consensus, in consultation with other clans and tribes. That non-violent, deliberative characteristic has defined Kuwaiti politics for much of the country’s history. Kuwait gained its independence from Britain in June 1961. The 50-seat Assembly was established by Kuwait’s November 1962 constitution. Next to Lebanon’s parliament, it is the longest-serving all-elected legislative body in the Arab world. Up to 15 legislators may serve as both lawmakers and ministers. The emir appoints cabinet members. Parliament does not confirm them, but it can vote no confidence in ministers and veto government decrees. No Parties There are no officially recognized parties in parliament, which has it benefits and drawbacks. On the beneficial side, alliances can be more fluid than in a rigid party system (as anyone familiar with the strictures of party discipline even in the U.S. Congress can attest). So an Islamist might join forces with a liberal on any given issue quite easily. But lack of parties also means lack of strong coalition-building. The dynamics of a parliament of 50 voices are such that legislation is likelier to stall than move forward. Who Gets to Vote and Who Doesnt Suffrage isn’t anywhere near universal, however. Women were given the right to vote and run for office only in 2005. (In the 2009 parliamentary election, 19 women were among the 280 candidates.) The 40,000 members of Kuwait’s armed forces may not vote. And since a 1966 constitutional amendment, naturalized citizens, who account for a considerable portion of Kuwait’s population, may not vote until they’ve been citizens for 30 years, or ever be appointed or elected to any parliamentary, cabinet or municipal post in the country. The country’s Citizenship Law also gives government wide latitude to strip citizenship from naturalized Kuwaitis (as was the case with thousands of Palestinian Kuwaitis following Kuwait’s liberation in 1991 from Iraq’s invasion. The Palestine Liberation Organization had backed Iraq in the war.) Part-Time Democracy: Dissolving Parliament Al-Sanah rulers have dissolved parliament whenever they thought it challenged them too aggressively or legislated too poorly. Parliament was dissolved in 1976-1981, 1986-1992, 2003, 2006, 2008 and 2009. In the 1970s and 1980s, dissolution was followed by long periods of autocratic rule and strictures on the press. In August 1976, for example, the ruling Sheikh Sabah al-Salem al-Sabah dissolved parliament over a dispute between the prime minister (his son, the crown prince) and the legislature, and ended press freedom, ostensibly because of newspaper attacks on Arab regimes. Crown Prince Jaber al-Ahmed al-Sabah, in a bit of a hissy fit, complained in his exit letter that â€Å"cooperation between the executive and the legislative branches is almost absent,† and that deputies were too quick with â€Å"unjust attacks and denunciations against ministers.† Namely, himself. In reality, parliament was dissolved over tension related to the Lebanese civil war, which involved the PLO and other Palestinian factions, and its effects on the large, restive Palestinian population in Kuwait. Parliament wasn’t reconvened until 1981. In 1986, when Sheik Jaber was himself the emir, he dissolved parliament because of instability trigfgered by the Iran-Iraq war and falling oil prices. Kuwaits security, he said on television, â€Å"has been exposed to a fierce foreign conspiracy which threatened lives and almost destroyed the wealth of the homeland.† There was no evidence of any such â€Å"fierce conspiracy.† There was plenty of evidence of repeated and angry clashes between the emir and parliament. (A plan to bomb Kuwait’s oil pipelines was uncovered two weeks before the dissolution.)