Native American Religions Essay

Native American Religions Essay.

Native American Religions happen to be one of the oldest and most enduring forms of religion. They comprise a large number of distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups. Native Americans arrived on the North American Continent fifth-teen thousand to twenty thousand years ago. Native Americans have literally sources that exist from only the last four hundred years even though Native American life covers perhaps twenty thousand years. Over three hundred tribes have been recognized by the United States government. Native Americans are the only known ethnic group in the United States requiring a federal permit to practice their religion.

In the state of Virginia, Native Americans face a unique problem. Virginia has no federally recognized tribes. Native American Religions have also been known as American Indians, Amerindians, Amerinds, Aboriginal, Indians, Indigenous, Original Americans, Red Indians, or Red Men. Native Americans religions are polytheistic. Native American Religions are remarkably free of priesthood. Native Americans are very personal in that they encourage Page 2 individuals to contact the spirit world alone.

Native Americans believe that many levels of Gods and Spirits exist in the universe.

They think of the High God or Great Spirits as a personal God. They believe in the Supreme Being in a manner found in many basic religions. Native religions have some of the qualities of monotheism, polytheism, and monism. Native American has been exposed to Christian eschatology for more than four hundred years. The influence of Christianity has been so strong that today most Native Americans are Christians. They are interested in the day-to-day life among the multiple spirits found in the world. Native Americans have a reverent attitude toward the land, trees, rivers, and mountains.

Native Americans who practiced agriculture revere the soil, plants, and tree. Hunting was an important part of life within many Native American Cultures. The hunter would pray to the spirit of the animal before the hunt. Hunting was a religious pursuit in which the hunters saw the animal as a fellow creature, with a similar spirit. After all hunting’s one would ask the animal for forgiveness. They would basically perform a taboo. A religious action that enables people to avoid doing things that would offend the spirits of nature and the ancestors.

This was one of the ways the Native American would protect themselves from possible danger from the spirit world. Another widely observed taboo is the avoidance of the dead. Taboo concerning about Page 3 the dead led Native Americans to be greatly concerned about their final resting places. There is no heaven for those who have been righteous and no hell for those who have been wicked. Native Americans often seek to control the forces of spirit world with ceremonies. The purpose of their ceremonies, rituals, songs, and dances is not necessarily worship.

They are a mean of renewing the partnership between humans and the spirit world. Long hours of dancing in this atmosphere prepare the participants for contact with the spirit world. Holy week is also celebrated a song and dance. Native Americans often gain special powers by seeking visions that may place them in connection with the spirit world. Visions are sought by Native Americans at other times in life. The spirit may appear after a period of fasting and prayer, or sometimes without any preparation. The Sweat Lodge is probably the most important Native Ritual.

The sweat lodge usually occurs before and after every other major ritual like the “Sundance” and “Vision Quest”. It is also a “stand alone” ritual meaning that it occurs whenever it is needed. Its original purpose was to cleanse or purify individuals. Mother sweat lodge essentially translates in to returning to the womb. The Sun Dance last from four to eight days starting at the sunset of the final day of preparation and ending at sunset. It showed continuity between life and death – regeneration. It shows that there is no true end to life, but a cycle of symbolic and true deaths and rebirths.

All of nature is intertwined and dependent on one another. This gives an equal ground to everything on the Earth. The sun dance was a significant part of the Crow Indian people’s Page 4 spirituality. It was a spiritual retreat in which a large number of participants would fast, pray and dance for a period of days. They asked for answers to events going on in their lives. Traditional Native Americans seem to believe in two souls, neither of which is considered immortal. One soul is the life, or the breath, that accompanies the body.

The other soul is known as the free soul. One of the most common elements of Native American Religions is the use of tobacco and the sacred pipe in religious ceremonies. Tobacco was originally grown and used only for religious purposes by Native Americans. The tobacco used in religious ceremonies is stronger than the tobacco used in cigarettes. The ritual tobacco is occasionally smoked in rolled from corn husks. Most Native American tribes had traditional gender roles. Men hunted, traded and made war, while women gathered plants, cared for the young and the elderly.

Women ever had the task of making weapons and tools, they took care of the roofs of their homes and often helped their men hunt buffalos. Many Native American people believed in the unusual power of a woman at these times in life. During a women menstruation she was kept away from ordinary society. Native Americans today have a special relationship with the United States of America. In conclusion, Native Americans can be found as nations, tribes, or bands of Native Americans who have sovereignty or independence from the government of the United Statesry society.

Like other religions, Native American belief systems include many sacred Page 5 narratives. Such spiritual stories are deeply based in Nature and are rich with the symbolism of seasons, weather, plants, earth, water, sky and fire. The idea of an all powerful Great Spirit, a connection to the Earth, diverse creation narratives and collective memories of ancient ancestors are common. Traditional worship practices are often a part of tribal gatherings with dance, rhythm, songs and trance.

Native American Religions Essay

Analysis of Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address Essay

Analysis of Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address Essay.

When Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 the Union was divided. He accepted his presidential duties knowing that he was working with a nation that no longer remained united. Seven of the southern states had already seceded from the Union and were beginning to refer to themselves as the Confederates. What he had now were free states and slave states. When Lincoln gave his Inaugural Address he attempted to do so in a way that would not dissuade his chances of gaining support in the southern states, especially when it involved the institution of slavery.

However, he also made it clear in his address that he believed a secure and united nation was of utmost importance and he rejected the ideas of secession and minority rule, and he did not endorse the separation of his nation. Abraham Lincoln was elected without the support of a single southern state. The states in the south were fearful that Lincoln, who openly discouraged slavery, would establish anti-slavery laws and equality for all citizens, including blacks.

However, in his address Lincoln did the opposite.

Lincoln knew the southern states were apprehensive of him being the man in charge and assumed their rights may be endangered and he wanted to ease their mind. He let those in the South know that he had no purpose to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states it currently exists, and that he had no lawful right to do so (669). Lincoln had said this repeatedly in many speeches he made before this address, and he never intended to change his position on this. He believed each state had the right to control their domestic affairs, and the federal government will do its best not to interfere with state sovereignty.

That balance of power is what makes the political system in the United States so successful and Lincoln really attempts to respect that. Lincoln then addresses the controversy about the delivering up of slaves after they have escaped. He refers directly to a passage in the Constitution that says any person who is held to a service or labor in one State and escapes to another cannot by law by pardoned from said job, but must be returned to whoever the service or labor is due (670).

Lincoln does question if this was only put in the Constitution by those who hoped to reclaim fugitive slaves who have escaped, but he does acknowledge the fact that because it is in the Constitution himself and members of Congress support it. Although it is not clear who will enforce this policy, the national or State authorities, Lincoln suggests that it is in all States best interest to abide by the laws in the Constitution that have yet to be repealed. Although Lincoln was very tolerant of the institution of slavery in the Southern States even though he did not fully support it, he did not stand for a nation divided.

As the southern states continued to remove themselves from the Union, Lincoln feared they were attempting to disrupt the order of things in the nation. The Union of States is considered to be perpetual. It is the fundamental law of all national governments; no government would allow provisions in its constitution that would allow for it to be terminated. He states that since the beginning of the Union there has been progression only towards strengthening the Union and the establishment of the Constitution was to “form a more perfect Union” (671).

As States continue to secede the nation is becoming less perfect because the vital element of perpetuity is lost. States are legally bound to remain a part of the Union, and those who attempt to work against the national authority are insurrectionary (671). As the president of the United States Lincoln believes he has an important duty in taking whatever means necessary to keep the Union in place. He makes it very clear though, that in his attempt to defend and maintain the Union he plans to do so without bloodshed or the use of violence unless he is forced to do so. Lincoln strives to resolve these national issues in a peaceful manner.

Abraham Lincoln stands firm in his belief that the separation of the Union will have definite consequences. He believes that before the southern states carry out a matter as great as the destruction of the Union they are a part of they consider the gravity of their decision. Lincoln states that there is not any time when any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied. If there was a time when the majority deprived a minority of his constitutional rights then there may be cause or justification for a revolution, but this is not the case in this situation (673).

The Constitution ensures that all of the fundamental rights of individuals are covered so there should never be and questions concerning them. However, the Constitution cannot possibly cover all questions and issues brought before it, and this is where the division between the minority and majority derive. If a minority chooses to secede from the majority rather than attempt to comply they are setting themselves up for disaster. A minority of their own will secede from them after the majority refuses to be controlled by them, and there a destructive pattern begins (673).

Lincoln expresses in his Address how important it is that the nation does not separate. All of the States must share the same nation, the same land, and that is not going to change. A wall cannot just be built and all problems and issues forgot. All States must work together to solve the issues and remain a united nation. Lincoln is aware that when individuals or States are unhappy with the existing government they the ability to exercise their rights of amending the Constitution or attempting to overthrow it (675).

He believes that if the citizens of his nation want a change or hope to make amendments to the Constitution they do so in a more proper and convention manner than to rebel against the national government or to separate from the Union, very extreme and destructive measures. The most pressing issue is that of slavery, that is the only substantial dispute between the States. One half of the nation is against it, the other half believe it is right and want to extend their right to keep slaves.

The provisions in the Constitution involving slavery, the fugitive-slave clause and the suppression of the foreign slave trade are well enforced and in some ways work to please both sides of the dispute (673). This is not an issue that can be easily solved but the separation of the Union will make things much worse off than they were before. The foreign slave trade would be revived, angering the anti-slave states, and those states would ultimately refuse to return slaves who escape (673). Lincoln believes that the fate of the Union lies in the hands of his fellow-countrymen.

The issue of civil war is prevalent and will be the greatest consequence of secession. He assures his citizens that the government will not be the assailant and there will be no conflict unless they are the aggressors. Lincoln makes it very clear in his address how important he believes the unity of the nation is. No problems will be solved by separating and he wants the citizens of his nation to know where he stands on the issue. It was known that Abraham Lincoln supported the Northern, anti-slave states but in this Address he focuses on trying to persuade them that secession is not the answer, and ttempts to do so without further alienating them.

Any president beginning their first term wants to clearly state his position on the most pressing issues at the time of their election, and how he plans to tackle them. Although, Lincoln does not specifically list the ways in which he plans to reunite his nation he does warn them of the eventual consequences if the problem is not addresses and solved. Lincoln knew what was to come if the two sides could not reach an agreement, and he was right.

Analysis of Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address Essay

New Jersey v TLO Essay

New Jersey v TLO Essay.

New Jersey v. T. L. O. , (1985) is the case that impacted me the most. It is a decision by the US Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of a search of a public high school student after she was caught smoking. A search of her purse revealed drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and documentation of drug sales. She was charged as a juvenile for the drugs and paraphernalia found in the search. She went against the search, claiming it violated her 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches.

The U. S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, said that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

This case established limitations on our 4th amendment right under school property. The majority opinion should be right one because in order to maintain every single student safe on school grounds, school officials need to be able to search anything on the school property without a warrant. In fact this case established “probable cause” which is when something is a “maybe” or “might be” and it is not necessarily written as a document.

This is very different from real life because a police officer can only search where and when the warrant says to and only if he has one and any evidence found through an illegal search cannot be used.

Since then, everything has change the way of doing things around school and people are now safer because less people start bringing this kind of inappropriate or illegal material especially if they know that someone might search their locker or backpack and get them in a lot of trouble. Another reason is that it happened in a school environment not too long ago and it gives some students something to reflect on as if they had to worry about their school safety. At last, this case had a huge impact on all students that go to school currently.

New Jersey v TLO Essay

The United States Constitution; “A Living Document?” Essay

The United States Constitution; “A Living Document?” Essay.

The Constitution of the United States stands as a guarantor of liberties and a set of laws that limit the scope and power of our federal government, not a “living document” which is by definition fluid, ever changing and a guarantor of nothing. Our laws and the Constitution as well are changeable. This is a certainty with the change processes being built in word for word and step by step. The will to “interpret” rather than change them, (which requires actual work to make happen) some would argue borders on being defined as traitorous.

Officials are elected to preserve this Constitution not weaken, devalue or re-define it. Their oaths once sworn demand it, law and the population should do the same and not offer passion or forgiveness when not honored. Calling the Constitution a living document, by definition is far too variable of a term to be used when describing what is actually the solid base upon which our republic is built.

The Preamble to the Constitution its self, expresses in very plain fashion the strength of thought, the solemnity and the rigidity of the original document. The founding fathers of this Nation did not offer it for interpretation; they offered it as a framing document and an irrevocable base to build upon, not tear down. The Preamble to the Constitution reads; “…and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (Morris, Gouverneur and James Madison eds. Web).

Alone, this statement denies all argument that the document is anything short of constant, and meant to guarantee its wording to citizens for perpetuity, not open its application or meaning for variance. Being a document of definition and one meant to hold fast for the length of time our nation is in existence. The use of limitations against it, as well as the interpretation of any statement within it becomes null and void at best. Using a term like “living document” to describe the U.S. Constitution is a shaded attempt at making what is law more “interpretive”, weakening its standards and violating personal freedoms and privileges held by citizens while expanding the powers our government holds.

The term law in and of its self brings to mind a fixed set of rules and penalties, that once set down is required to be applied evenly across the board. This would not be something open for application at varying degrees according to situation or individual citizens, nor to various interpretations by circumstances and the like. Benjamin Franklin saw that over time, our Constitution and laws therein, “with all its faults” could be disabled and even dismantled by interpretation and circumvention. Franklin, when talking about the Constitution said it is, “…likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government…” (Bailyn, eds. 3).

The point being made here is that interpretation, and not equal application of law would over time allow despots to define, and re-define what the intent of a law was, without going through the actual steps to change said law. This way of approach would only weaken the Constitution over time, make a population more dependent upon the governing body and at end leave that population in servitude in one form or another. By nearly any standard the governing body that would allow this to happen would be held up as an example of treason in the eyes of the framers and even men of republics that have existed previously to it as well. Rome was possibly the most famous working example of a republic previously. Cicero, being one of its greatest voices and thinkers offered this in a speech when discussing laws being redefined by circumstance and laws being created by “decree” at the time, similar to modern day “Executive Orders”;

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through…all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 – 43 B.C.)

As many know, the Roman republic fell prey to internal issues and political intrigues that later made it an Imperial entity with a Senate and political system which were more window dressing than operational controls or power holding entities. Cicero foresaw the effects of many changes and warned of them to never allow these.

The Constitution is our most conservative legal document, and the Bill of Rights stands as its more moderate partner. It is extremely limiting in granting powers to the federal branches of government and was written this way for a reason. The founders did not wish for an expansive federal over reach into citizens’ lives, homes, religions and liberties. James Madison, (our fourth President and a strident anti-federalist) referred to the powers delegated to the federal government “few and defined” and those of the states “numerous and indefinite” (McClanahan 79). Some historians argue this man to be “The Father of the Constitution”.

By every standard his opinion and judgment should stand in honored reverence. Madison saw the Constitution as a conservative limitation to federal powers fully explained and unchangeable without a specific amendment made in the form and by the methods defined within the document. To open, pass through legislature, or enforce laws through simple interpretation of wording contained therein would have been something Madison would have found as reprehensible if not specifically illegal.

By having change procedures built into the Constitution and their being disregarded or at minimum side stepped at points, all legislation based there on is un-constitutional simply by its existence and also therefore illegal: The Commerce Clause of the Constitution was placed there to avoid a “Balkanizing” of the nation by granting Congress the power to prevent states from enacting trade barriers and placing the federal government in charge of currency as well as international trade regulation. James Madison expected the law to remain and be permanent due to the fact that the Constitution was written as it was. In January of 1788 he wrote; “”Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” (Hamilton, Madison, Jay 192). The country functioned in that way up until 1938 in actuality. The New Deal era of the Roosevelt administration changed this, but only by use of the “living document” argument and Jurist appointments which made it possible. Can you imagine big business lobbying the federal government to pass laws that force citizens to buy their products? Though this may seem impossible as well as illegal constitutionally, it is currently taking place unfortunately. Simply opening a newspaper recently would produce a flood of examples here. Since the year 1988 in particular, Executive Orders and laws with attached legislation have done more damage than all other pieces of legislation and orders combined during the entire 200 years previous.

The growth of our government has bloated our debt, brought our government into our homes and forced dependency upon the people. These were not aims or goals of the Constitution even with change being placed in as an option for future generations. Freedoms and personal liberties, once guaranteed have been eroded over time by side stepping of the Amendment process that is legally necessary.

Amendments; 2, 4, 9, 10 and others have fallen victim to outside legislation or executive orders either weakening or at points even disregarding them over time .Judicial activists and the use of the “living document” argument have permitted this by interpretation, and by sheer arrogance in the face of actual law. An example recently would be the arguments on the trials and holding of foreign nationals at the military base located beside Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The Constitution does not apply to anyone that is not a citizen of the United States, nor would it apply outside of U.S. territories or override military codes of justice when dealing with foreign fighters of any kind. Recent arguments have included writings on different decisions to enable further interpretation for use against this fact like this one; “Chief Justice Warren E. Burger observed in 1980, on the importance of the Constitution’s protection of public access to the courts: “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.” (Schulz Web).

This comes from an argument being offered currently that any or all proceedings in Cuba’s U.S. occupied military facility should be open to public view. The Constitution does not however protect or hold power outside U.S. borders for these prisoners, nor does it apply to these foreign nationals in any real or tangible ways. Military codes of justice, treaties with other nations and rules of war may hold bearing at points, but not our framing documents. Again we go to the interpretations of a document and the tearing at its value in attempting to apply it outside of its parameters. One of the greatest things about being a citizen of the United States is that it does apply and protect its people. The reality is also that if you are not a citizen, it does not and should not apply. Only by the interpretation and side stepping of true legality can personas non gratis claim rights, liberties and privileges provided by our founders and paid for with American blood, treasure, intellect and faith.

The Constitution of the United States is law and to use a term like “living document” to describe it simply reduces its strength. Interpretation and redefinition at every opportunity only blurs its meaning, its true value and its individual grace which makes the United States shine as a beacon of liberty and truth to the world at large. Conservative is what the Constitution is, solid and a guarantor of liberty. “conservatives have largely coalesced around the school of thought known as originalism, which says that the Constitution should be read according to its original public meaning, “progressives have floundered both in developing any sort of consensus as to what they want from the courts and in describing their expectations to the public at large.” (Root Web).

The United States should set example and help others to emulate its poise, not make interpretations that only leave populations guessing what the progressive left will limit by order, legislate from outside avenue or simply limit with or without Constitutional support in the nation. This the antithesis of setting a standard for the world in defending liberties and personal freedom, as is forcing its interpretations or values off U.S. shores. Only a nation of strength with rule of law and a base in faith, will and industriousness can impress and lead the world. This cannot be done with an ever changing, variable application set of laws without predictable structure and effect over time. There must be a solid base, and this was granted to these United States in the form of the Constitution in 1787.

The United States Constitution; “A Living Document?” Essay

L’oreal and the Globalization of American Beauty Essay

L’oreal and the Globalization of American Beauty Essay.

How did L’Oreal become the world’s largest beauty company? What was the role of acquisitions in the growth? The global strategy of Loreal started first from European countries like Austria, Italy, and the Holland providing hare care and hair color products. After the launch in the USA, they decided to expand their market share by mainly M&A of many similar but way smaller companies. With proper acquisition strategy over the years, they finally became the largest company in beauty industry.

L’Oreal offers consumers worldwide “American” and “French” concepts of beauty. Are there any limits to the national beauty images it can globalize? There may be some limits for Lorear to go more ‘worldwide’ even if they have huge branches and offices over the world. I think it may be related with ‘racial issues’. The society for ‘minority’ is changing faster than ever before, but still, the ‘majority’ of American and European countries are white but Asian, African American, and Hispanic.

Thus, if they really care about optimal ‘globalization’ in all ways, they should probably consider making their diversified strategy in other markets (minorities).

What are the global opportunities for Kiehl’s? What are the limits, if any? Even though Kiehl’s were taken over by Loreal through M&A, their products are not easily found at many stores, unlike there are so many producsts of Lorean in any store. And this is mainly because their products line are simply expensive targeting luxury market, so I think if they really want to go ‘global’ they should find proper way to make their products easily available to the customers through mega-stores like walmart, or target.

L’oreal and the Globalization of American Beauty Essay

North vs South Essay

North vs South Essay.

The United States before the civil war was basically split into two regions, the North and the South. These two regions had very different cultures, economics, and climates which led to different life styles and perspectives. Problems caused by the differences between the North and the South eventually led the nation into a great civil war- the bloodiest war in American history. The North and South had diverse climates and natural features. The North had mainly rocky and infertile lands with humid summers and snowy winters, so farming was difficult.

Fast moving rivers and waterfalls were common in the North because of the many mountains.

As a result, Northerners started to use waterpower to run factories. Meanwhile, in the South, the weather was usually hot and sunny, with lots of rainfall, making the growing seasons longer. The South’s lands were flatter than the North’s, making it a more ideal place for farming. The Northern and Southern population was very different.

The Northern population between the years 1800 and 1860 increased massively. Because of the large amounts of immigrates from Europe, the North’s population increased from five million to thirty-one million. The South’s population, on the other hand, was made up mostly of enslaved Africans.

By 1860, one third, out of twelve million people in the South, was slaves. The surroundings in the North and South led its citizens to live in contrasting places. In the North, the crowded and dirty cities along the Atlantic coast served as centers of trade and drew laborers to work in towns. When streets were improved and police forces were created, cities became the center of art, culture, and education. In the South, however, their economy was based on agriculture. As a result, towns were developed slower and trading centers were rarer than in the North.

Because of the climates and geography in these two regions, they developed different economies. Economy in the North was based on many different industries such as shipping, textile, and mining. Because of coal and waterpower, manufacturing in the North developed quickly. Unlike the North’s, the South’s economy was based on agriculture. Crops such as cotton and tobacco made huge profits. Southern farmers had to use large amounts of slave labor for their plantations, so slavery was necessary to the prosperity of the Southern economy. Northerners and Southerners developed individual cultures.

Cities had an important role in determining the North’s culture. New businesses brought new ideas to the North. The Northern emphasis on public education led to many schools and churches. The life in the South was really different than the North’s. The South’s agricultural system was controlled by wealthy planters who lived like the country gentlemen of England. The South had few schools or churches. Rich planters would usually hire private tutors to teach their children until they were sent to private schools. One of the few similarities of the North and South are that they both have thousands of roads, steamships, and canals.

In 1850, thirty thousand miles of tracks connected far-away parts of the United States. By 1860, there were over eighty-eight thousand miles of surface roads in the North and South combined. The biggest difference between the North and the South is that the South had slavery, while the North did not. Eventually, the issue of slavery and the other differences of these two regions led to the American Civil War, which lasted for four years. However, after the civil war, the North and South, like a family, unite together and became one of the most powerful nations in the world.

North vs South Essay

United States History Essay

United States History Essay.

1. When World War I broke out, the United States declared its policy of neutrality. To what extent did the United States follow a policy of neutrality between 1914 and 1917? On April 6 of 1917 America officially entered WWI as an ally power after much vouching of their neutrality. Up to that point many government officials preached to America the great strategy of neutrality especially the president of the time Wilson.

At the beginning of WWI in 1914 America did stick to practiced isolationists point of view but as the war progressed and German aggression increased the American extent of neutrality decreased leading to their eventual entrance into the war.

Germany blamed much of Britain’s goings on the United States, and the United States tolerated these ‘retaliations’ for a while but eventually they had to pick a side and the growing tensions between themselves and Germany made it quite an easy decision.

When war broke out about Europe on the 28th of July in 1914, Wilson made sure the nation new his stance.

1 days after war was declared he gave a message to Congress (Document A) stating that he favored neutrality as a strategy and everyman loving America would as well. He supported this because many citizens of the United States had heritage leading to a side of the war and America entering the war would splinter America. Wilson was correct in his assumption that most Americans did not want to enter the war at that time. The American people to that point had tried to stick with an isolationist’s attitude. Though the people wanted neutrality there were still some debates about how America was going about it.

Document B displays a common thought during this time that while America claimed neutrality they actually favored the Allied powers. Munsterburg who wrote this letter was an extremely well educated man but he did not acknowledge in his letter the effect the blockade had America’s claimed neutrality. In the beginning of the war, the strong British navy ensured less readily available supplies for the British by cutting off trade with a blockade. This effectively made it impossible to trade with Germany as Document C reinforces when reflecting on the war.

The British navy was one of the strongest in the world for America to go against them would be suicide and they also depended much more on Britain for trade and economic reasons than Germany. Which meant America was to stick to their neutrality and do nothing. They continued trading to the countries they were able to and left alone the countries they could not. In the letter of secretary of state William Bryan to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations (Document D) he implies that the U. S. is still neutral. He then goes on to explain what a tight place the U.

S. is in. He addresses many of the points made in Document B and articulates why the U. S. has made some of the decisions it has and gives very convincing argument that the U. S. has had neutrality as its motivation the whole time. Germany was most likely irritated with the United States passive manner and upset that they did not come to German rescue when they still openly traded with they’re enemies and then claiming neutrality.

In their eyes America’s standoffish attitude most likely justified they’re actions towards the U. S. ut to the United States nothing could justify the German aggression they were going to receive as the war progressed. By 1915, the true grittiness of the war had been reached. Germany sent out a mass warning to the people in the United States about transatlantic journeys in the New York Times (Document E). They bluntly sated they’re aggression to anybody in the warzones and this message was intended for the American people. It basically implied that even if it was an American ship trading with Britain, Germany would be aggressive.

This of course made sense as a war strategy because they can’t have an endless amount of supplies flooding in to Britain when they are getting so little but for the U. S. they had to trade with Britain because it played an important role in the economic stability. In 1915, Germany sunk the Lusitania an American ship killing passengers. The American people were outraged for a time until they found out the Lusitania was actually giving ammunition to Britain (Document F). Though this soothed the citizens anger a bit they’re blood still boiled underneath. They did not believe it was far for Germany to treat them so ostilely. After all they were just trying to keep they’re economy afloat and seeing as it was impossible to trade with Germany they traded with Britain.

To this point the United States was still not in the war. However, after two other major events involving German aggression the United States attitude would change completely about neutrality during WWI. One of these events was Germany declaring unrestricted submarine warfare February 1, 1917. After, the Sussex and Lusitania incidents with Germany already under their belts America felt this was a direct threat pushing even further away from their faith in neutrality.

However, the straw that broke the camel’s back on the U. S. neutrality policy was the Zimmerman telegram (Document H). This is a controversial piece of history but it did sway people’s opinion. This telegram was supposedly intercepted by the British and it showed evidence of Germany persuading Mexico to join them and promising them land in the United States pitting Mexico against its then neutral neighbors. This was on March 24, 1917 and on April 6, 1917 the United States entered the war as an Allied power.

The people now had a very different view on neutrality as can be inferred by the political carton (Document I) they saw Germany as a threat to the world and they wanted to do something about it. With the United States entering the war in 1917 it ultimately ended any extent of neutrality it once had shifting the traditional thought of isolationism to nationalism in the United States. This was not for a lack of trying though, the U. S. did try to stay true to their beliefs but German aggression made it almost impossible. Thus a transformation happened.

Documents A and B were grouped together in the second paragraph because they helped demonstrate the point that the United States tried to stay neutral at the beginning of this time frame and some people did question America’s neutrality as time passed. In paragraph three, document C and D are grouped together because it showed that while some doubted the United States neutrality the United States held steady to it even when the British made it difficult to trade. The fourth paragraph serves as to explain the turn in America’s views. Documents E, F, H, and I are used to exemplify German provocation of the United States through aggression.

United States History Essay

Amusement park dangers Essay

Amusement park dangers Essay.

How many people have to die, or sustain serious injury from amusement park rides before the federal government steps in and regulates the amusement park industry? Rosy Esparza’s family had every right to believe that she would return from the Texas Giant roller coaster without harm or injury. However, Esparza fell to her death on the Texas Giant roller coaster at Six Flags Over Texas. Incidents like this are sadly becoming a more common event in the United States at amusement and waterparks.

In fact, the number of fatalities per passenger mile on roller coasters is greater than the amount of tragedies on passenger trains, passenger buses, or passenger planes. These tragedies often occur because the rides are not independently inspected, inspections are not done frequently enough, accidents are not made public and the accidents are investigated by the parks. The federal government needs to create national safety standards for all rides at amusement parks, so that every amusement park patron can enjoy the park as it is intended without fear of injury or death.

Less than three months after the death of Esparza the Texas Giant has been re-opened , and back in full operation. The roller coaster underwent extensive testing, and received approval from the Texas Department of Insurance to resume operations, however the findings of the testing are not available to the public due to ongoing litigation. Even though Texas Six Flags has claimed no fault for the Esparza accident; the park has added incremental and overlapping safety features. These safety features include redesigned restraint-bar pads and new seat belts.

So the question is, are the department of insurance officials, who inspected this ride in the past, sufficient enough to make sure these rides are safe for future riders? Amusement park rides should be inspected by an independent third party, which has no financial interest in the amusement park. Having the insurance company inspect the rides is not sufficient; all rides should be investigated by inspectors with the mechanical aptitude to know if the ride is in proper working condition.

The United States has trained safety inspectors for baby strollers, bikes, and motorized ride-on toys; shouldn’t rides that travel up to heights of 456 feet and at 128 miles per hour have safety inspectors also? Currently there are no federal regulations on amusement park rides, so there are no reliable national statistics of injuries on amusement park rides. Each state has its own regulations for amusement parks; some states do not have any regulations of amusement park rides. Many states do not have an inspection force and rely on insurance investigators to inspect and or approve these rides.

However, most states do require the rides be inspected annually, but these regulations are not enforced. According to state records more than half of Pennsylvania’s permanent amusement parks and water parks did not turn in all of their required inspections. In fact, the state agency had no reports at all for 12 of the 117 state amusement and water parks. Following the death of a child on a roller coaster ride at Disney’s MGM studios in Orlando, Florida, lawmakers began the process of trying to pass the National Amusement Park Ride Safety Act.

This act was introduced by Congressman Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, in 2005. The act calls for fixed-site park rides to fall under the regulation act of the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The commission currently only oversees traveling carnival rides, because fixed-site theme park rides are exempt from federal oversight. Even though the fixed-site rides are rode more frequently than traveling carnival rides they are subject to less regulations. Many of these rides are operated hundreds of times a day, seven days per week but only inspected once during the year.

There needs to be a regulation that all rides are to be inspected a minimum of quarterly to find any mechanical issues that may pose a danger to riders. Because some of these rides travel in excess of 100 miles per hour they should face similar safety standards as automobiles which do not travel at such a high rates of speed. Another issue with the absence of federal regulations among amusement park rides is that, when an accident or mechanical failure occurs, the parks are the ones conducting the investigation and the findings of the investigation are not made public.

Also, if there is no media attention about the accident or mechanical failure, the accident is unknown to the public. The federal government should create a database for all amusement parks that includes all of the rides for each. The database should include all mechanical failures of all rides in the past 12 months, any accidents in the past 12 months and the last four quarterly inspections for the ride. That way, amusement park patrons can make informed decisions whether to go to certain amusement parks and ride particular rides.

Amusement-park patrons should have the right to know the history of the park and all rides, prior to riding them. With all of the things that have federal regulations, it is hard to believe that amusement park rides do not have federal inspections and regulations. In an effort to ensure these rides are safe for the public to ride and enjoy, the federal government needs to establish national safety standards for all riders at amusement parks. If national safety standards and inspections can save the life of one person, aren’t they worth creating? Works Cited Moser, Jeff.

“Family sues over Texas Giant death on the same day Six Flags says it will reopen ride. ” The Dallas Morning News September 10, 2013: Newspaper Source. Web. 31 Oct. 2013 Pataro, Luca. “Scary rides, scary risks: more than 300 million people visit U. S. amusement facilities and safely enjoy 1. 8 billion rides each year. But for a small number of thrill-seekers, good times can become a matter of life and death. ” Risk Management. Aug. 2007: 50+. Biography In Context. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. Watson, Stephen T. “Recent tragedies strap in safety as peak concern. ” Buffalo News, The (NY) 23 Aug. 2011: Newspaper Source. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.

Amusement park dangers Essay

History of Badminton Essay

History of Badminton Essay.

Badminton is one of the most enjoyable racket games that can be played by males and females or any age or skill level. The games can be played by single or doubles. Badminton is played over the net using a shuttlecock and a racket. The shuttlecock is being struck before it lands on your court, back to the opponent’s court. You need quick reflex and a physically fit body in order to cope with the game.

HISTORY OF BADMINTON

Badminton first originated in India centuries ago where it was known as Poona.

The British army officers were very much fascinated by the game, and so they introduced in England sometime between 1870 and 1880. Badminton was invented in the 1860s by the daughters of the Duke of Beaufort, who entertained themselves with a version of the children’s game known as battledore and shuttlecock. The game they derived for themselves soon became for the house in the which they played it, the duke’s Badminton House in Gloustershire, England.

Before long, badminton societies and clubs were sprouting throughout England. In 1893, the first Badminton Association was formed. Six years later, the All-England Badminton Championship was played. Eventually, the sport igrated to continental Europe.

From there it reached India via British military officers and Indonesia by way of Dutch colonists. The far-flung expansion necessitated the formation of the International Badminton Federation (IBF) in 1934. The International Badminton Federation (IBF) is the governing body for international events. In the Philippines, the Badminton Association of the Philippines (BAP) governs the game. It is responsible for the promotion and he development of the game in the country. The BAP is also te body that provides Filipino players competing in international competitions representing the country. The Association is also conducting or sponsoring seminars and clinic to those who are aspiring to become players, coaches, referees and umpires. In playing badminton, it is very necessary to learn the different terms used in order to understand the game.

DEFINITION OF TERMS:

Player- any person playing badminton

Match- the game proper between two opposing sides on a 2 out of 3 games or 3 out of 5 games. Singles- a match where there is only one player on each of the opposing sides. Doubles- a match where there is only one player on each of the opposing sides. Serving side- the side having the right to serve

Receiving side- the side opposite the serving side

Rally- a sequence of one or more strokes starting with the service, until the shuttle ceases to be in play.

History of Badminton Essay

The Compassion Gap in American Poverty Policy Essay

The Compassion Gap in American Poverty Policy Essay.

I believe that the authors of this article mean by “dream divide” is that the distribution of income and wealth in the United States have become more unequal, which make those living in poverty have an even smaller chance of reaching their American Dream. There are many reasons why the poor people have such a hard time getting out of this situation.

The first reason is the “Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) focus on moving people from “welfare to work” has led to a major decline in the numbers of households receiving benefits and a huge drop in fund assistance to the poor.

The second reason is that the TANF program reaches too few people among those that are eligible for the program. This make the poor have even further chance of reaching their American Dream.

The third reason is the price increase in housing, high quality child care, higher education, and health insurance. The poor will most likely not able to afford to have these services because of the shortage of the money.

The fourth reason is that the subsidized housing is given to 25 percent of those who need it and the current budget proposal would cut a lot of funding for this program. As a result, more poor people will have no place to live because of the effect of the budget cut.

The fifth reason is that many of the households did not receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), due to the fact that they don’t have a person in their households that are able to earn several thousands of dollars per year. The factors that can cause this are: lack of child care, unemployment, illness, and an improper between job demands and available skills. The last reason is that the minimum wage doesn’t increase with the rise of the inflation. The poor will have a hard time to find the sufficient income to pay bills because they do not have enough money to pay them.

The Compassion Gap in American Poverty Policy Essay