Citizenship

?NANA YAA DWUMAAH ENG 102 B PROPOSAL What Is The Immigrants American Dream? If one is asked the future of this country, it is going to be a long debate and an unending talk about the failures and achievements of America. This is because different people see the same subject in different light. The phrase “American Dream” has made thousands of people leave their native country boldly in search of all that they deem impossible in their country to be possible here. This is why when asked, what the future of this country holds for its people, it will leave the people divided.

Dr. Martin Luther King best defines the American dream when he exquisitely explains the Declaration of Independence. He highlights the fact that the American dream is not for a specific race or religion and that all its benefits, that is a right to life and right to liberty includes all mankind. These majestic words within which lies the American dream is what people everywhere search for in their country. They thirst for this dream, making the American dream a dream for all mankind and not only its natives.

This is why America is country of people from so many racial and national backgrounds in search of a dream. Whereas Americans do not see how far this country has come, it takes only the immigrants to have them truly value their country. Being an American, yet growing up in Africa makes this issue very interesting since I can relate to both sides. The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence which states that “all men are created equal”.

This statement is also backed by James Truslow Adams interpretation of the American Dream which states that, citizens of every rank should be able to achieve a “better, richer, and happier life. ” Hence there are no exceptions to who can and cannot pursue the American dream. In the American dream, Dr. Martin Luther King states, “Never before in history of the world have so many national backgrounds assembled together in one nation. And somehow if we can’t solve the problem in America the world can’t solve the problem, because America is the world in miniature and the world is America writ large.

And God set us out with all of the opportunities. ” He then further states, “Are we taking this seriously? ‘All men are created equal. ’” (Juchartz 105). This is what I also question. This dream, I feel has been misinterpreted by immigrants, or better still immigrants have been lured at the forefront to hold on to this dream because it states “All men are created equal,” and perceive themselves as equal citizens of America. In reality, there are so many barriers rooted in the American system including racism, strict immigration laws that have prevented immigrants from sharing in this dream.

It should be taken into account that if an individual is not a citizen he or she cannot benefit from what the country has to offer. Though the dream includes all men, race and religion, immigrants or the person outside the white American mainstream are perceived as threats to empire building and remain outsiders. This is what I mean when I retort that, the dream has been misinterpreted across various levels of people in America. I believe that the upper class and the lower class do not have the same benefits from this dream, but have similar notions of what it should be, equality for everyone.

Even though some immigrants might have managed to make a better life out of this dream some immigrants living in this country can barely make ends meet just because the American dream no longer provide a hope for a better, richer and happier life. In today terms it is just about living in a western country and experiencing perhaps modernity. It beats my imagination when I think about the forces that drive immigrants to leave their native country in search of this dream sometimes risking their lives, leaving loved ones behind irrespective of the difficulties ahead. Maybe it is just to pursue a better education like myself or to earn money.

This part of the essay will focus on why citizenship has become such a significant political issue in the UK. It will highlight what citizenship Is, who gets the citizenship and what the problems are that are affecting the country. Citizenship Is about being actively Involved In society; It Is a clear concept concerning migration and legal status which Is formed of having the rights to stay In the country, rights to enter freely and rights to welfare and education.

Citizenship has become a significant political issue in the UK because of the mass majority of people who grant here from their countries in order to build a life in the I-J. The country is getting over populated with immigrants and eastern European people, these individuals are coming to the country and are taking on work which pays less than the minimum wage which can at times deprive citizens getting Jobs.

Doing the life In the UK test to qualify for citizenship has proven to be insignificant due to the Inconsistency of the questions one ought to study: The report Is endorsed by the Revered. Lord Roberts, the Vice-Chalk of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration quote ‘examining the test and Its role In British Immigration policy. My report concluded that the test Is impractical;’ published the first independent and comprehensive report examining the test and its role in British immigration policy.

My report concluded that the test is impractical, inconsistent and contains serious gender imbalance rendering it unfit for purpose’ (migrants rights). Furthermore less than the majority even knows how to fluently speak English which invalidates how or what the questions on the SOL version of the life in the UK test teaches, although the government introduced these test to enforce migrants to participate in society it isn’t worked well, these people are studying for the test in order to pass and benefit from what the country has to offer to those who are British citizens.

Although the government has been reinforcing new rules and regulation that makes It hard for immigrants to obtain visas and are tougher on Asylum seekers now days, the country Is still growing In migrants who either come and do labor work for low wages which impacts on those skilled workers getting good paid work and those migrants have no sense of dependency, they come to the UK expecting a better life for no hard work NY type of work at all, this is where the political problem occurs. Citizenship By Loretta political issue in the I-J.

It will highlight what citizenship is, who gets the citizenship Citizenship is about being actively involved in society; it is a clear concept concerning migration and legal status which is formed of having the rights to stay in the country, significant political issue in the I-J because of the mass majority of people who Doing the life in the UK test to qualify for citizenship has proven to be insignificant due to the inconsistency of the questions one ought to study: The report is endorsed y the Revered.

Lord Roberts, the Vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration quote ‘examining the test and its role in British immigration policy. My report concluded that the test is impractical;’ published the first independent and what the questions on the SOL version of the life in the I-J test teaches, although government has been reinforcing new rules and regulation that makes it hard for is still growing in migrants who either come and do labor work for low wages which sense of dependency, they come to the I-J expecting a better life for no hard work.

American Government Balance the Budget When it came to the budget simulator I went in there with a general idea of what I wanted to do, and the results were surprising. I was able to cut the deficit by $256 billion leaving a deficit of only $144 billion. I was not able to completely balance the budget which is disappointing but I made a significant difference. It was very difficult to make a balanced budget which I felt was fair but I’m sure many people would feel my cuts and increases were unfair or unwarranted.

My biggest area for budget cuts was that of military spending, although it still makes up a large portion of the budget. I cut $208 billion from the military spending mainly because if we were to pull out from the war it would largely lower our deficit. I left the spending for military personnel unchanged because I do not deny that the military is necessary, I do however, doubt that we need all the research at the time simply because the war being fought was no relevant to us and we shouldn’t have been involved. Which brings me to the $80 billion cut from the Iraq and Afghanistan operations.

I cut $105 billion from our military operations there and severely debated eliminating it completely, but we do need funding in order to bring our troops home. I eliminated our reconstruction aid there simply because with our country in such a huge problem area we need to focus on fixing our country first. On the topic of military personnel I chose to actually increase the spending towards military retirement simply because they have done a lot for our country and we need to show them support for all they have done.

In retrospect I nearly eliminated the budget for foreign affairs, due to the fact that we have our own problems to fix. I completely eliminated the international development and humanitarian assistance, and international military aid budgets. My reasoning behind this is that our development is hurt in terms of economy and yes it is bad that the other countries aren’t as privileged as us but when more money is going into their development than fixing our country it is a serious problem.

I won’t go into detail about every field but the last field I want to outline my reasoning behind for cutting spending in is the tax breaks for large corporations and the benefits for the richest 20% of the taxpayers. My main reason for doing this is because we need to stop placating the “rich” in our country and stop giving them so many ways to continually make obscene amounts of money which many of them will spend on frivolous things and very few give to charity. Giving the rich many tax write- offs and benefits did nothing but hurt this country.

This is why I actually increased the benefits given to the bottom 60% of taxpayers by 20%. I cut all corporate tax breaks by 20% simply because the corporations are just as much at fault as the rich for hoarding the money and not returning their wealth. Moving on to the areas where I did actually increase the budget one of the bigger increases and also one of the most important was in the education department; Increasing elementary, secondary, and vocational education budget by 50% and higher education by 20%.

The education department has taken severe budget cuts and it is having an adverse effect on our students who will one day bring out a leader to run this country. I would rather not elect a poorly educated person as president thus our system needs as much budget as can be spared. Another area which received a large amount of an increase was Medicare and Non-Medicare health benefits because I personally know how much trouble this industry is in. Having a pre-existing condition and a severe one at that I know how difficult it is to get health insurance and the aid which comes with it can be less than stellar.

Hopefully this increase would help promote better health in the citizens of the country. Playing off the medical benefits I also increased the aid to low income families because they are a large backbone to the society. With how the economy is you have families working three jobs and still struggling to make ends meet. This is very unhealthy and actually leads to more cost needed for medical benefits because when people get sick they have to go to the hospital. It was my hope that increasing both budgets would actually balance ut. The final increase I wish to cover is also slightly more of a controversial one and it may not be a modest increase but it is still important. I increased the border security and immigration budget by 50% in hopes that it would help lower the rate of illegal immigrants coming into the country and not becoming citizens. While at first it may be viewed as a heartless thought the truth is that while we allow the immigrants who come to the country and don’t get citizenship to stay we increase our own expenses.

By not being citizens they themselves do not actually pay federal taxes, especially if they work under the table. However, despite not being citizens they are still eligible for our low income aid, and medical benefit programs and this is actually taking away from the citizens and taxpayers who need it. There is also the unspoken fact that without a large amount of illegal immigrants who don’t speak English we could actually cut the spending for production of many products in Spanish and other languages since those who require them wouldn’t be living in the country.

While balancing the budget it occurred to me why congress would have so many problems balancing the actual budget; it is difficult to keep everyone happy while maintaining a balanced budget. My cuts were largely from the foreign affairs, the rich and corporate America. The problem is those areas in this current day and age hold a lot of influence and it runs the risk of making a whole lot of people very angry. Congress has to try its’ hardest to create a balanced budget while remaining as politically correct as it possibly can.

In short balancing this budget wasn’t as hard on me as it could have been simply because I have thought about this exact topic for a long time. While my budget may not be the most politically correct budget and it may not be completely balanced it did get results, and very significant ones at that. There were probably areas which I could have not increased the budget for or areas which could have been cut a little less but I feel strongly about my decisions and I would stand by them if ever they were questioned.

Comparative Essay The massively extensive classical empires of Imperial Rome (31BCE-476CE) and Han China (206BCE-220CE) were extremely influential when it came to the world around them. In essence, the two empires were virtually the same in terms of political structure and military protocols, yet greatly different in the area of religious tolerance. Both Han China and Imperial Rome had a political system structure consisting of a sovereign emperor who made executive, almost dictator-like, decisions and directed the affairs of the empire.

However, in both empires, emperors relied on regional governors to regulated affairs in their respective regions due to the fact that both empires were so massive and consisted of an enormous population. These leaders would also collect a tax that was imposed on free peasants of the empire. In both empires, the emperor was seen as a god-like figure, for example the Mandate of Heaven in Han China was used to persuade the citizens that the emperor was a direct link to the gods.

Both Han China and Imperial Rome used religion as a helper in political culture. Confucianism was enforced by the government and promoted obedience, loyalty, and reverence to one’s social superiors. In Rome, Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in 312CE, and used the church as a sort of guidance/advisor. Both civilizations established a type of “civil service” based on educated members of the middle class. As far as military protocols go, both militaries worked extensively on projects for the empire such as roads to expedite troop movement.

Late in the histories of both empires, foreign soldiers were enlisted in the military due to a drop in population of plagues hit the society. The Roman’s enlisted the help of the Germanic tribes while the Hans enlisted the help of the Mongols. These “mercenary” soldiers lacked greatly in motivation and pride. Both civilizations enlisted the help of soldiers of the people who were invading them. The military prowess of both civilizations was used to hold and maintain peace once expansion was accomplished.

While both civilizations consisted of one sovereign emperor, the methods in which emperors imposed their authorities differed between each. In Rome, the emperors resorted to threats and promises, where as in Han China, the emperors relied mostly on the Mandate of Heaven institution and tributes/gifts from the citizens. Both rulers had a slightly different role as well. The Emperor of China was judge, jury, and executioner, whereas the Emperor of Rome could not act without the senate’s approval.

With military expedition and empire expansion, the methods were quite different. When the Romans conquered a new region, they would enforce soldiers in that region until the tax was collected. After the tax was paid, the Romans allowed the conquered peoples to keep their cultural ways. This also applied to religion. Conquered peoples could remain with their religion as long as they followed the system. In fact, in 212CE, Rome offered citizenship to conquered peoples in exchange for adopting Roman culture.

This offer was extended to all free people of the conquered region, and citizenship for them meant they had the right to hold office, serve in legions, and others. However, becoming a citizen did not erase their other identities like religious views. Rome also collected many foreign religions, making the entire empire a college of religious views. Unlike Rome, Han China forced Confucian beliefs upon their conquered areas. When the Han invaded and conquered Korea and Vietnam, they established a Chinese-style rule upon the people and forced Confucian beliefs upon them.

Han did not collect foreign religions with the exception of Buddhism. Han China and Imperial Roman political structure, military protocols, and religious tolerance share various similarities in political structure and military protocols, and are more different in the area of religious tolerance. While both political structures involved a sovereign emperor who used regional leaders as a way to extend his control to the outskirts of the empire, they differed in the ways the emperor imposed his authority.

With military protocols, both militaries were involved in the construction of roads that expanded all over the empire. However, the militaries differed in how they treated their conquered peoples with religion and culture. Both empires had some form of religious tolerance. Han Chinese citizens were allowed to practice Buddhism while the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. However, Romans had more tolerance for foreign religions in the empire than Han China did.

Public space provides the grounds for cities to be seen and experienced. Whether it is a square, a market, or a park, public space in cities has been noted as the place where ideas are exchanged, city identity is built and citizenship is learned (Carr et al. , 1992; Low, 2000; Goodsell, 2003). Such places are important and even necessary for citizens to enjoy a good quality of life and well-being (Relph, 1993). Historically, public places have played an important role in cities in many cultures.

Public spaces such as the Greek agora, Spanish plaza, and colonial town square provided a place for markets, celebrations and civic life to flourish (Carr et al. , 1992). In modern cities public spaces play many diverse roles; they are sites of recreation, economic development, consumption and community; they take shape as plazas, parks and urban entertainment areas; they mean many things to many people and can establish an identity for a neighborhood or a city at large. Public spaces, in any incarnation, are important to civic life (Goodsell, 2003).

While we may have a good understanding of why public spaces are important in cities, what is still largely unknown is how the planning process itself contributes to the development of these important places. In addition to understanding the role of public spaces in cities today, the means of public space creation, the underlying interests, processes, and motivations involved with their construction, must also be scrutinized and better understood in order to come to a full understanding of how public spaces achieve their desired goals.

Two case studies were chosen to illustrate approaches to public space planning: Toronto’s Yonge Dundas Square and the City of Mississauga’s City Centre Parks. These sites were chosen because of their similarities and also because of their differences. Both sites were intended to achieve similar goals of creating a sense of place and creating new opportunities for economic development in their cities. Their efforts, though, are taking place in very different contexts and employ different planning approaches.

In Mississauga, a rapidly growing city with a developing downtown core, a “placemaking” process featuring public workshops and staff training was used. In the Yonge Dundas Square example, located at one of Toronto’s historic commercial nodes, a public-private partnership was used to achieve the goals of the project. In addition, the cases are also at different stages in their development. The Mississauga project has only completed its initial visioning and preliminary design stages while the Yonge Dundas Square project is nearing completion.

In choosing these disparate cases, I was able to explore the strengths and weaknesses of different styles of public space planning. Specifically, these cases allowed me to investigate differences between what seemed to be a tightly controlled planning process in Yonge Dundas Square and a seemly very public planning process in Mississauga. Ultimately, the comparison of these cases helped me to elicit relevant criticisms and policy recommendations for planners of public space, regardless of the process they are working within.

Through research about these case studies, key informant interviews and in-depth analysis of planning documents and relevant literature this report presents a critique of public space planning processes practiced in the context of Yonge Dundas Square and the City Centre Parks. While having goals that use the language of sense of place, the planning processes employed are more effective in serving the economic goals of the projects. Because socio-cultural goals like sense of place are defined broadly and grow over time, the planning process does little to directly address them.

Ultimately this report suggests that socio-cultural goals like sense of place should not be removed as a goal of public space planning, but rather, the planning process should attempt to reconcile economic and socio-cultural goals. By increasing awareness of the importance of the socio-cultural function of public space through educational outreach to developers and the public at large, as well as by incorporating socio-cultural goals into long-term strategic plans and mission statements, municipalities can more effectively create public spaces that are not only economically strong, but also socially important to their citizens.

In 1999, the top Canadian newsmaker of the century was voted out and the glory fell to the charismatic former Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was elected into office after WWII. Throughout that time period, Trudeau worked towards promoting countless emerging social issues in Canada in various ways, and greatly influenced the transformations of the nation into the one that is known now. Among those social changes were the arising force of feminism, the altering relationship with Quebec, and the growing cultural diversity within Canada.

Soon after WWII, “The Second Wave” of feminism swept the decade and the rights of women were largely demanded by feminists. Pierre Trudeau realized that the unbalanced status between the sexes was in the need of change and encouraged feminism by supporting it with new laws and measures. In 1967, Pierre Trudeau gained himself much attention by introducing an omnibus bill as the Justice Minister. In the bill, he showed his views and suggestions to many concerned issues including abortion. The law stated that an abortion would be legal if approved by a committee of three doctors.

However supported by feminists, the reform was doubted by the public. Trudeau stood firm and defended the bill with a famous saying, “there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” (CBC 1967). The bill was later passed and it granted more rights to women who then became supporters of Trudeau, out of reason over passion. After their basic rights were guaranteed, Trudeau turned to focus on the lack of equality for female workers. In 1970, women were paid 59 cents to each dollar a man earned for doing the same amount of work.

In order to alter this situation, the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed under the Trudeau government. The Act prohibited sex discrimination, guaranteed equal pay for work of equal value and improved the status of female workers. In result, 47 percent of the married women were under employment in 1979, whereas eighteen years ago, only one in five of them were. From this information, it is clear that women were encouraged by the granted social rights which led to many changes in their lives.

In the meanwhile, Trudeau supported feminism not only in the society, but also within the federal government. The first female governor general in the history of Canada, Jeanne Sauve, was appointed due to the recommendations of Trudeau to the Queen. In a speech, he stated that “it is right and proper that her Majesty should finally have a woman representative here” and that this would be a “welcome revolution” for the society (CBC 1984). This appointment entitled women the rights to be at high rank in the federal legislature.

The carefully selected governor general had also been the first cabinet minister from Quebec, the first female Speaker of the House and the ideal candidate for the position. His actions revealed that the Prime Minister of Canada believed that women were as capable as men and should be promoted if ability is recognized. Therefore, Trudeau showed support to feminism and helped drive one of the most important social changes in those decades. As Trudeaumania swept up the nation, the Prime Minister was not only popular among men and women, old and young, but also supported in both western and eastern parts of Canada.

As a federalist, he contributed greatly towards making changes and improving French-English relationship. He believed that it was important to make efforts in keeping Canada together after the testaments it had been faced with and the growing separatism in Quebec. Trudeau decided that the solution was to grant more rights to the Francophone. Therefore he promoted the status of French to a national basis, granting Francophone the language rights by passing the Official Languages Act. The law of 1969 transformed Canada into an official Bilingual nation.

When the mixed criticizes appeared, he again defended the law by stating “of course a bilingual state is more expensive than a unilingual one, but it is a richer state” (Julian 14). This quote reflected his determination in promoting federalism and trust in the future of bilingualism in Canada. He was not alone. Among the Francophone, bilingual government services were extremely popular and were supported at a rate of 79 percent (Parkin 6). Later on, Trudeau and his government created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in which the sections 16 to 22, specifically outlined the official language rights for Francophone again.

This time the reform focused on the co-operation between federal and provincial governments to ensure the official bilingualism services in Canada. The goal included allowing both Francophone and Anglophone to preserve their basic language rights and cultural identity, regardless of their geographic location or language backgrounds. The bilingual law is still supported by 76 percent of Canadians today according to a poll in 2002, 35 years after its initiation (6). However back then, many separatists criticized on the reforms of Trudeau and some went into action.

During the October Crisis, Prime Minister Trudeau refused to give in to the terrorists and he implemented the War Measures Act, ensuring the safety of Canadians from the extreme nationalists. “Just watch me” (CBC 1970), said Trudeau in an interview after the kidnapping of a provincial cabinet minister by the FLQ. He tried to protect the society from the threat that endangers French-English relationship, and he was supported by the Parliament and the Quebec Premiere.

In all, Pierre Trudeau contributed with great efforts towards portraying French-English relationship and holding Canada together as a nation. Apart from his federalism, Pierre Trudeau also encouraged cultural diversity within Canada. He promoted multiculturalism and immigration policies. “I believe a constitution can permit the co-existence of several cultures and ethnic groups with a single state” (Craats 23), stated Trudeau. He foresaw the importance of multiculturalism and drove social changes in Canada with the passing of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

The Act encouraged and protected citizens from different cultural backgrounds in preserving their traditions. Under the Act, heritage language classes and various programs welcomed all residents and helped them feel comfortable in Canada. Also, the reform of Immigration Act was passed, allowing more immigrants to be admitted to Canada. The barriers were reduced and immigrants were separated into three classes: family class, humanitarian class and independent class. The basis of selection was broadened and it successfully attracted more immigrants.

In 1970s, eighteen percent growth in total population appeared mostly because of immigration in the previous decade. After that, the Trudeau government passed the Citizen Act, which granted equal rights for all citizens. The law stated that native-born and naturalized Canadian citizens would both be entitled to citizenship rights and obligations equally. Citizens from foreign backgrounds were given the voting right, mobility right, language right and etc. This Act showed respect and recognition to all cultures based on multiculturalism.

With efforts, Trudeau and his government created laws that drove many social changes by encouraging multiculturalism in society. As one of the most popular politicians in the history of this nation, Trudeau led Canadians through the difficult years after world war two, and left a permanent mark on its society. Throughout that time period, Canada was driven into changes mostly influenced by Trudeau in terms of feminism, federalism and multiculturalism. Those changes left great impacts and had altered the daily lives of Canadians ever since.

The Progression of African Americans from 1865 to 1920

America has changed, as a whole, throughout this time period. There have been many different presidents, elections, wars and other world issues. These factors contribute to the drastic change in America and to the American people. African Americans have gone through many different changes other than those of the other races. With the end of the Civil War, African Americans went through a lot of change with the end of slavery.

Throughout this essay I will explain the legislature, economic, philosophies, leaders, movement of people and other factors that contributed to the drastic change of the African American people between 1865 to 1920. In 1865 Reconstruction stared after the end of the civil war. Even though President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Slavery did not officially end until congress passed the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery. Freedmen were no allowed to be citizens until 1868 when congress passed the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment also allowed blacks the right to equal protection under the law. The first Supreme Court Interpretation of the 14th amendment was in the Slaughterhouse Case. This case extended the 14th amendment to all citizens. Even with the end of slavery and the right to citizenship, African Americans still didn’t have an easy life. With the end of slavery African Americans faced the issue of not being able to vote or in some not being allowed to own land.

The Black codes, which laws were passed by state legislatures to suppress blacks and put them is form of slavery that was legal at the time. To fix the problem of blacks not being able to vote, congress passed the 15th amendment, which made it legal for blacks to vote. Even with the right to vote blacks were suppressed by and scared out of voting be the Klu Klux Klan which used tactics such a lynchings to scare blacks of voting. Ida B. Wells was a black journalist who exposed lynchings in the U. S. Literacy test and poll taxes were also tactics used by white surprimisist to get blacks not to vote. Even with black codes and the KKK, this time period of Reconstruction was still a successful time for freedmen. They had three amendments passed in that addressed a few of the problems they faced. The blacks had come a long way from the end of the Civil War; they had gotten a lot of rights. Although they got many rights now they were at a large disadvantage to the whites. Blacks could not go to school because they had work or even were not allowed to go.

Because of this disadvantage blacks could not get the same jobs as whites because they did not have the same education. There were two main leader of the movement to get blacks better education and jobs, but the two of them had completely different views of how to get what they wanted. The first was Booker T. Washington, who believed that blacks should not push for what they wanted and that they should prove their selves to get the same education and jobs as whites, this is also called gradualism. African Americans disliked this because they thought that their equalization was being put off.

He believed that they should not rock the “Racial Boat”. The Second was W. E. B Dubois, who believed the exact opposite of Washington. He believed that the blacks could force the whites to give them what they wanted. He also believed that they should not what for the whites to give it to them he thought that blacks should push and force them to give it to them. Dubois also published the book of essays called The Souls of the Black Folks (1903). The blacks also ran out of labor in the South and choose to migrate to the North were there was an abundance of jobs.

This sudden movement of blacks from the South to the North started the Great Black Migration. This era after reconstruction was a very successful time for freedmen and brought about great change not only in the lives of African Americans but also in the lives of all Americans. After slaves were free the US tried to start the Back to Africa Movement. This movement was brought about to try to get freedmen with African decent to go back to Africa and their homeland. For blacks that did not want to return to Africa there were very few options for them if they choose to stay.

The first main problem was should they stay in the South or go somewhere else to find shelter and a job. The next problem was to find a job. To replace the slaves plantation owner implemented share cropping. Share cropping was a form of paid slavery that gave the families that choose to work on the plantation as share croppers a plot of land to farm and a place to live. The share croppers would give a large portion of what they had farmed to the owner of the land and they would get to keep a small amount of what they had harvested for themselves to live off of.

For those who had joined the Union army during the Civil War, they had to try to get what they were promised which was forty acres of land and a mule to plow it. Though promise was rarely met this was an option for some freedmen who choose to stay in the U. S. To help freedmen get what they needed such a job, food, or education the Freedmen’s Bureau was started. This bureau was started to help get recently freed slaves on their feet after the Civil War. Former slaves had a hard time finding jobs but they did it anyway.

During reconstruction the Southern Democrats wanted to get rid of the collation of Republicans that controlled the post war south. The Bourbon Democrats that want to oust this collation of freedmen, carpetbaggers, and scalawags were known as Redeemers. These Redeemers did not get their way until reconstruction ended in 1877. With the end of reconstruction man freedmen were scare by the rumor of the reinstitution of slavery and the fact that the leaders of the old south were back in control meant that discrimination would run rampant.

With this in mind they fled to the north and west most settling in Kansas. These freedmen who fled were known as exodusters. The Democratic Party regained the political power of the South. This total political power of the Democratic Party was known as the Solid South. During the time period of the Solid South, blacks were greatly discriminated upon. Freedmen who held office during reconstruction were stripped of their political position. To suppress blacks, white surprimisist implemented Jim Crow laws.

Jim Crow laws were a set of laws passed by state legislatures in witch in some cases pulled the African Americans Right to vote. The term Jim Crow comes from a show that was put on to show a stereotypical black. In this show whites would wear black and pain themselves and then act as they thought blacks were. They would act stupid and show the idea that blacks were not equal to whites. In most states a grandfather clause was put into the state constitution which stated that if your grandfather had voted before the civil war than you could vote even if you were illiterate.

This clause was meant to keep blacks who could not pass the literacy test from voting and allowed for the whites who failed the literacy test a way to vote. Under the Jim Crow laws the thought of “Separate but Equal”. This basically meant that as long as the state gave blacks the same conditions as whites it was ok to segregate them. The first major time the idea of “Separate but Equal” was challenged was in the case of Plessey vs. Fergusion (1896). In this case Homer Plessey was accused of sitting in the whites’ only car of the East Louisiana Railroad y and refused to leave.

Plessey was seven eighths white and one eighth black, an octoroon. Even though he was just on eighth African American he was still consider black by Louisiana law and thus required to sit in the colored car of the train. The courts stated that Louisiana could not regulate railroad that went between two or more states but that they could regulate railroads that were only within the state. Both the state and federal Supreme Courts ruled against Plessey. It was not until the ca of Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) the “Separate but Equal” would no longer be the law of the land.

During this time of Separate but Equal the type of segregation that took place was de jure segregation which meant to be segregated by law. This differs from today in that even though the law does not permit segregation in still happens by custom which is de facto segregation. W. E. B. Dubois organized a group that meet on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. Because they meet at Niagara Falls they came to be known as the Niagara Movement (1903). They meet to discuses to problems facing blacks on a political and social level. They also discussed ways to fix the problems that faced the blacks.

This movement was made of only blacks. The Niagara Movement led to the creation of the NAACP, which was made up of both blacks and whites and also fought for the solutions to problems facing blacks and whites on a political and social level. The Niagara Movement was thought to be more radical than that of the NAACP. Booker T. Washington; the president of the Tuskegee Institute, the first all black collage; was the architect of the Atlanta Compromise which stated that blacks would work week in and week out and summit to white political rule in exchange for basic education and due process.

W. E. B Dubois used the term the Talented Tenth to show the 1 out of 10 blacks who will rise to be a leader of his or her race. He argued that blacks needed a more classical education rather than a vocational or industrial education. Marcus Garvey was a Jamaican political leader that founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association, African Community League, and the Black Star Steamship Line. The Black Star Steamship Line was shipping line that was supposed to facilitate the transportation of goods and eventually African Americans throughout the African global economy.

The Black Star Steamship Line derived its name from the white star line which was a key factor to the success of the back to Africa movement. Garvey thought he could simulate the success of the White Star Line. The Universal Negro Improvement Association founded the newspaper Negro World which had a front page editorial from Garvey and poetry and articles of international interest of people of African Ancestor. These men and there association were civil rights leaders that shaped the African American world.