Multicultural Competence FHSP Perspectives Essays

Multicultural Competence FHSP Perspectives Essays Multicultural Competence FHSP Perspectives Essay Multicultural Competence FHSP Perspectives Essay The study was conducted with the aim of the authors to explore various definitions of multicultural competence. This qualitative research involved a number of 99 frontline human service providers. However, the frontline human service providers had no background neither formal training regarding counselling but they played a great role when it comes to assisting or helping role. From the study, definitions of seven thematic were identified which are: client focused, resource driven. Color blindness, skills-based, self-integrated, textbook consistent, and admitting cultural difference. Besides other important area of focus during the study were the implications associated with the multicultural competence. Due the disparities in health sector of the year 2001, the United States general from the surgeons brought in light some of the serious matters concerned with multicultural competence as well as the its relation to the human service systems and the stakeholder s involved in providing these services, who are; counselors, mental health counselors, social workers, and psychologists. Thus, leading to a qualitative research to be conducted to determine the multicultural training competence of Frontline Human Service Providers (FSL). The sample population for this study were 99 participants involved in human service providing. The study was conducted in Midwestern city and it was sponsored by the county health all along with the human service department. The first sample of data were collected in the fall of the 2001 from only 34 participants in a workshop. Later in the fall of the year 2002 the remaining 65 participants data were also gathered. Most of those who participated in these study were women whose population was recorded the highest with 75 against 24 men only. A majority of the individuals were in the age bracket of 21 years to 65 years (Mean = 37, Standard Deviation= 12). Other statistics that were captured from the studies are 87% were European America, 7% were African American, Asian were indexed at only 2%, Latino came at 1%, multiracial and others were both at 15. From the same figures forty-one participants were identified to have attained a bachelors degree while 35 were already through or worki ng towards having their masters degree. Another 8 had gone to a 4-year college course work; 7 had high school diploma or a general equivalence diploma while 5 had fully gone through some community college. Finally only 2 were in the process or were through with their doctorate studies. Only participant did not disclose educational background. It was also indicated from the studies that quite a vast number of 80% had work experience in non-profit organizations, where they reported to have worked in various social sites such as family outreach, parental planning, community program dictatorship, wraparound, substance counseling, and other services in education. The study explained the bridge in the multicultural counseling competence associated with the multicultural proficiency of Frontline Human Service Providers (FHSL). Out of the initially mentioned seven themes (client focused, resource driven, color blindness, skills-based, self-integrated, textbook consistent, and admitting cultural difference), only color blindness was not demonstrated in the multicultural competence. This article was very important since the since one can learn that the demographics of Americans have changed during the beginning of 21stcentury. Larger numbers of multicultural and diverse populations are evident. Clinical mental health and school counselors are more than ever called to serve many populations who differ in values, life experiences, and worldviews. This paper provides general suggestions for counselor educators designing an introductory masters levels course to foster the development of culturally and socially intentional and competent counselors for the 21stcentury. This article was written by ten authors committed to training ethical counselors who recognize diversity and embrace a cross-cultural approach in support of the worth, dignity, potential, and uniqueness of people within their social and cultural contexts. The nature of this course content is by definition an integral component of an individuals identity and self-perception, much more than other course content in the counselor education curriculum, such as assessment or psychopathy. As a result, even among highly accomplished senior faculty whose chosen specialty is multiculturalism and diversity issues, there are varying perspectives and values about what is most important in teaching a multicultural course. The authors present diverse levels of experience and expe rtise. Organizations with more robust diversity climates changes in effort that reflect a long-term orientation and commitment to infusing the organizations cultural with a multicultural perspective. This includes reflecting diversity in outreach efforts (both staff and clients). Staff accountability, resource allocation, and planning (Cox, 2001; Hyde, 2003, 2004; Inglehart, 2000; Norton Fox, 1997). While long-range orientations toward building a diversity climate tend to yield the most robust and lasting results, more frequently organizations engage trainings and developing nondiscriminatory policies tend to result in only weak to moderate changes in organizational culture. Similar to other organizational change or development strategies, diversity initiatives seem to most sensitive to sabotage by a lack of leadership, high workload demand, staff resistance, and a failure to engage the community. Reference Leon D. Caldwell, Dolores D. Tarver, Derek K. Iwamoto,Sarah E. Herzberg, Patricia Cerda- Lizarraga, and Tabethah Mack (2008). Definitions of Multicultural Competence: Frontline Human Service Providers Perspective. p 1 ; 11 Kottler, J. A., ; Englar-Carlson, M. (2010). Learning group leadership: An experiential approach. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. p 468 Lightburn, A., ; Sessions, P. (2006). Handbook of community-based clinical practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p 13

Vietnamization of the Vietnam War

Vietnamization of the Vietnam War Campaigning under the slogan â€Å"Peace with Honor,† Richard M. Nixon won the 1968 presidential election. His plan called for the â€Å"Vietnamization† of the war which was defined as the systematic build-up of ARVN forces to the point that they could prosecute the war without American aid. As part of this plan, American troops would slowly be removed. Nixon complemented this approach with efforts to ease global tensions by reaching out diplomatically to the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China. In Vietnam, the war shifted to smaller operations geared towards attacking North Vietnamese logistics.   Overseen by General Creighton Abrams, who replaced General William Westmoreland in June 1968, American forces shifted from a search-and-destroy approach to one more focused on defending South Vietnamese villages and working with the local population.   In doing so, extensive efforts were made to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese people.   These tactics proved successful and guerrilla attacks began to subside. Advancing Nixons Vietnamization scheme, Abrams worked extensively to expand, equip, and train ARVN forces.   This proved critical as the war became an increasingly conventional conflict and American troop strength continued to be reduced.   Despite these efforts, ARVN performance continued to be erratic and often relied on American support to achieve positive results. Trouble on the Home Front While the antiwar movement in the US was pleased with Nixon’s efforts at dà ©tente with communist nations, it was inflamed in 1969, when news broke about a massacre of 347 South Vietnamese civilians by US soldiers at My Lai (March 18, 1968). Tension grew further when, following a change in stance by Cambodia, the US began bombing North Vietnamese bases over the border. This was followed in 1970, with ground forces attacking into Cambodia. Though intended to enhance South Vietnamese security by eliminating a threat across the border, and thus in line with the Vietnamization policy, it was publicly viewed as expanding the war rather than winding it down. Public opinion sunk lower in 1971 with the release of the Pentagon Papers. A top-secret report, the ​Pentagon Papers detailed American mistakes in Vietnam since 1945, as well as exposed lies about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, detailed US involvement in deposing Diem, and revealed secret American bombing of Laos. The papers also painted a bleak outlook for American prospects of victory. First Cracks Despite the incursion into Cambodia, Nixon had begun the systematic withdrawal of US forces, lowering troop strength to 156,800 in 1971. That same year, the ARVN commenced Operation Lam Son 719 with the goal of severing the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos. In what was seen as a dramatic failure for Vietnamization, ARVN forces were routed and driven back across the border. Further cracks were revealed in 1972, when the North Vietnamese launched a conventional invasion of the South, attacking into the northern provinces and from Cambodia. The offensive was only defeated with the support of US airpower and saw intense fighting around Quang Tri, An Loc, and Kontum.   Counterattacking and supported by American aircraft (Operation Linebacker), ARVN force reclaimed the lost territory that summer but sustained heavy casualties.

Personal movie reflection Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Personal movie reflection - Essay Example The latter visits him. Although initially, the two boys disliked each other, Danny was determined to be forgiven of his deliberate mistake. He offers to help Reuven with his studies and the two start a friendship like no other. Reuven was accepted into the Jewish family as if he was their own. However, with Reuven’s father’s fight for the Jewish state, their friendship was marred. Danny’s father demanded him to stop speaking with his friend which he did for more than a year. Confused and hurt, Reuven also stands by his father to fight for the Jewish state. After the proclamation of Israel as an independent state, Danny again approaches Reuven and the latter accepts him back. Knowing that there is no stopping Danny from pursuing his studies, his father calls the two young men and explains why he raised Danny the way he did. Their relationship changes and they become more open to each other. The strong bond that was formed between Danny and Reuven is quite moving. Seldom in times of trial do we find relationships that have such strong foundations, not to mention the start of their relationships. They connected with each other as they found they are not so different after all despite their religious inclinations and beliefs. However, they have hurt each other as well especially at a time when they most needed each other. Their families contributed to such separation. Danny, because he is the son of a Rabbi, had to obey his father’s wishes whose word was powerful in the eyes of his followers. He was not going to be the first insubordinate follower in his father’s house. He chose to support his father despite his personal beliefs, abandoning his best friend. Reuven on the other hand suffered loneliness. He was an only child and his father was always busy with his work. He tried to support him by doing what he thought would help his father’s dreams come true. He stood alone, taking care of his father when he suffered a stroke. When

WiFi, VPNs & Encryption Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

WiFi, VPNs & Encryption - Assignment Example In this scenario, different restrictions are implemented on the system access mechanisms. As a result, it becomes very difficult for these security threats to pollute a system and spread to other systems and devices (Merrifield, 2015). In other words, the concept of least privileges is used by the system administrators to offer the smallest amount of system resources needed to complete important business tasks. This mechanism is implemented through a variety of methods such as user rights (for instance putting restrictions to users’ rights, the way they access to the systems), resource permissions for instance implementing restrictions on CPU, network, memory and file system permissions. For instance, if a middleware system simply needs access to the network, the capability to write to a log, and read access to a database table, it refers to all the authorizations that should be approved. However, the middleware server should not be granted administrative privileges in any cas e under any circumstances (OWASP,

The Normandy landings in Defeating Germany in World War Two Essay Example for Free

The Normandy landings in Defeating Germany in World War Two Essay 1. Using source A and your own knowledge explain why the D-day was such an important event of World War two? D-Day was such an important event of World War Two for numerous amounts of reasons. The term D-Day actually means The Day. As said by Major Elson, it is the day where everyone does something. Major Elson fought on the Italian front, which is demonstrated on the map. D-Day was to be June 1944 minutes between night turning to morning on the 6th. The Germans had occupied France and France needed Britain, Canada and America to come together to regain the French territory for them. As well as this, Russia was fighting of Germany in the East and needed the Allies to relieve pressure. D-Day was a very important part into ending the war but other factors include the Battle of the Atlantic, the fighting in North Africa and the Battle of Britain. Arriving at Normandy using the Mulberry harbours, the Allies captured all of the five designated beaches (Omaha, Juno, Gold, Sword and Utah) despite strong German coastal defences. This is mainly due to the opposing armies having no idea to where the Allied forces would be landing because no place in France were called those names. The map shows where the troops entered France and this also clearly enforces the sheer scale of the invasion and its importance into keeping it top secret. Meanwhile, parachutists were flown in nearly 20 minutes after mid-night to capture Pegasus Bridge on the River Orne and Vier. This was important as it prevented German counter attacks from transporting troops to the beaches. As quick as they could, the Americans advanced all the way up to Cherbourg and captured it. Meanwhile, the British struggled pushing through Norman hedgerows which proved excellent cover for the defending German formations but the Allies succeeded in liberating the city of Caen in the end. This then led to the captivity of the capital of Normandy, Flank Con. However, with the capture of Saint-Là ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ and later Avranches in mid-July, the way was open for an Allied breakout into open country, an opportunity seized by General Omar Bradley, commander of the 12th US Army Group, who early in August ordered his forces to advance to the east. Hitler refused to allow the Wehrmacht to abandon Normandy and ordered a German armoured counter-attack against the allied forces near Avranches. On August 7 the German offensive was defeated and they soon found themselves in a trap as Canadian and United States divisions began to close in on both sides. On August 19th the allied forces had closed the gap at Falaise, trapping about 12 German divisions, who were subjected to merciless air and artillery bombardment. Hitler now ordered his forces in the gap to escape: about 30,000 did so, while 50,000 were captured by the Allies. The Germans were forced back by sheer weight of numbers by the Allies and by August 25th 1944 Paris had been liberated. After this, the Allies advanced too far, too fast to the border of France and Germany and so the Germans were able to push back one area of the line of troops, enforcing a bulge. This was known as The Battle of the Bulge. The Allies overcome this. The Allied advance in the west and south through Italy coupled with the Soviet advance in the east led to the overall defeat of Germany on May 7th 1945 11 months after D-Day began. The map demonstrates all of the above happenings and the names of the commanders in charge show their line of advancement into Germany. This map also, clearly shows us just how much land had been covered and that the Allies werent just invading from Normandy but from the Mediterranean, from the east (USSR) and from Italy. However, if it werent for the declaration of operation Overlord at Normandy then it is possible to say that attacks elsewhere would not have taken place. The map helps me explain my theory; you can see an awful lot of troops coming from all directions heading towards Germany but the majority are advancing from Britain. Thus meaning that without the attack from Normandy, it wouldnt relieve pressure from the eastern front with USSR and in general, the Allies wouldnt have won the Battle of Normandy. A key factor is that the Battle of Normandy was the beginning of the end. It was a turning point in the war and I can make a judgement from my evidence that the Battle of Normandy was a key factor into the defeat of Germany (Victory in Europe) and possibly to ending the war altogether. 2. Study sources B and C. Compare these judgements on the importance of D-Day in the outcome of the Second World War. From studying both sources, I can see that they differ considerably. Both sources say the importance of D-day. Source C tells the problem of getting over the river Rhine and the vigorous German counter attacks. Source B doesnt have a particular author but it was written for the Telegraph Newspaper marking the 50th anniversary to commemorate D-Day. There are two key facts to touch upon in this subject area. Firstly, I have recognised that this is a British newspaper and therefore its information would be from a British perspective. By this, I mean that it will say only what the British public wants to hear especially on the anniversary. The anniversary is a celebration of freedom and victory and commemoration so for a British newspaper, the British public is not going to want to hear about D-Days flaws. Secondly, this is secondary evidence. This means the writer wasnt there to actually see what happened- he/she is just going on the basis of what they have heard and researched. However, this is the same for source C so there is no difference in that respect. Regardless, a British historian (Jack Watson) writes source C. Therefore, this man is obviously bound to know his stuff as his career is based around the acknowledgement of history. Thus meaning that he isnt just purely writing to commemorate the anniversary of D-Day, he is writing it because he is interested in it. Maybe this is why source C is far much more detailed than source B. From reading source B, it had become clear to me that the way in which the text had been written; it comes across although D-Day was achieved in such little time. This is true but the advancement of the troops from Normandy to Paris did come with a bit of a struggle at some areas (e.g. British troops capturing Caen) and so it wasnt as straightforward as the writer is making out. I think the writer has done this to give the British public what they want to hear and therefore will sell more copies. Another possibility is that the writer just needed to summarise D-Day and just produce an overview. Source C explains that it wasnt just down to Normandy that D-Day took place. Watson says how paratroopers landed in Holland, resistance broken in Italy and fighting in Germany. This means the historian has studied a broader area to the happenings of D-day rather then just focusing on France like source B. I think this is because people, who read his writings, are going to be more inclined to see D-Day from all angles of perspective. I believe people reading Watsons work would like a less judgmental and less biased view to the events of D-Day. Source B illustrates a bit more on how important Normandy was and how we commemorate it today. I do think that the writer of source B is somewhat biased and possibly holding back factual information which would probably give us a different perspective on D-Day as he has just wrote it to please, however, this leaves this piece of evidence to some extent, being unreliable. Source C, nevertheless, has more factual evidence and includes as much information about D-Day in as little words as possible for it to be a more reliable source. It takes into account the German resistance and understands the Allies didnt gain liberation easily. 3. Study sources D and E. Use details from the cartoons and your wider knowledge in your answer. What do these cartoons suggest about the reasons why the allies defeated Germany? There are many reasons as to why the allies defeated Germany. Source D illustrates one aspect. Source D shows Adolf Hitler ordering troops to invade the USSR but they turn into graves instead. From my own knowledge I know that this occurred on June 22nd 1942. Hitler envisioned it as short decisive war with USSR reaching a spectacular triumph. It started well for the German army who successfully employed the blitzkrieg tactic again. The Germans had a spectacular rate of progress into the USSR with the Panzer tank regiments moving up to twenty miles a day. By September1941 the German army had reached the Ukraine farmlands and had surrounded the city of Leningrad. This was the height of German success from this point onwards the German defeat became more and more probable. The German forces were unprepared for the extreme Russian winter with temperatures reaching as low as -40 degrees Celsius. The Russians used a huge evacuation policy, which involved evacuating whole armaments factories to the east of the USSR. This ensured that even though they had lost a large amount of territory they still had the means with which to fight back. USSR was well organised because at the time of signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, they realised they couldnt possibly fight a war as they werent ready. Therefore, this treaty gave USSR time to prepare, and so they did. Consequently, this Soviet cartoon depicts basically how Hitler sent his troops to death. As well as defeats in the east, there are other areas in which Germany fell. Between the years of 1939 and 1941 the United States of America had played a supposedly neutral role in the war. While not actually declaring war on the Germans the USA was supplying the British with everything they needed to keep the war effort going. The American role in the war changed on the 7th December 1941 when the Japanese attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbour in Hawaii. The American President Roosevelt used this attack to swing public opinion in favour of declaration of war. The USA declared war on Japan and three days later Hitlers Germany declared war on the USA. This declaration of war by Germany was a decisive point in the whole war. It has long been wondered why Hitler chose to declare war on the Americans. His forces were just suffering their first defeats in the USSR and the German army was already stretched on a number of different fronts. This clearly shows that the Germans were failing before they had begun. I believe this relates to the cartoon; the troops in the picture are defeated before they have even begun. As if Germany hadnt enough on their hands and hadnt taken into account the loss of men in the cold winter months in Russia, they continued and they reached the key industrial and railway centre of Stalingrad in August 1942. A bitter street battle ensued which continued until February 1943. Eventually the Germans were defeated in the Battle of Stalingrad one of the fiercest battles in the whole war. The Russian victory destroyed the invincible reputation of the German army. The defeat also destroyed the German morale because of the large losses of men and because of the fact that the supposed master race had been defeated by a lower race in the Slavs. This obviously didnt give the Germans the courage to go on. Not to mention, an awful lot of the German army was foreign so they wasnt as eager to fight as its not their country they are defending. Germany was a country practically on its own. Whereas on the other side there was Canadians, Russian, American and British all fighting on the same team with a greater number of troops. The Atlantic Ocean was a key battleground in the Second World War because of the large number of allied supplies travelling from the USA to Britain and the USSR. The Germans had had control of the Atlantic since the beginning of the war with the number of U-boats losses being very minimal compared to the number of Allied shipping lost. But by mid 1943 technological advances allowed the Allies to effectively win the Battle of the Atlantic. Some of these advances included better radar detection systems and longer-range aircraft. The victory in the Atlantic meant that Britain was no longer blockaded. The Germans also lost the war in the air. Over a period of two years between 1942 and 1944 the Allies mounted ever more devastating air attacks on German cites. The Allies were able to drop a far greater tonnage of bombs over German cites than the Luftwaffe could drop over British cites because of the development of a heavy bomber by the allies. The continuing air attacks slowly gained the Allies complete air superiority which was key for the D-Day landings in June 1944. These are all the events that lead up to June 6th (D-Day) and all of these links in with the effect of D-Day. In conclusion it could be argued that there were a number of different turning points in the war. On the one hand, the declaration of war by the USA, the Soviet victory in Stalingrad the Allies successful completion of Operation Overlord or when Hitler choose to declare war on the USA, could all be considered as the turning points in the war. Overall we believe that the point at which German defeat became inevitable was when Churchill and several great generals including Eisenhower and Montgomery planned the daring invasion of Normandy and put it into action. Sources D and E demonstrate this quite clearly. Source E basically shows that Stalin and a Russian soldier/general could easily roll over the Germans without much of a fuss and were defeating them generously. Germany, as illustrated above, suffered many defeats and Normandy just basically hit the nail on the head. The French were Allies with Britain and Britain was Allies with USSR and Canada and USA. I dont suppose it benefited the Axis in any way at all with the economic and industrial power of the Allies was now overwhelming. If the Germans had been fighting the British alone the war would have been one of attrition like the First World War because Britain and Germanys industrial output were equal. So with the addition of the two most industrial powers in the world in the form of the USA and the USSR the Allies could not lose. All of the previous defeats like the fighting in North Africa, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic and the fighting in the East with USSR etc. are all linked with the effect of the Battle of Normandy. On the other hand, in my opinion, if it wasnt actually for the Battle of Normandy which led to the liberation of France and the Falaise gap and so on, then Germany would of carried on capturing countries until the end. It is also possible to say that if Germany hadnt declared war on USA (for which reason we do not know) then USA might have still stayed out of the war against Germany (and only fought Japan) and also, Germany might have stood a chance of winning. But they still would have had a war on two fronts with USSR, too. Therefore, if they hadnt declared war on USSR in 1942 then they would have had more troops to give resistance on D-Day. In general, Germany didnt stand a chance as the British were sending messages to the French resistance who helped prepare for D-Day and also the British bombed Calais four times as much as they did Normandy to give Hitler the impression they were invading at Calais rather than Normandy. Therefore, Hitler sent more troops to defend Calais and this was completely unnecessary. This then meant, that on the attacks of Normandy, Hitler was unable to send troops to Normandy from Calais because the paratroopers had captured the bridges and railway lines etc. D-day was the largest invasion to be known as of yet and the Germans couldnt retaliate against 3 countries including 176,000 allied soldiers, alone-not to mention the attacks from the East. 4. Study source F. How reliable is Stalins view of the importance of D-Day? Source F may only say that one thing has been completed successfully and that is the landings on a grandiose scale. We can infer from the rest of what Stalin says that the beach landings are going quite successful as well, because he says that. I think this is a fairly trustworthy source in that Jopeph Stalin was the leader of USSR at that time. This is primary evidence and was sent only five days after the landings so the goings on was still perfectly clear in Stalins mind. Also the date is reliable because this could not have been said before D-Day as the things Stalin mentions hadnt happened yet. Also he is speaking in the present tense so it is obvious that what he is talking about is currently going on. There are several things that it does not say in the text, perhaps because Stalin does not know this, or perhaps he is holding back. He does not tell us anything about what the opposition is doing or what the planes and ships providing covering fire are doing, which could be very useful information. The bottom part of the text in bold allows us to infer several things. It tells us he is speaking personally via telegram to Churchill, from this we can infer that as he is writing in the form of a telegram he may not want to mention a few things. He obviously will not criticise Churchills operation, as they are allies. Russia needed Britain, USA and Canada to relive pressure from the east and for Stalin to be congratulating Churchill on the success of it must mean that D-Day had relieved pressure and so Stalins telegram is of some great significance and importance. At face value it is impossible to judge the importance of the D-Day landings from just studying Source F alone. Inconclusively, by making careful inferences we can think that it was obviously a great success, for Stalin to send a telegram to Churchill congratulating him and saying history will record this deed as an achievement of the highest order. It is very difficult to analyse any resistance from the Germans from this source and whether USSR had any part in D-Day or whether D-Day was purely to do with anything else like the fighting in Italy. I know, however, that there was from my own knowledge but this source doesnt imply anything of the kind-5 days into the D-Day landings and Stalin is congratulating him already, before they have really begun. So in that sense, Stalins view isnt that reliable in the importance of D-day. On the other hand, Stalin wrote it so it has to be reliable-it is first hand evidence. He was there to witness the goings on at the time you cant get much closer to it than that and he shows his support to Churchill. Although Russia signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact with Germany, it was under a mutual understanding and this didnt make them Allies, it merely kept the peace for a little while. So there would be no reason for this source not to be unreliable as they were Allies. Stalin also proves from the Pact that he wasnt at all with Germany because he says the hysterical Hitler boasted for two years that he would invade England across the channel but could not even make up his mind even to attempt carrying out the threat. This means one of a few things. Firstly, Stalin stitched up Hitler to Churchill about Hitlers threat to invade England. Secondly, he criticises him, calling him hysterical. This clearly states he was never a German ally, he just used the Nazi-Soviet Pact as much as Hitler did. Stalin was Allies with Churchill and Churchill was the prominent figure who arranged D-Day. Therefore, his evidence has to be somewhat reliable and relevant to the importance of D-Day. 5. Study sources G and H. Which of these sources is more useful as evidence in assessing the significance of D-Day? On the one hand, Source H is obviously written by one of the allies rather than Germany, as it does not say as such. I know this because the way in which Geoffrey Elliot refers to the event is on a positive note. If a German wrote it, I would expect it to be somewhat negative as a pose to praising the significance of D-Day. Additionally, another factor as to why source H is useful to the significance of D-Day is that it recognises the obstacles the Allies faced. This is because most sources that are written by a member of the Allies country normally exclude the difficulties they faced and just note how greatly they succeeded. Members of the Axis countries usually criticise D-Day and find faults on every account in its events. Therefore, this source, in that sense, is exceedingly reliable as it looks at both perspectives. From my own knowledge, this is to some extent unusual. It states that a change in weather could have destroyed. Meaning that the weather made it harder for the allies to get on the beaches and off load their equipment. Despite this, they did it even though they were forced to cancel out the Mulberry Harbour at Omaha beach due to the weather. On the other hand, source G was written by a historian and it is obvious that he is bound to know the significance of D-Day thoroughly. The writing in bold at the bottom reads that Taylor has studied English history from 1914-1945. This means that he has studied both of the wars (First World War and the Second World War) and knows all knowledge he can on the subject. He would be able to see how significant D-Day was out of the Second World War in greater detail even if it secondary evidence rather than primary. Furthermore, Source G is less biased on the count that it involves the aid of Russia and America. This is great considering other evidence written by British historians, that I have studied seems to out-rule the Russian help and sometimes fails to mention about the Canadians and Americans. Conjointly, this source looks at the events leading up to D-Day and not just D-Day itself. For example, it says that Dunkirk was the period when Britain stood alone. This signifies one of two things. Firstly, Taylor is not just looking at the successes, as being alone isnt much of a success. Secondly, Dunkirk isnt part of D-Day. This can be seen as a good or a bad thing. Bad, because he isnt focusing himself on D-Day and this is what is required for me in order to assess the usefulness of this source to the significance of D-Day. Good, because he is analysing other factors into the vents leading up to Normandy and other factors that helped the invasion succeed. Source G also gives more precise key names and dates throughout the text. This relevant because this shows the historian knows what he is writing about. To add to this, I know for a fact that it is written by a British person because it says so at the bottom in bold. However, this is can mean that the historian is more inclined to be biased but being a British historian, it is expected. Taylor doesnt look at D-Day from a German prospective, given that it was published 20 years after the war. Instead, it sees D-Day as a final victory. They may be his opinion, but it was nearly a year after D-Day that the Germans surrendered so it wasnt exactly a final victory. To analyse exactly what source is more useful than the other to the significance of D-Day I must study their flaws. Source H appears to be more of an overview than anything else. This is satisfactory if its just for the 50th anniversary but compared with source G, with a lot more detail than itself, it is not good. This brings me on to the fact that it is a commemorative article produced for a magazine on the 50th anniversary. An editor who briefly researched the events of D-day produced this article and probably doesnt particularly focus on this subject matter. This is my interpretation of what I thought after reading the text. But as a pose to source G, which is written by a historian whose job and interest is to research the wars thoroughly, it doesnt compare. Therefore, in my opinion, I personally feel that Source G is more useful to the significance of D-Day and the evidence above backs up my theory as a whole. 6. Why do you think sources I and J disagree about the defeat of Germany and the end of World War Two? When one looks at sources I and J, we can see they are very different when juxtaposed with all the other sources and different compared with themselves. The only point at where they have something in common is that both sources are secondary evidence. Source I is written by Yves Leccouturier who is from Normandy. I know this because it says so in bold at the bottom of the source. The fact that he is from Normandy is a great factor to his perspective of the attack itself. He isnt going to be bitter about the landings as the allies came to liberate France, not invade it. Therefore, he is, of course, going to be grateful towards the Allies for pushing the Germans out of France. There is additional evidence that backs up my theory behind this. He describes it as the liberation of Europe and in the outcome of the Second World War. This clearly indicates just how grateful he is and that the rest of Europe should be grateful, too as the Allies savoured them and without them, V E Day wouldnt have been achieved (Victory in Europe-of, which I believe Leccouturier is referring to). Leccouturier also believes that as a result of the landings at Normandy, the war ended (illustrates this in the quote). Both of these examples, would be key factors as to why the source was written in this manner. Another quotation in the text to back up my theory is when Leccouturier says Everyone welcomed the liberator with limitless enthusiasm. Leccouturier is also a French Historian. This helps to establish his reasons behind the source because he would know a great deal about the landings from living there and also from being a historian. He would have surely researched a great deal into the subject matter. To add to this, he is writing this source for a guidebook of the Normandy beaches for tourists. In essence, the type of tourists that are likely to visit this area of France would essentially be French, British, American and Canadian. These are the countries that were on the same side as each other and so it would be me probable for them to visit Normandy as a pose to a German citizen. Therefore, it is logical for this source to be biased, in that approach and this is another instance as to why the source is written in this form. Source J has an immensely different view on the topic. Source J is written by a Soviet historian some years after (1968) and feels very differently juxtaposed with Source I. Source J, from studying the text, appears to be bitter about the Allied troops receiving all the credit for the result and the war ending as a result of that. Source J basically writes it in this way because they dont feel recognised enough by western Allies for their efforts in the war. The Russians were the ones who requested back up from Britain and Churchill took up the request along with America and Canada. Therefore, I can see why credit goes to the Western Allies as they were the saviours but it was Russia who was fighting of German in the East in the first place. The Soviets feel forgotten it seems, from the way the source appears, that Russians just want some sort of recognition for their efforts in the outcome. In conclusion, all of the evidence above makes it clear to why the sources disagree to the defeat of Germany and the end of the Second World War. This is because the Soviet historian wring this text feels that USSR played a key part up to, on and after D-Day and that they havent received a sign of gratefulness or not enough of it from the western Allies they helped. Juxtaposed with source I, who boasts about how joyous the Normans were when the Allies landed and how the Normans welcomed the liberators with limitless enthusiasm. And liberators being the word. It doesnt mention a word about USSR and their efforts and this source is just another example as to why source I disagrees with the defeat of Germany and the end of the Second World War. Being from Normandy and writing for a Norman guide book, it isnt likely that he is going to mention the USSR as they didnt land here, they didnt capture the beaches, Caen, Cherbourg or Paris, they werent anything to do with the Battle of Normandy itself. They were involved with the fighting in the east while the liberators fought in the west. France praised the Western Allies and the Soviets got jealous. All these reasons conclude, in my opinion, to why the sources disagree about the defeat of Germany and the outcome of the Second World War. 7. How far have the sources in this paper convinced you that D-Day and the Normandy invasion was the most significant factor in the defeat of Germany in World War Two? Use all the sources and your wider knowledge There are numerous sources that reflect that Normandy was the most significant factor in the defeat of Germany in World War Two and sources A, B, C, F, G, H and I are included. On the one hand, Normandy was by far, the largest and most amphibious invasion that has ever been planned, let alone to have succeeded. Source A depicts how much of a large-scale invasion it was because you can see a tremendous amount of troops came in from the English Channel to Normandy at the five beaches. Source B, written for the Telegraph newspaper for 50th anniversary edition, classifies it as the turning point in the Second World War and the greatest amphibious operation the world has ever seen. This is the second source to illustrate how much of significant factor the Normandy landings played to the defeat of Germany and the Second World War. Source C, written by a British historian, delivers another quotation to put to my evidence by writing the Germans were driven back. This directly explains that the landings at Normandy advanced to this. I also have primary evidence from Stalin, the leader of Russia. Stalin says, from his first hand knowledge that the landings have succeeded completely. What the Western Allies wanted to do was liberate France, force the Germans out of France and relieve pressure from Russia. Obviously, for Stalin to send this message in a telegram to Churchill after just five days, it must have been working. Source G, written by a British historian, explains that combined with the Russians, British and American armies brought final victory. Thus meaning that D-Day achieved its targets of relieving pressure on Russia, liberating France and more importantly, defeating Germany bringing Victory in Europe (V E Day). Another commemorative magazine on the 50th anniversary, source H, though it is a small article, provides a lot of evidence. To begin with, it refers to the D-Day and the Normandy invasion was a military feat. This infers that D-Day and the Normandy invasion was an achievement for the Allies. This source also says that D-Day and the Normandy invasions were a plan to smash German power in Europe. I can say from this that not only was it a plan; it was a plan put into action. Finally, source I, written by a French historian from Normandy wring tourist guidebook, says how the French coastline is marked forever by the first steps towards the liberation of Europe. By this remark, I assume he is referring to V E Day (Victory in Europe Day). In which case, this source directly shows that D-day and the invasion of Normandy was significant into the defeat of Germany. On the other hand, whilst D-Day and the Normandy invasion is obviously a prominent factor to the defeat of Germany, there are other factors, too. Source A shows how many troops came via the Channel but it also shows how Allied troops came from Italy, all along the German border of Russia and from the Mediterranean and into France. This demonstrates that Germany wasnt just being attacked from Normandy. Source D depicts a cartoon of Hitler ordering troops to invade USSR but instead, they turn into graves. This cartoon clearly states that there was fighting on the eastern front with Russia and that Germany wasnt benefiting from it and arent just suffering defeats in the West. Source E backs that up as it demonstrates Stalin rolling Germans back using a rolling pin and in the stew pots behind him are defeats Germany had already suffered from USSR. It is ironic that the cartoon is named The Chefs Speciality as this means the Russian speciality is to roll Germans back and defeat them. Source G has two sides to it. It does say that the Normandy invasions and D-Day brought final victory but it also says that D-Day couldnt have been launched until German U-boats have been mastered in the summer of 1943. The reason for this is because the Navy wanted absolute air and sea superiority before they proceed with the invasion. This led to an attack on the Atlantic Ocean named Battle of the Atlantic. Therefore, without the Battle of the Atlantic, D-Day and the Normandy invasion couldnt take place. Source J expresses how it wasnt just down to D-Day and the Normandy invasions that Germany was defeated. Source J, written by a Soviet, believes the Soviets played a role in defeating the Nazi aggressor but has not been fully recognised by the Western Allies. It continues to add that it was the Soviet people who held back the Nazis in Europe for over two years while the Western Allies deliberated and prepared for their invasion. I gather from this text that point this source is trying to get across is that without the Soviets aid, Hitler would of put into action his plans of invading Britain (as said by Stalin, Source F). Britain would have been unprepared and the invasion of Normandy and D-Day wouldnt have taken place at all. There are factors not included in any of the sources that without their aid, D-Day and the Normandy invasion wouldnt have been as significant as it was. The Battle of Britain is one of them. Germany was bombing RAF bases in Britain every night for 53 nights before bombing cities. This was a fatal mistake. It gave the RAF time to regroup, repair airfields and train new pilots. Therefore, Germany lost along with a few other reasons. But if Germany had won, Germany would have gained supremacy in the air and Germany would have invaded Britain and probably lost the war as a whole. Dunkirk was a key element in boosting the British moral and saving 50,000 troops from the coast of France. This is a great feat because if the British public didnt rescue them then the British troops would have been stuck at Dunkirk and captured by the Germans. They were saved and this meant that Britain still had its troops and could progress onwards. The loss of 50,000 men would have had an effect on their efforts with D-Day and the invasion of Normandy. The fighting on the Italian front and North Africa played an important role into the significance D-Day and the invasion of Normandy had to the defeat of Germany. This is for the same reasons as the fighting on the eastern front with Russia and the Germans in that if the British had lost this, Germans would have been able to progress onwards through France and would have possibly been more ready for the invasion of Normandy and D-Day. To add to this, Germany was failing anyway, mainly as a result of all these defeats above. Germany had fewer troops and wasnt as well prepared as the Allies. The Allies had paratroopers fly in to capture main railway lines and bridges to prevent Germans from bringing in reinforcements. There were also preparations in Britain. Britain had inflatable military equipment, code signals were sent to the French resistance, petrol pumps for military vehicles in Normandy were disguised as ice-cream parlours and they dropped Rupert dolls which were counterfeit paratroopers that fired gun shot sounds when they landed. Furthermore, Britain sent a van around Scotland sending out more false alerts of an invasion from Scotland and they bombed Calias 3-4 times more than Normandy so the Germans would think an attack would be in Calias. They also invented special tanks to overcome German obstacles, they used reflective stripes to confuse German radar systems and they code-named the beaches so the Germans didnt know where they were going to attack. This is a drastic amount of preparations to undergo but these kinds of preparations meant that Germany didnt, in theory, stand a chance of winning. I dont think Churchill would have organised such a large-scale invasion, involving 4 main countries if he wasnt assured of a beneficial outcome. I think most of the significance of D-Day and the invasion of Normandy was, on the whole, down to exceedingly good planning and a lot of luck. However, the sources, overall, in this paper and from my own knowledge, have convinced me that D-Day and the invasion of Normandy are the most significant factors to the defeat of Germany in the Second World War. The Invasion of Normandy led to a lot of things. For instance the capture of Cherbourg, Caen and Paris. The Falaise Gap was a great achievement as it captured 50,000 German troops and from then the Allies progressed fast to the French-German border where the Battle of the Bulge took place. The Allies won this two and then it was just a race with Russia to get to Berlin. Of course there were set backs, like the weather, the struggle at Caen and the capture of Omaha beach, but thats expected in a large-scale invasion as this. But on the whole, there were a lot of achievements and the invasion accomplished their targets and the invasion was a success. Germany surrendered on the 5th May 1945 and there was victory in Europe at last. Without all the other factors that led up to D-Day and the luck involved, Normandy wouldnt have either taken place, succeeded or succeeded as well as it did.

An Argument Against Abortion :: essays research papers

Psychologist, Sociologists and Anthropologist all have their place when it comes to analyzing criminals. Any member from these fields of study would have an interesting time analyzing Eric Rudolph. Eric Rudolph has been held responsible for numerous bombings of anti-abortion clinics as well as the bombing at the 1992 Atlanta summer games. As a result of these bombings one person has been killed and over 100 injured. From a psychological standpoint, Mr. Rudolph had some very serious issues. He was ruled to be mentally unstable. Eric belonged to a great number of anti-abortion groups. From a sociological stand point these groups did a great deal to aid in the crimes committed be Eric Rudolph. Upon looking at this case form the point of view of an anthropologist it becomes very clear that there is international support for Eric’s cause and very little being done to stop such actions.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Mentally unstable, odd, unsociable and depressed were all words used to describe Eric Rudolph in his childhood. In grade six a teacher wrote the following in the comment section. â€Å"Your son is an odd individual, please seek help for him. He is incredibly bright and gifted yet awkward and anti-social.† Eric Rudolph was constantly being called a failure and being told he was a plague on the planet, by his alcoholic father Mike Rudolph. Eric needed something to believe in, he took a stand in anti abortion. Anti abortion was a cause he supported ever since a very young age. Eric believed his criminal activities were simply moves in a direction of ending abortion and saving a life. This was his way of striving to make a difference. Time magazine did a psychological analysis of Eric Rudolph and they concluded â€Å"†¦ very little ability to decipher right from wrong, Eric is a young man that exploded in the very same manner as his bombs did. He was a cl ock waiting for the right time to make some noise.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the words of the great philosopher, David Letterman, â€Å"Eric Rudolph is like the whore of the anti abortion world, he is in bed with every anti abortion organization imaginable, some peaceful and some not so peaceful.† The role of a sociologist is to look at what groups or organizations that the person belongs too. There is a great deal of groups that Eric Rudolph was associated with. It was these groups that were responsible for teaching Eric what he needed to know in order to make a bomb.

Future Competitive Threats of China and India for Industries Essay

Discuss the future competitive threats of China and India for industries in developed countries. The emergence of China as the mass manufacturing pioneer in the world has lead to the concern that China will soon be competing with the industries in the developed nations. India, at the same time, is emerging as the centre of IT enabled services including software development, and poses significant threat to the developed countries in high-skill goods and services. Today, the main competitive threat that China and India pose to the developed nations is their cheap labour. They are able to produce basically anything at a much lower price compare to those in the western developed nations. Therefore, they signify threats to these countries. However, on the future prospects, China and India would acquire competitive threat that is different from what they were before. For instance, the education rate in China and India are both increasing, and they produce about half a million of scientists and engineers a year comparing to mere 60,000 in the US. Therefore, these skilled labours will take over the current low skilled labours in these two countries and further exploit the opportunities that they have, and compete better in the high skill sectors. In addition, many companies from the developed nations have shifted their R&D centre to the China and India, therefore, China and India are able to learn and gain experience through these foreign R&D centre and excel in innovations in the future. This makes the developed nations to lose their competitive advantage, and signifies competitive threat from China and India.

Global Economic Crisis: Implications and Challenges to the Philippines Essay

This is a forum where we can wonder, what is really happening in our country? Mr. W.D. Hilton our keynote speaker discussed the possible effects of the Global Economic Crisis in the Philippines. In this paper, I will write some of the highlights when we talked about Global Economic Crisis. The primary target of the said crisis is the people. There are so many people suffering in crisis and covered by clouds of hopelessness. Is there any hope, waiting for us to a brighter prospect of life? There are so many problems that we are experiencing right now. For our country Philippines, the Global Economic Crisis really put our country at stake. There is a big probability that there are many fellow Filipinos will be put to the test; on how high are their faith and how strong they are in facing the Economic crisis as of now. As a citizen concern, there are so many questions that are bothering to me at this time such as, what is Global crisis exactly means? When will economic crisis end? How to cope with the global financial crisis? And, what would be the possible effects of Economic crisis in the Philippines? What is really a Global Economic Crisis means? Based on my own understanding, Global Economic Crisis is the situation where more than one country is affected by scarcity of resources to be needed enable to provide for all citizens globally. When you say crisis, as what the dictionary defined it as, a condition of instability or danger in social, economic, political or international affairs leading to decisive change. This definition implies that our country is obviously affected by the so called Global Economic Crisis. As what the symposium explained and emphasized during the discussion, it is visible to the eye that we are one of the most affected by the crisis because as a third world country, this is not impossible to happen. The hardest question that crossed my mind was, when will economic crisis end? This would be a difficult question that the answer is still unclear for us, Filipinos. Another question is, is the Philippine Economy ready to battle the Global Financial Hardship? In our status right now, we are still struggling for some very broad reasons such as, corruptions, poor leaderships and rich in stealing wealth from others. If we still continue this type of system in our country, there’s no hope for any survival in crisis. Our superior in the government doesn’t have any heart for the poor and the rich people are getting richer. As a democratic country, how can we fight for what is right when all that we have is the left over of the government? Global economic Crisis touches the people’s lives negatively in some other ways. Here is some example of situations that is occurring right now. We can’t stop the time from approaching to us and will surprise us that one day; there would be a downsizing in the organization. One of the main reasons of downsizing of employees is, the company cannot afford to pay their salaries anymore due to financial crisis. It is hard for the organization to motivate their employees well because of lack benefits and expenses for their compensations would be budgeted only. For those who graduated recently, it would be difficult for them to get hired because there are no available jobs for them or the organizations are not yet ready for hiring new employees. It implies that there is no assurance even if you are holding a degree. Unfortunately, for the undergraduates are more difficult for them to find a job because of no vacancies for them available. For the prices of products or goods in the store, the consumer will buy it by bundles or dozens because they are aware or expecting that there is a price hiking because of high demand of goods. This is also the time that only few consumers because only few people can afford for the expensive price. That’s why they are taking the opportunity to buy the goods as many as possible. For our fellow Filipinos in other countries such as the OFW (Overseas Filipino Workers) they are also affected by Economic Crisis in such way. Have you heard the news that there was a time that the OFW’s were forced to send back to their respective countries due to poverty. Of course, the foreign country will prioritize first their fellow countrymen before the other citizens while experiencing the crisis in their country. Lastly, for those who are my fellow students also got affected. Example of this, they are millions of students taking up â€Å"Nursing† because it is in demand this time. Without noticing it, that there so much rivals or competitors with that job, to the extent that they are only few of them got a vacant seat due to overflowing of graduates with that course. Because of the crisis, they are hoping to go abroad, but unfortunately, they are only selected and rare people has the capability or could meet the requirements in going abroad. So, where are they going? It takes time to wait for other demand from other countries. With these situations, it would really pull us down. We are almost poor in everything even though we are rich in natural resources. We just didn’t know how to use our natural resources wisely. Even in making wise decisions are very hard for us. Poor in leadership, has a big impact in our country that’s why we are suffering and experiencing these unwanted state in life. We owe USA with a big amount. We are still hoping to pay for it but, if the occurring of corruptions in our country; it would be difficult for us to cope up because if greediness ruling inside of us, with no hesitations, our country is slowly dying. To sum up everything, Global Economic Crisis is a big threat because we allow vulnerabilities and the threats to come. What would be the mitigating measure that we are going to use to cope up with the big crisis? I think truth shall always prevail. Our politics has a big part in our crisis right now. We should stress what should be stress out. We have to overcome the crisis this time because we are all accountable for whatever may happen.

Suicide Solution Essays - Suicide, Assisted Suicide, Suicide Victim

Suicide Solution Essays - Suicide, Assisted Suicide, Suicide Victim Suicide Solution I'm about to take up a position which is going to be deamed by some, if not all, as a terrible stand to take. As a matter of fact, if anyone were to agree with me on ths subject, I'd be surprsed. For you see, rather than arguing from the postion of suicide being an unjustified and inane way to die, I shall argue the other point. That being suicide does have its merits. Before you people start screaming, hear my case out. Most people argue that nothing justifies the taking of someone's life. Yet what makes life so valuable? Why do people cling to it so? All we consist of is a bunch of carbon atoms, bound together to form an exoskeleton, organs, and tissue. In this light, there really is not much to life. Out of the 5 billion who inhabit the planet, very few of them shall emerge to be true world leaders. The rest will just lead a mediocre life of work and little play. The taking of ones life can be argued from a populistic view as well. It makes little sense to preserve life in an over populated world. True, one less person here on there will not make a large dent. Yet if everyone who attempts or had attempted suicide were not stopped, the impact would be noticed. Another popular argument for stoppers, people who want to prevent suicide, is that nothing can be bad enough. Yet how do they know this? They do not have to put up with the same stuff the suicide victim does everyday. How could they possibly know what the potential suicide victim feels. Just as a severely burned victim may wish to be allowed to die in peace, the suicide victim wishes the same. To die in peace with no argument from others. The argument of "look at the people you will hurt" also does not hold. Imidiate family members will be the only ones to suffer any great pain. Friends will go on with thier lives and in time forget about the death. Imidiate family too will forget the loss in time. Although it will take most considerably longer for them than it will for friends. Finaly, the argument of suicide being selfish is hard to grasp. Selfish in whose eyes? Certainly not the eyes of the victim. To them, they consider it selfish of others to try and preserve their life. Again, the argument of the stoppers don't know what the victim has to go through. They are not the ones enduring the pain. Religious people also crop up into the debate. Catholics claim that for someone to committ suicide sneds their soul straight to Hell. In many religions, suicide is considered taboo. However why is this so? Why should it be looked upon as disgracefull, when some religions claim death the be the reward for people after their time on earth is done. Suicide is an issue which should be examined at by all angles. Not just from the angle that it is "wrong". End of debate. Rather it should be looked at from the point of view that "yes" for some people, they should be allowed to die in peace.

Myths and Stereotypes About Hispanics and Immigration

Myths and Stereotypes About Hispanics and Immigration Latinos may be the largest ethnic minority group in the United States, but stereotypes and  misconceptions about Hispanic Americans abound. A considerable number of  Americans  believe  that Latinos are all recent immigrants to the U.S. and that unauthorized migrants to the country exclusively come from Mexico. Others believe that Hispanics all speak Spanish and have the same ethnic traits. In fact, Latinos are a more diverse group than the public generally recognizes. Some Hispanics are white. Others are black. Some speak English only. Others speak indigenous languages. This overview breaks down the following pervasive myths and stereotypes. All Undocumented Immigrants Come From Mexico While it’s true that the bulk of undocumented immigrants in the United States come from just south of the border, not all such immigrants are Mexican. The Pew Hispanic Research Center has found that illegal immigration from Mexico has actually declined. In 2007, an estimated 7 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S. Three years later, that number dropped to 6.5 million. By 2010, Mexicans comprised 58 percent of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. Unauthorized migrants from elsewhere in Latin America made up 23 percent of the undocumented population followed by those from Asia (11 percent), Europe and Canada (4 percent) and Africa (3 percent). Given the eclectic mix of undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S., it’s unfair to paint them with a broad brush. Considering Mexico’s proximity to the U.S., it’s logical that most undocumented immigrants would hail from that country. However, not all undocumented immigrants are Mexican. All Latinos Are Immigrants The United States is known for being a nation of immigrants, but whites and blacks are largely not perceived as being newcomers to America. In contrast, Asians and Latinos routinely field  questions  about where theyre really from. The people who ask such questions overlook that Hispanics have lived in the U.S. for generations, even longer than many Anglo families. Take actress Eva Longoria. She identifies as a Texican, or Texan and Mexican. When the â€Å"Desperate Housewives† star appeared on the PBS program â€Å"Faces of America† she learned that her family settled in North America 17 years before the Pilgrims did. This challenges the perception that Hispanic Americans are all  newcomers. All Latinos Speak Spanish It’s no secret that most Latinos trace their roots to countries that the Spanish once colonized. Because of Spanish imperialism, many Hispanic Americans speak Spanish, but not all do. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 75.1 percent of Latinos speak Spanish at home. That figure also indicates that a large number of Latinos, about a quarter, do not. Additionally, an increasing number of Hispanics identify  as Indians, and  a  number of these individuals speak indigenous languages rather than Spanish. Between 2000 and 2010, Amerindians who  identify  themselves as Hispanic have tripled from 400,000 to 1.2 million, the New York Times reports. This spike has been attributed to increased immigration from regions in Mexico and Central America with large indigenous populations. In Mexico alone, approximately 364 indigenous dialects are spoken. According to Fox News Latino, Sixteen million Indians live in Mexico. Of those, half speak an indigenous language. All Latinos Look The Same In the United States, the general perception of Latinos is that they have dark brown hair and eyes and tan or olive skin. In reality, not all Hispanics look mestizo, a mix of Spanish and Indian. Some Latinos look entirely European. Others look black. Others look Indian or mestizo. U.S. Census Bureau statistics provide an interesting take on how Hispanics racially identify. As noted previously, an increasing amount of Latinos identify as indigenous. However, more Latinos are identifying as white also. The Great Falls Tribune  reported that 53 percent of Latinos identified as white in 2010, an increase from the 49 percent of Latinos who identified as Caucasian in 2000. Roughly 2.5 percent of Latinos identified as black on the 2010 census form.

I tried to eat healthy for two weeks Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

I tried to eat healthy for two weeks - Essay Example Similarly fast food is also composed of such ingredients which can be harmful to the body. In order to lead a healthy life one has to balance his nutritional intake so that he does not consume unhealthy foods. These are the main reasons because of which I tried to eat healthy food for two weeks by cutting down on my diet. In my practice of consuming healthy foods I sought to cut out on the things which I considered unhealthy for my body. To start with I cut out on my daily soda consumption in order to avoid any sort of carbonated drink. I consumed water and tea as an alternative to soda as both of them are comparably healthier in my view than soda. Healthy food was my aim so I had to cut out on my consumption of fast food. I could not achieve this aim if I did not cook at my home so I preferred cooking at home instead of going out which proved to be a successful plan in cutting down my diet of fast food. I preferred salad over other things as it has essential vegetables which are hea lthy for my body.

A brief history of Capitalism, from antiquity to the present Essay

A brief history of Capitalism, from antiquity to the present - Essay Example re the history of capitalism from antiquity to the present; in doing so the paper deals separately with the Ancient, Medieval, and Modern forms of capitalism. Ancient forms of capitalism had its roots in the agrarian societies; the ancient form of capitalism was prevalent in ancient Israel, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece and in the ancient Roman empire. Weber is of the opinion that capitalism was at work in antiquity; he purports that the ancient societies were marked by â€Å"dramatic increases in wealth and these were often followed by decline† and therefore he argues that the existence of ‘apparent economic prosperity and expansion’ during this period show the evidence of capitalistic economic structure. Weber views capitalism as an economic system where â€Å"property is an object of trade, and is used by individuals for profit-making in a market economy†; following this definition Weber considers the slave-based agriculture (comprised of slaves and lands) as an ancient manifestation of capitalism (Love 35-36). The landlords and nobles used to levy rents from their dependants and the estates (plantations based o n slave labour) they owned contributed to the economic surplus. The ancient cities were more natural economies which were centres of consumption than production and therefore the economic surplus had a crucial role to play in the prosperity of the economy. Most of the ancient cities depended on grain imports; however, in cities like Rome and Athens private trade was replaced by state intervention which is against the principles of capitalism. However, organized labour and organized division of labour was absent in the ancient societies even though some crude forms of grouping of slave labour was prevalent in certain plantations and factories. Weber’s list of capitalist pursuits in ancient societies include â€Å"government contracts (tax farming and public works), mining, sea trade (maritime loans), overland trade, the leasing of slaves, and the