Denesia Rollins Mr. McKinney History 134-015 12 March 2012 Analysis Paper #3 The Great Depression and World War II have changed the United States by the Changing Roles for Women. With American men enlisting in the war effort, the work force quickly diminished. Who would "man" the assembly lines in the factories to produce the needed items for the current war? The War marked and important watershed in the women status. With most of the men going into military service, the demand for labor struck up old prejudices about sex roles in the workplace, and the military.
Indians did not want to own domestic animals since livestock husbandry did not fit easily with native practices, the adoption of livestock would alter women’s lives by affecting the traditional division of labor since women were mainly responsible of agriculture production. And the settlers free ranging livestock (mostly pigs and hogs) were feasting on their corn farms. Animal husbandry also challenged native beliefs and practices, since their mental universe assumed no distinction between human and animal being. Instead of recognizing the incompatibility of English and Indian subsystem regimes, colonial authorities permitted joint use of land, which was doomed to fail by the problems that arose from livestock on hunting lands. In 1640 Massachusetts law required settlers to help their fellow Indian neighbors, but this friendly gesture was coupled with stern provisos.
The women went from running the house to running the factory. Men went from running the factory to running the army and fighting. French Field Marshal Joffre emphasizes, “If the women in the factories stopped work for twenty minutes, the Allies would lose the war.” I believe that the women were the main driving force behind the war and helped the United States win with the Allies. Without them, I believe, the men fighting would not have had much power to continue to fight since the women provided them with necessities to win. The women of the early 20th century helped by filling in the jobs that men used, volunteering as nurses, and giving hope to the soldiers to fight back with.
The British could stay there because the United States didn't have an army because the government didn't have any money. Even though these outpost were in direct violation with the treaty of Paris the British kind of said what are you going to do about it and then just stayed. Because of the economic instability states began to go through a period of mass inflation and debt. Because of this the debt of individuals increased causing events like Shay's rebellion. In which a group of farmers led a armed assault on the national government and because there was no army so a local militia had to stop this rebellion.
In 1605-1612, the colonists experienced the longest drought (Doc B). Because of the lack of rain, they weren’t able to grow crops (Doc B). The seasons also caused diseases to spread (Doc E). The occupations of the colonists contributed to the colonist dying. They brought gentlemen, rich men that didn’t work with their hands, and they wanted other people to build their houses and hunt for their food (Doc C).
Should the U.S. be the world’s police force? It is not the responsibility of one country, to protect the others. Every country should fight their own fight and protect their own people. It would be practically impossible to spread American police forces around the world. I believe that most countries would not want Americans to be meddling the lands’ of others, day in and day out.
Student Professor English 305 6 November 2009 I Say No To Hate Crime Laws Hate crimes are an irrational, ignorant and cowardly expression of desperation. A person who commits a hate crime is desperate to feel better, superior and in control. That being said, there should not be special laws and mandatory sentences for people who commit these heinous acts of violence because they do not accomplish the goals of eradicating or deterring bigotry. If we, as a society, put special laws and punishments into our legal system, we are unequivocally saying that the motive of these acts is more important than the intent or outcome of these crimes. I do not believe this is true nor do I feel that this is the position of the majority of people in
Banning all or some weapons is not the solution to decreasing the increased gun related violence in the United States. Having stricter gun laws and measures could keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, people with mental illness, or individuals with bad intentions. Limiting the number of bullets a magazine can hold will not keep these types of individuals from committing a crime. The solution that will not affect the responsible gun owners would be to have stricter gun control laws, thorough background checks with mental health assessment,
Patricks method not only runs the risk of stirring up a violent situation, but by intervening on somebodys everyday routine you are negatively being viewed by society therefore no one wants to support your cause. The last thing you want when protesting a war is to cause a potentially violent situation because then you are moving in the opposite
Killing people during war time should not count as a sin for many reasons. During war the army will have to protect the future of its country and avoid or minimize the damage that could occur, so it must defend and protect the land and innocent people who live there. Killing in an event of war isn’t sinful when the army is defending its land against the attacking country because if the defending army doesn’t defend or protect its land and people then they will get killed by the attacking army and therefore the attacking army will invade and possibly destroy the country. The soldiers also have a job to do so they won’t be able to disobey orders from their military leader or refuse to follow them. Defending property and people is also part of their job description which means that they will have to do anything they can to fulfill it.