In a time of confusion, fear, helplessness, and widespread apathy of the American people towards societal issues in the early 1960’s, the Students of a Democratic Society (SDS) dared to create a manifesto that challenged the traditional way of thinking and perceiving the world around them. These students had grown up with fairly comfortable lives where they could blindly accept the American ideals of freedom, equality, and justice for all. At college, however, in light of social ills such as racial discrimination, the Cold War, and widespread disparity between the “have and have-nots” (both domestically and abroad), they came to recognize the harsh reality that these traditional American ideals were not actually translated into the policies
“The admission culture of selective colleges today is characterized by a rising degree of deception and –no doubt, unintended –cruelty” (Delbanco 117). The selectivity of colleges, especially those of Ivy Leagues, can be hard to put into comparison with other colleges and universities. Ivy Leagues run on their own system, and no one can tell them how to do things because they have been established in America the longest. Colleges do not do this on purpose; it is just the way the system works. “Recruited athletes, alumni children, faculty children, members of historically underrepresented minority groups, and ‘development cases’ have an advantage, and by the time they have all been accounted for, the number of slots remaining can be extremely small compared with the ever-growing applicant pool” (Delbanco 117).
Maybe not in inspiring the President for the program he is going to run, since SDS was way more radical on the left wing than Johnson. But the SDS certainly had some good ideas concerning the end of the Vietnam War and the fought for civil rights. Furthermore, they helped built student control in the universities and they inspired a lot of students to help and make a change in America.
The Sharon Statement, published in 1960, and the Port Huron Statement, published in 1962, attempt to defend the liberty of the citizens of the United States. Both the Sharon Statement and the Port Huron Statement cite the Declaration of Independence. Both documents are penned by young people. Both documents present an opinion on how the United States government should approach the future of the country. Despite these 'similarities' between the two documents, the statements reach separate conclusions as to how the United States should continue to protect liberty.
Both also argue that when the laws of man come into conflict with the laws of God, that civil disobedience is not only justified, but is a moral obligation. Both are in the history books as two of Americas most successful revolutionaries. It is clear that Dr. King read Jefferson’s, “Declaration of Independence”, and used it as the model on which he based his arguments in “Letter from a Birmingham jail” on. These two documents are the handbook by which all civil rights leaders and revolutionaries use as the road map justify their call for equal rights upon. Between June 11th, and June 28th, of 1776 Thomas Jefferson wrote his manifesto, “The Declaration of Independence” (later enhanced by the eloquent, and skillful, changes that Bengermin Franklin and John Adams made), as a call for the American colonies to break free from English rule.
Therefore this large influence was causing the SPD’s to grow considerably in the Reichstag, consuming the majority of seats in the parliament. Therefore the Reichstag was in left-wing position. This posed a threat to the right-wing position that the government was currently in. Therefore this implies political parties were becoming more influential in the parliament as the Kaiser could not overlook such a dominant party in the Reichstag. However it could be argued that Wilhelm II’s aims to crush socialism in response to Caprivi’s tolerance for Socialism in his years as chancellor disagree with this view as it suggests he is aiming for more of an autocratic state where he holds state control.
The main argument against increasing the wages of these workers is that it will have a negative impact on the developing world because workers will lose their jobs. He refutes this argument by stating that companies, rather than anti-sweatshop protestors, make the decision to shift the locations of their factories. He concludes by appealing to college students to pressure universities to purchase products in factories that are respectful of workers’ rights. He provides information about student unions that support this cause. Although he states many arguments about working conditions he provides very little evidence to support these arguments.
Liberalism and Socialism Mark Minks Devry University Professor Fuss 6/18/14 Liberalism is a political ideology of 19th century that championed political democracy in the society. This ideology stressed intellectual inquiry, the rule of government by following law, protection of human beings from any arbitrary authority and the autonomy of citizens or individual in the society. Typically, this ideology draws its roots to the religious reformation of 16th century and it owes a lot of its ideals to John Locke and Thomas Hobbes argument that the governed are sovereign and they should not be ruled by an individual who argues that he or she has divine right (Gray, 2005). In 19th century, Adam Smith among other liberalists insisted that the state should not interfere with the societies’ economic life or status. In this respect, the main goal of liberalism is to promote a laissez-faire society and their main goal is preservation of human rights and freedoms.
Also, increased corruption and nepotism, as well as strict regulations on newspapers and other publications particularly angered the students. Thus, the students argued that the Communist Party was not focusing enough on political and economic reforms. The students demanded democracy while carrying signs that read, "Oppose privileges" and "Media must tell the truth". The way Chinese Government reacted Firstly, the Chinese government general secretary of the CPC Zhao Ziyang try to use a peaceful stance of reconciliation towards the protesting students and Chinese people but it prove abortive. Following the resilience from the protesters, the then Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping and other party elders resolved in using force against the protesters.
Teachers demanded more academic freedom. Lawyers complained that the National Peoples Congress was too slow in passing and enacting the laws that had already been drafted, and that unqualified Party cadres were interfering with legal institutions and placing themselves above the law. Scientists criticized the unqualified Party cadres who were directing their research, and complained that political meetings took them away from their work. People spoke out by putting up posters on university campuses, rallying in the streets, holding meetings for CCP members, and publishing magazine articles. For example, students at Peking University created a "Democratic Wall" on which they criticized the CCP with posters “They protested CCP control over intellectuals, the harshness of previous mass campaigns such as that against counterrevolutionaries, the slavish following of Soviet models, the low standards of living in China, the proscription of foreign literature, economic corruption among party cadres, and the fact that 'Party members [enjoyed] many privileges which make them a race apart' During the period from June 1 to July 17, 1957, millions of letters poured in to the Premier's Office and other authorities, and the situation began to get out of control.