Now many people see using Native American names for mascots to be racists, and in some ways it can be. These mascots and cultural figures are part of the Native American culture. To go and generalize these people into a sports team that have nothing to do with who they are, is being very prejudice, misleading, and in many ways wrong. This controversy should not even be something to think about. These people deserve the right to be heard and understood that their names, tribal figures, and beliefs are theirs.
In my opinion, the penalties for hate crimes should continue to be more severe than that of a regular crime because so many innocent people are injured and even killed simply because they are different. People should have the right to live in America free of fear that something will happen to them simply because they were not born a certain color, they practice a different religion or that they happen to be
The negative portrayals of earlier films on Aboriginals did not only have a great effect on how the world views them today, but it has also contributed to the continuing struggles of First Nations for individual rights. The world has a variety of interpretations and misinterpretations of the First Nations people, but the one that is stuck to everyone’s mind are probably the portrayals of First Nations in the earlier films. The early film’s portrayals of aboriginals were mostly offensive, inaccurate, and stereotypical-they were not pleasant. In the 1930s, Native people were portrayed as savages. One example is John Ford’s movie Stagecoach which shows a number of Indian type violence, heavy drinkers to being prostitutes to
They came for a variety of reasons, but all wanted a better life. Carving a better life out of the vast wilderness the early colonists found in North America challenged even the hardiest of those early pioneers. In England and in much of Europe, the poor were chronically unemployed, and opportunities to rise out of poverty were scarce; by comparison, almost any alternative might have seemed promising, Europe in 1600 had lots of push. On the other hand, conditions in early America were difficult, to say the least, but the “pull factor” was helped by what can only be characterized as propaganda. Proprietors of the companies that sponsored American colonies quickly realized that settlers were needed if their investments were to show a return, and their efforts to recruit settlers made the New World appear far more attractive than conditions warranted.
The conquests strengthened Rome with the providing of new warriors and slaves to help stabilize the economy and the losses he had from the wars. But they also weakend the empire because of the amount of land he aquired would be hard to keep up with the rest of the empire. That and many of the Gauls he had under him still did not look kindly upon Rome. A revolt was likely. And because the Gauls were such a warring country/providence, they continuosly fought with one another.
To what extent was Racism the main reason for changing attitudes towards Immigration in the 1920s It can be argued that racism was the main reason for changing attitudes towards immigration in the USA in the 1920s. The three immigration acts put tighter restrictions on who was deemed worthy enough to live and work in the USA. Other factors included political fears of Eastern European ideologies such as communism and anarchism, economic factors such as jobs and housing, and social factors such as crime, religion and culture. All of these created much hostility and discrimination towards many hopeful immigrants. They were a precursor to violence and rioting in what was a fundamentally racist society.
The US government had discarded its plan of treating much of the West as a huge Indian reserve, and introduced small tribal reservations, where the Indians were concentrated. Some tribes peacefully accepted their fate, but other tribes resisted. These tribes battled the US Army for control of the West. The government forced the tribes to comply, and many did by signing treaties. However, many Indians refused to be confined to reservations.
Heavy taxes on the smaller countries disrupted local economies. Famines started to happen because of mass crop exportation. And just the overall resentment smaller, more traditional countries had because western ideas were being forced upon
The question "Is the world changing for the better?" suggests that progression among human society has brought upon drastic changes for the worse. In other words, global progress is not always beneficial as it initially seems. In my opinion, changes contribute difficult complexities to the world. Consider 8,000 BCE, where men and woman hunted and gathered as means to survive.
The colonialists would use their superior power to force the local inhabitants into a labour force, some may call this exploitation and in many cases it was but along with all this exploitation and violence was a new found infrastructure government system. There were many positives that followed colonialism as I mentioned above but in order for the colonialists to establish this new way of life amongst the local people much blood followed and new diseases to which the local people had no immunity. Recently there has been this outcry by the “oppressed” countries that the western countries should pay reparations for slavery and colonialism to minorities and natives of the third world. Personally I think this is a ridiculous point to try and make. There is nothing uniquely western about colonialism.