How did the civil rights movement transform American society in the 1960s and 1970s?
This is such an EASY answer. The most interesting thing that happened in the 1960s and 1970s were cultural changes in the way that most people thought about their fellow citizens. The Civil Rights Movement was one of these shifts that transformed the attitudes of the majority of American citizens and made them realise that ALL people were entitled to pursue the American dream. People had been living a fairly conservative way in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Blacks didn't have legal equality. Many woman didn't work outside the home. Most people obeyed their parents and trusted the government. By the early 1970s, none of that was true anymore. Americans wanted their troops to withdraw from the war in Vietnam. Fashion changed as well. Before the late 1960s, African Americans had to live under a system of segregation. In some areas of the country, they were legally obliged to stay away from white suburbs, white schools, white shops, white restaurants, white jobs and white seats on busses. After the early 1970s, blacks were (theoretically) allowed to go anywhere and do anything they wanted, even if it took them into proximity to white people. The country still has a long way to go in terms of providing REAL equality to all its citizens, but at least for now the laws can be enforced. Have a look at these websites. They will give you a flavor of the whole era, not just the Civil Rights Movement. Spend about an hour reading through them. See what you can find out that will give you a true understanding of the whole period of American history: http://www.kidsnewsroom.org/elmer/infoCe... http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory... http://www.vietnamwar.com/ http://www.legacy98.org/move-hist.html (Search under the Second Wave) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings The success of the Civil Rights Movement was one of the most important moments in American history. For the first time ever, all citizens had the same rights under the law, and the court system was willing to back them up.
Did black women benefit from the feminist movement?
The feminist movement is a political movement. As long as there is a word "politics", a few people made it for their own benefits. There are always others who benefit more or less, or not at all from any political movement. There are those who lost because of the movement. Some black women for sure got some better treatment because of the feminist movement, but overall the whole movement is too generalized and one-sided (abuse comes only from a man).Stop the abuse, not a man! - Stop everybody who abuses, not only men abusers.If you want equal treatment for everybody - treat people equally. When you need to hire someone give a job position to the most competent person and to the mutual satisfaction, not to black, white, woman or man, etc.Stop any kind of mistreatment and discrimination of people regardless of their race, skin color, gender, weight, age ...
Who benefits the most by keeping the Naxalite movement alive?
1All Poltical parties get benefited according to their use and use very one emotions.2 All foreigners who want to destroy india get benefited.It only destroy india. Coz solution is nt lie within the destructive thoughts..Remember aag se aag nhi bhujti..
What does it take to start a political movement?
First you need to ask yourself why you're doing it (what is it you want and why?) Do you want more money for a cause? Do you want a policy/law change? or a mix of the two? Is anyone is doing it already that you can join their efforts. If no one is addressing the issue, you need to seek out who might be allies in this;think who is your enemy's enemy and who will benefit by the change you're seeking, and recruit them (students, parents, etc.) Then you need to identify who the gate keepers to the solutions are (politicians usually) and how you will influence them. You should have multiple ways of influencing the gatekeepers and from as many different people (a group is even better, such as PTA's or parents groups or other advocacy groups, like American Heart Association, etc.). There should be campaigns for people to call their local/state/federal representatives (depends on what you're looking for), use social media wisely (have several people commit to tweeting around this issue several times a week) and maybe even a Facebook Page for people in favor of your cause (be careful, what is said publicly can boomerang). You should think of letter writing campaigns to politicians, writing opinions in the local paper and one on one meetings with them as well. You should have as much data/research as you can get on your issue, showing its a good thing and that includes why it's less expensive in the long-run All of this information should be on a 1-page easy to read flyer that you can hand out. So basically, it's what do you want, why do you want it and how to influence key people to make it happen.
Southern Civil Rights Movement and Black Power Movement?
Quick answer // // The (Southern) Civil Rights Movement worked within the existing framework of Government seeking to improve the status of minorities, whereas the Black Power Movement sought to establish a seperate 'Black' nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Power ""Black Power was a political movement among persons of African descent throughout the world, though it is often associated primarily with African Americans in the United States. Most prominent in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the movement emphasized racial pride and the creation of black political and cultural institutions to nurture and promote black collective interests, advance black values, and secure black autonomy. The first person to use the term "Black Power" in a political context was Robert F. Williams, an NAACP chapter president, writer, and publisher of the 1950s and '60s.[citation needed] However the first usage of "Black Power!" as a slogan is generally credited to Mukasa Dada (then known as Willie Ricks) and Stokely Carmichael, both organizers and spokespersons for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Some, though not all, Black Power adherents believed in racial separation, black nationalism, and the necessity to use violence as a means of achieving their aims. Such positions were for the most part in direct conflict with those of leaders of the mainstream Civil Rights Movement, and thus the two movements have often been viewed as inherently antagonistic. However certain groups and individuals participated in both civil rights and black power activism."" Considering how many people on Yahoo Answers wave the stars & bars and endorce slavery based on race I would say both movements have a relevancy circa 2007. Peace...
Are there any benefits of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem?
An anonymous answer here - generally I prefer not to touch politics on Quoara. Saves lot of time.Between free entry to the US and the presence of the US embassy anywhere in Israel I would prefer the former. My uneducated guess is that vast majority of the population in Israel cares about long lines in the embassy in TelAviv more than about a location of the embassy.That said the whole story is a non-event.Netanyahu needs it for that 15% of voters who think that the PM is not “right” enough.POTUS needs “to throw red meat” (this is a quote straight from CNN) to his base.Palestinian leaders, who have missed a number of opportunities to get the agreement signed, are constantly looking for somebody or something to blame. In my view them are the least smart of the three. Part of the Palestinian population are misled by their leadership and dream about changing the status quo. Common guys. You have lost 50 years of a normal life by betting on the wrong horse. Change of the status quo while possible will bring nothing but more blood and grieve. You are being used by guys like Erduan. You have to realise that it makes sense to adopt to the current situation and concentrate on making money, building a country, and most important, voting reasonably (this is a tough one I know). Over time you will get everything you dream of. Read history of countries like Singapore. Work hard, be sensible and rational, keep religion and governing separate. That’s all you need.US Embassy in Jerusalem? Who gives a fuck? In the US less than 40% of the population agree that it probably makes sense. I would not be surprised to see even lower number in Israel.
Do the Democratic Socialists of America have a chance at solidifying their platform and building their support base in 2020 if they have a powerful and outspoken leader?
In the 1930s there was a worldwide depression, drought in the US dustbowl, millions of people were out of work and conditions were ripe for demagogues. We saw the rise of the Fascists and Nazis in Europe, the deliberate starvation of millions of Kulaks in the USSR, not to mention millions more sent to Gulags, and a burgeoning worldwide Communist party, active not just in Germany and Western Europe, but in the US as well. The worse things got, the more people joined the communist party. In Europe many people turned to demagogues like Hitler, Stalin, Franco and Mussolini. In Britain many turned to the charismatic Churchill but the Fascist Mosley also had a lot of followers. In the US, FDR was hated, not just by the right, but by the left. His banking reforms and work programs saved the middle class and forestalled any movement towards revolution. The war also jumpstarted the economy and American manufacturing leaving the victorious Americans in a good situation when the war ended. In Britain they still had rationing. Other factors were at play as well particularly the American access to oil.The situations are not exactly parallel but very similar. Having charismatic leaders is certainly a benefit to any nascent political movement. A lot will depend on the economy, what happens in the primaries in September and which political faction prevails in November. After that people will start to declare their candidacies. But having powerful and outspoken leaders guarantees nothing in the long term. They can be a force for good or for evil.I'm not sure what you mean by “ a powerful and outspoken leader.” do you think now is the time for people to start coalescing around a putative leader? I'm inclined to think that once we see who emerges victorious after the midterms, everyone will have a better idea of who is best positioned to lead both the Democrats and the Democratic Socialists. We will also see which issues resonate most strongly with voters.
Why doesn’t the CANZUK free movement proposal also include the USA, which is the largest country & most important economy in the English speaking world? If it did, would that then give the UK a just as good deal as being outside of the EU & EEA?
Because, in theory, it’s more than just a free-trade / free-movement proposal. It’s a supranational union of likeminded nations. And the US is just too big and too different for anyone to benefit from them being in it.The rationale is that the four countries (Canada, Australia, UK & New Zealand) share the same Head of State, similar government structures and legal systems, are all part of the Commonwealth, have strong cultural ties, have similar demographics and are more or less politically aligned. Economically, they are very similar, with comparable GDP per Capita (based on World Bank figures, AUS: $46,800, CAN: $44,000, UK: $42,600, NZ: $39,000). Based on the idealogical similarities and comparitive strengths of the countries, CANZUK would (in principal) form an effective bloc of equals.The US, while sharing some historical similiarities (language & legal system), has diverged quite a bit culturally from it’s anglosphere cousins. It’s not a Commonwealth country, has a very different government structure and is much more politically right-wing. Idealogically, it’s very different from the others. From a non-economic perspective, there’s not a lot of reason why the US would want to join the group. From the CANZUK country perspective, the US would dominate the party to the point where it’s no longer a bloc of equals. Dare I say it, American Exceptionalism would not sit well within the group.Incidentally, I don’t think CANZUK is realistic anyway. it’s not a formal proposal, rather just an idea proposed by a think tank. Given that the UK has just voted to leave one supranational union, it would be odd for them to dive straight back in to another.