Midterm Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 4

Midterm - Essay Example e denied same job opportunities as the whites; they were made to work for the whites without pay, in the World War they were made to serve in only segregated units. The slaves were used for agricultural purposes as labor especially in cotton and tobacco plantations. They were also used in shipyards, as domestic slaves and as labor on the docks. They were viewed as slaves so much to the point that their owners bought them. A slave could be bargained for, and the highest bidder would take him or her home. The owners were allowed to do anything to the slaves including killing them as the Black Americans were not viewed equals to the rest. They were given the hardest works, worked under the toughest conditions and were treated to gruesome punishments like being left to be mauled by dogs or starved to death. After a while, the art of the slave trade was abolished in America, and was now illegal and punishable by death. This shows the start of a new century which hopefully would bring a change to the African Americans. However, it still did not bring change. They were still treated with contempt and were discriminated especially in the fact that they could not share the same facilities with the whites like the train, the bus, the restaurants and more. They were allowed to vote in the national elections and poll taxes. In response to all this, in 10909, lobbyist groups and protest groups emerged to respond to the de jure racism. One of the groups was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) (Zastrow, 2010). This period is at times known as the Nadir of American Race Relations. This is so because this was the height of African American segregation. It was so intense that race riots were experienced, black lynching and anti blacks’ violence. It was so in tense that in 1946, Einstein defined African American racism as America’s worst disease. In 1981-1997, the United States Department of Agriculture discriminated against African American

Smokers in Great Britain and USA Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Smokers in Great Britain and USA - Essay Example -  Smokers from most provinces have been issued with rights that assist them in their consumption provided that they adhere to the set laws. -  Most of the rules prevent smoking in public places where there are secondary casualties and do not target the smokers directlyb)  Social perspective-  The country has friendly laws on smokers; hence, reducing the rate at which they are being referred to as social outcasts.-  Despite round 11% of the population agreeing to smoke daily, they were not referred to as social pariahs due to adherence to rules and lack of anti-smoking campaigns.C.  COMPARISON BETWEEN UK, US AND CANADA (Crystal, 2012; Bullard, 2013; Thestar.com, 2015)a)  Rights-  Canada has different civil rights as compared to the U.K and U.S that can be observed in the smoking sector; hence, smokers in Canada are less likely to be referred to as outcasts.-  There is the presence of friendly rules in Canada that do not contribute to the diminishment of smokers' rig hts unlike in the U.K and U.Sb)  Social perspective and media coverage-  Canada has positive media coverage on smoking unlike in the U.S and U.K whereby there is an increase in anti-smoking media campaigns.-  In the U.s and U.K, the media covers smoking in terms of health and negativity but in Canada promotes smoking.D.  CONTRAST BETWEEN THE UK, US, AND CANADA (Crystal, 2012; Bullard, 2013; Thestar.com, 2015)a)  Percentage of smokers -  The U.K has more than 24% of the population being involved in tobacco consumption while the U.S has an average of 20% compared.

Jefferson Essay Essay Example for Free

Jefferson Essay Essay Thomas Jefferson played a very important role in the history of the United States. Jefferson is most famously known for writing the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson talked many times about African-Americans in America. Where they equal to white people? How were whites and blacks different? What about slavery? Thomas Jefferson had an opinion on all of these subjects, but much of what Thomas Jefferson said was later contradicted with his own words. What did Thomas Jefferson mean when he said that all men were equal? Well, many people would agree with what it means today in modern times. Today the statement, all men are created equal means; all men and women whether black, white, tall, short, fat, or skinny were all created equal. That is not necessarily what it meant in the 1700s. Blacks were enslaved and worked hard while wealthy white men did nothing of the sort. Justice Thurgood Marshall said, â€Å"The blacks were so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect†¦ and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. This excerpt shows that in that time blacks were not treated the same as whites and clearly did not have the same rights. Conor Cruise O’Brien’s book confirms this belief as he takes a quote from Thomas Jefferson himself: â€Å"It is accepted that the words ‘all men are created equal’ do not, in their literal meaning, apply to women, and were not intended by the Founding Fathers to apply to slaves. † This shows that when Thomas Jefferson talks abo ut all men being created equally he means to say white men. The meaning of the word expatriation is as follows; to leave one’s native country to live elsewhere (Merriam-Webster). Jefferson wanted to send the blacks that were descendent of the original slaves back to Africa. The deal here was Africa was no longer their native country. This act was known as expatriation. The southern courts believed that slavery violated the natural rights of blacks and although slavery was allowed and legal it was immoral and unjust. Thomas Jefferson made it known that he supported the abolishment of slave trading. He said the following to Congress; â€Å"withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa. † By this Jefferson means that the people of the United States should stop the enslavement of blacks so that they no longer violate the human rights and stop offending the people of Africa. In this way Jefferson’s reasons for promoting expatriation and understanding for the natural rights of blacks were consistent. He wanted to send the blacks back because he wanted to stop offending the people of Africa. Jefferson believed that blacks and whites were very different. He said that he believed that blacks were originally their own race and became distinct by time and certain circumstances. According to Jefferson blacks came from their own species but were from the same general genus that is the human race. He said that blacks were inferior to whites in mind and body. This can be said to mean that whites were possibly better looking people or that they were more fit. It could have been said to mean that whites were smarter than blacks because they had an education that the blacks did not have. Jefferson did not believe blacks were men. â€Å"Men,† was said to be referred to as only white men. Samuel Eliot Morison says in his book; â€Å"In his views (Jefferson) blacks were not men. † The possession of individual rights was mainly determined by one’s race or skin color. Blacks had no rights early on in the 1700s but began to become free in the early 1800s. A wealthy white male had all rights; he was allowed to do what he wanted so long as it was just. A black man was free and eventually gained simple rights due to the belief that the United States was violating human rights. I do not believe that expatriation could have been a helpful solution to the problem of slavery in America. I believe this because if the slaves would have gone to Africa they would be gone, but there is no saying that the lazy southern farmers would not have brought in slaves from other places. They would have gotten so used to not having to work that they would not be able to start working again. I think that they would possibly keep indentured servants as permanent slaves or enslave poor people. I’m sure that expatriation would not solve the problem of slavery, at least not immediately. As I stated in the beginning, Jefferson’s view changed greatly throughout the course of his lifetime. Later in his life he began to appreciate black people more because of all their hard work. Also, he realized that blacks were the same as whites in that they were to be given human rights and that the people of the United States had been violating their rights from the very beginning. Jefferson also saw that blacks were men, and that really God created all men equal, black and white. Thomas Jefferson certainly lived an intriguing life. He lived during a time where slavery was legal. He lived during a time when slavery began to die out. Jefferson was part of the reason why blacks are free today. Although his beliefs shifted throughout the duration of his life he ended on the good side, the side that was just. He began to believe that all men are created equal with a literal meaning.

Treaty of Lisbon and 2004 Constitutional Treaty Comparison

Treaty of Lisbon and 2004 Constitutional Treaty Comparison Before considering the differences between the contents of the Treaty of Lisbon and the failed 2004 Constitutional Treaty, not least because in the views of many this could be a short discussion, it seems prudent to briefly consider why it was felt necessary that any change to what was then, and in fact still is now, the status quo was required. At the conference of Nice, in 2000, a declaration was made as a result, in part, due to the agreement between Member States that the way should be opened for the expansion of the Community to allow entrance of a number of new States to the Community[1]. The conference felt that a number of points needed to be considered and addressed. There were four points raised for discussion namely: how to establish and monitor a more precise delimitation of powers  between the European Union and Member States, reflecting the  principle of subsidiarity. the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union†¦ a simplification of the Treaties†¦ the role of national parliaments in the European architecture.[2] These points were considered in December 2001 in Laeken in Belgium where a declaration was made in respect of how it was felt the Union needed to proceed in order to ensure a successful future[3]. The Laeken Declaration drew deeply on history and the divisions which had been caused, in the main, by the Second World War. It saw that the future and unified Europe would expunge those divisions and pave a bright future for the Union as a whole. The resultant Constitutional Treaty set out how it was felt that the Union could proceed as a defined unit. The coverage of its abrupt failure has been comprehensive with many views expressed as to reasons for this. Some believed that it was erroneous to even consider a document of this kind in relation to Europe, arguing that the situation in place worked sufficiently well[4]. Whilst others were critical of its contents believing that it was a step too far in the direction if a federal Europe and others believed that its failure was the result of an underlying suspicion of the Union as whole in many member states[5]. Whatever the reasons behind its failure, and it is likely to be a combination of all of the expressed views, the process towards some kind of constitutional document continued. Following the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty in referenda in France and the Netherlands and the likely imminent rejection in other states including possibly the United Kingdom, a halt was placed on proceedings and a period of reflection was implemented in which Member States were encouraged to enter into debate and discussion with their citizens in an attempt to pave a way forwards. This process took place during the remainder of 2004 and 2005, and then in 2006, Germany was commissioned by the European Council to assess the situation with regards to the Constitutional Treaty. Following this, in June 2007 the ‘Reform Treaty’ was introduced and this was developed over the next year or so and, because the European Union Presidency was held by Portugal at the end of 2007, was renamed as the Treaty of Lisbon. This treaty like the Constitutional Treaty before it required ratification by all Member States. This was mostly achieved, but Ireland, the only Member State who se constitution requires a referendum before ratifying the Treaty, returned a no vote in that referendum. The reasons for this will be discussed below, but at the current time the constitution of the European Union, or lack thereof, remains as it did in 2000 following the Treaty of Nice. One of the key complaints, as mentioned above, of the Constitutional Treaty was its implications in relation to a federal Europe. Article I-8 of the Treaty provided for amongst others the celebration of Union Day on 9th May each year. In drafting the Treaty of Lisbon the Council were careful to ensure that any reference to a constitutional document was removed. There can be no doubt that the Treaty of Lisbon makes a number of key amendments to the EC Treaty. Large numbers of these however are replications of what was already contained within the Constitutional Treaty. One area where there is remarkable consistency between the Constitutional Treaty and the new Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which the Treaty of Lisbon creates in place of the EU Treaty, is that of the role of national parliaments in relation to the Union. It will be remembered that this was one of the key questions discussed Laeken and was clearly believed to be vital in ensuring a unified Europe. Article I-11 of the Constitutional Treaty provided that national parliaments would ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, a principle which states that the European Union will only take action on matters which it is felt, due to their scale, cannot be addressed at a national level. This statement is transferred in almost identical form to Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union by Article 1(6) of the Treaty of Lisbon. Article I-18(2) of the constitutional treaty required the European Commission to bring to the attention of national parliaments proposals to instigate a flexibility clause which allows for the adoption of measures by the Union where there are insufficient powers in place to allow for their adoption. This statement is added almost word for word into Article 352(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. These are two examples of the nine provisions contained within the Constitutional Treaty in relation to the role of subsidiarity, which have remained to all purposes unaltered within the contents of the Treaty of Lisbon. Whilst this is not the place for a full discussion on the validity of these provisions, there seems to be little doubt that they provide for a greater contribution to Union policy making by national parliaments and, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 7(3) of the Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality in allowing, in certain circumstances, national parliaments to veto Union legislation give national parliaments a much more significant position within the Union’s political processes. The next area considered at Laeken was the introduction of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Both this and the European Convention on Human rights would have been accepted into the European Constitution under Article I-9 of the Constitutional Treaty. Rather unsurprisingly given the tone of what has gone before both were to become legally binding following the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. It is interesting to note that the text of the Charter is absent from the Treaty itself, rather it was to be introduced in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union. It is necessary next to address the fourth of the four considerations of the Laeken declaration before considering the third. The Constitutional Treaty contained provisions giving the Union competence or the ability to legislate in certain areas. These split into two sections exclusive competence, in which only the Union could legislate and shared competence in which this ability is shared with the member state, providing the Union has not exercised its competence[6]. The wording in relation to these competences is indicative of the level of change that took place between the Constitutional Treaty and the Treaty of Lisbon. Paragraph two of Article 2, in the Treaty on European Union read: ‘The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall again exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence.’ This was amended from the following in t he Constitutional Treaty: ‘The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence.’ This seems to be an attempt to demonstrate that some power with regard to these competences can be returned to the member state if the Union ceases to act, but it can be seen that the change between the two treaties is minimal[7]. The final of the four considerations expressed in Nice and given voice in Laeken was that of simplifying the Treaties. There can be no doubt that the Constitutional Treaty would have done this. There would be one definitive document containing the whole scope and powers of the Union, the Treaty of Lisbon was clearly a long way from achieving that aim. This treaty is an amendment of previously existing treaties and read in isolation is almost pointless. It also results in yet another reclassification of the treaty articles and subsequently yet another table of equivalences. Whilst it seems an obvious point, this one factor is the single largest difference between the Constitutional Treaty and the Treaty of Lisbon, thus indicating that other differences, as has been discussed, are rather minor. Before continuing to discuss the possible reasons behind the Irish no vote, this seems a sensible point to summarise the differences which exist between the Treaty of Lisbon and its failed predecessor. One of the single, and perhaps most significant, differences between the two does not involve the details of their respective texts at all. One of the ideas considered at Laeken was that the Union should adopt a more open and democratic approach to its policy making process. This was given effect in the drafting of the Constitutional Treaty. Following its failure however the Union immediately returned to the previous approach of secretive, less democratic policy making. In an attempt to push through the reforms contained within the Constitutional Treaty, all be it minus certain contentious areas, the Union developed the Treaty of Lisbon with little or no public consultation. It has been mentioned numerously above that there are very few significant substantive changes between the two treaties. It should be emphasised that the express constitutional intent has been removed and any statements which could be viewed as suggestive of federalism have also disappeared. The declaration that the European Parliament is sovereign has also been removed[8]. There are a number of minor technical changes in relation to the scope of competences and rights in relation to subsidiarity have also been lightly modified. In most other respects the two treaties are the same. So, why did the Irish public choose not to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon? There were a number of specific details presented by the Irish ‘No’ campaign in the lead up the Irish referendum on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. Tony Gregory TD stated that it was his belief that the Treaty would weaken the position of Ireland within Europe and would cause Ireland to lose its traditionally neutral military position[9]. Other areas of the campaign stated that a yes vote would ‘introduce abortion and high taxes, and abolish peat cutting and union rights.’[10] The no campaigners, rather conflictingly, used the loss of the Irish seat on the Commission, a result in its size reduction following ratification, as a reason for refusing the Treaty. It could be argued that any of these reasons or a collection of them were responsible for the no vote but it would seem naà ¯ve on the part of both sides of the debate to believe that specifics were the cause of the failur e of the Treaty. Whilst it is impossible to give definitive reasons for failure, it seems to me that the Irish, French and Dutch no votes must, in some way be linked. And since it is unlikely that any specific point could give rise to the same level of reaction in each country there must be some other underlying reason for the populations’ refusal to accept a constitutional type of treaty for Europe. When asked for comment by the BBC, one Irish no voter stated that he had voted in this manner for, amongst other reasons, the fact that ‘the whole European Union regime is getting ridiculous and is too underhand to even follow’[11] It is the word underhand which is most interesting in this statement. Could it be that despite all of the efforts made to the contrary, the European Population believe that the European Union is encroaching too far on national sovereignty and is an elite non-democratic force which is not necessarily always a force for good. This would certainly be a euro-sc eptics view, but as the results of these referenda demonstrate they do appear to be the majority. The ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by most Member States has been seen by many as underhand. Its contents are not sufficiently different to the Constitutional Treaty to warrant ratification without referral to the general population and whilst this could be a reason for the no vote in Ireland I believe the descent runs deeper. It appears that there could be large scale Euro-scepticism at play in many Member States. With this in mind, the steps that are now taken by the Union will surely be instrumental in deciding its success or, not failure because that is unlikely, but certainly value and purpose. Given their efforts in trying to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, it seems reasonably certain that the executive powers in the Member States will not stop in their moves to introduce the measures provided for in the Constitutional Treaty. The options are few; should there now be a further period of reflection and try to restart the process once the dust has settled? Should areas be dealt with in a point by point manner, simply amended existing European legislation as and when required? Should, as the French government suggest, the Irish no vote be ignored and the Treaty ratified in their absence? Or should the current status quo remain untouched. At a summit in Brussels in December, the Irish government gave a commitment to attempt, via a new referendum; get the Treaty ratified within the next twelve mo nths providing certain guarantees were made by other Member States. It seems that so far as the Treaty of Lisbon is concerned the European Union is quite happy to take the approach of ‘if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again’. This is all very well, but surely it would be better to consider the reasons for failure rather than trying to push the populace into accepting a situation for which there are clearly serious and numerous reservations. As a conclusion it seems fitting to use Joseph Weiler’s erudite discussion on the treaties and consider the bearing this has on the problems encountered. ‘The segue was of course priceless even Houdini would marvel at the magic. Take the Treaty which masqueraded as a Constitution, do some repackaging, and now it is a Constitution masquerading as a Treaty. The repackaging is pretty crude: strip away the word constitution. Pretend the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not part of the Reform Treaty and all this whilst pontificating on the need for transparency.’[12] Table of Legislation EC Treaty (Treaty of Rome) 1957 Treaty of Nice C80 2001 Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe C310 Volume 47 2004 Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community C306 Volume 50 2007 Bibliography The Laeken Declaration G. Barrett, â€Å"The king is dead, long live the king: the recasting by the Treaty of Lisbon of the provisions of the Constitutional Treaty concerning national parliaments† (2008) European Law Review 33(1) J. Bateman, â€Å"Brussels Bulletin: a New European Framework† [2008] International Family Law Jounal 134 R. Bellamy, â€Å" The European Constitution is Dead, Long live European Constitutionalism† (2006) 13 Constellations 181 BBC News Online (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/europe_ireland_votes_no/html/1.stm) Graà ­nne de Bà ºrca, Reflections on the path from the Constitutional Treaty to the Lisbon Treaty, Jean Monnet Working Paper 03/08 P. Craig, â€Å"The Treaty of Lisbon, process, architecture and substance† (2008) European Law Review 33(2) M. Dougan, â€Å"The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: winning minds, not hearts† (2008) 45 Common Market Law Review 617-703 D Granville, â€Å"Irish Democrat: Gregory Joins the No Campaign†, Connolly Publications Ltd, London, 2008 B. Laffan and J O’Mahoney â€Å"Ireland and the European Union† Palgrave MacMillan, London, 2008 D. MacShane, â€Å"Ireland’s No Vote: Europe Is Not Going Away†, Times Online, 2008 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4133106.ece) R. McAllister â€Å"European Union: A Historical and Political Survey† Taylor and Francis Ltd, London 2008 L. Siedentop, â€Å" A Crisis of Legitimacy† (2005) 112 Prospect J. Snell, â€Å"European constitutional settlement, an ever closer union, and the Treaty of Lisbon: democracy or relevance?† (2008) European Law Review 33(5) P. Syrpis, â€Å"The Treaty of Lisbon: Much ado †¦ but about what?’ (2008) Industrial Law Review 37(3) J Weiler, â€Å"European Journal of International Law Marking the anniversary of the Universal Declaration; the Irish no and the Lisbon Treaty† E.J.I.L. 2008, 19(4), 647-653 S. Weatherill, â€Å"The Lisbon Treaty: Aspiration and Structure†, in Weatherill, EU Law (OUP: 8th ed. 2007), S Weatherill â€Å"Cases and Materials on EU Law†, 8th Revised Edition, OUP, Oxford, 2007 1 Footnotes [1] Treaty of Nice ‘Declaration on the Future of the Union’ [2] Ibid [3] The Laeken Declaration [4] R. Bellamy, â€Å" The European Constitution is Dead, Long live European Constitutionalism† (2006) 13 Constellations 181 [5] L. Siedentop, â€Å" A Crisis of Legitimacy† (2005) 112 Prospect [6] Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. I-12 of the Constitutional Treaty. [7] See www.statewatch.org for further detailed comparisons [8] Article I-6 [9] D Granville, â€Å"Irish Democrat: Gregory Joins the No Campaign†, Connolly Publications Ltd, London, 2008 [10] D. MacShane, â€Å"Ireland’s No Vote: Europe Is Not Going Away†, Times Online, 2008 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4133106.ece) [11] BBC News Online (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/europe_ireland_votes_no/html/1.stm) [12] J Weiler, â€Å"European Journal of International Law Marking the anniversary of the Universal Declaration; the Irish no and the Lisbon Treaty† E.J.I.L. 2008, 19(4), 647-653

I Was a Willing Participant :: Personal Narrative Writing

I Was a Willing Participant Toward the end of last semester, I registered for this class mainly for one reason: I had had Emily as a professor before, I liked her class and her teaching style very much, and I wanted to again take a class she was teaching. This was my first opportunity to do so, and I jumped on it. In the bulletin, the class was described as the Graduate Writing Seminar, and through the grapevine, I found out it was not a creative writing class, but instead, a study in critical feminist pedagogies.What the hell, I thought. Ià ­ll take it anyway. After all, I really just wanted to take another class with Emily, whatever the topic might be. Over winter break, I started thinking about who else would be in the class. I am sure some of the usual suspects would be in Dixon 432 on that first day. Sure enough, when I walked, in I saw Alicia, Megan, Kate, and Kelly, just as I had expected. Before that first day, however, the number one thought going through my mind about this class and the makeup of my classmates was, of course, just how many males would be in that room. For a while, I thought I may be the only one, but I shook that thought out of my mind pretty quickly when I reminded myself that, after all, this was grad school, and the guys here were actually open minded and weren't afraid to take a class containing the prefix fem. I was right. In walked to see Gary and Leon. I had had classes with both of them before, and I knew their ways of thinking, so I felt à ¬safe.à ® (Though I must admit that when Gary first proclaimed himself a à ¬feministà ® in Sharon Lewis' class last semester, my initial thought was à ¬this guy just wants to get laid.à ® That was stupid and wrong.) So here I was, one-third of a population of a class that was certainly not going to be the topic of discussion for the next 5 or so months. I was ready to accept that. The program here at MSU had given me many chances to expand my thinking in ways that I had not previously been exposed to, and this class was yet another in that long line.

The impact of migration on families around the world

Migration has been an on going phenomena from past to present. Individuals, families or group of people may leave a country voluntarily because of events such as harsh environmental or economic conditions. Migration has always been an important part of human endeavour. Migration can have positive and negative impacts on the families and also the country. With pros such as freedom, job vacancies and benefits to host country, it's no surprise most people don't have second thoughts about the cons such as effects on child, decrease in economy and propagation of diseases. Firstly migrants frequently settle in places with lesser population. These places would be having a shortage of skilled labour due to the decreased population. The migrants bring with them enough skills that will help support the economy. The migrants may be skilled people like doctors or unskilled people like construction workers. Migrants may increase unemployment in certain areas, but this is compensated by their raising the overall level of demand like housing and household related goods, needs†¦This promotes both a higher level and a wider range of goods and services produced, stimulating the economy and job growth. Migrants help to reduce labor shortages and also attract international traders through their foreign knowledge and language skills. Secondly migrants will be usually willing to fill job vacancies that local people are unwilling to fill. These include jobs such as babysitting, cleaning and other activities. This is an advantage for the existing community. Migration benefits not only the migrants, but also the countries that receive them, and even the countries they have left. Migrants doing these jobs live a happy and free life in a country where they get equal opportunity and thereby secure a better future for themselves and their families. For many young people, the experience and skills they acquire in the jobs to which they have migrated can serve as a step to further migration for better paid jobs. In addition to this researchers concur unanimously in reporting that migratory workers use part of their savings from working to improve their homes, whether by decorating them, extending them or introducing basic services such as electricity, water and drainage. Similarly, it is common to find that localities with migrants benefit from their contributions by receiving monetary support that helps them to improve diverse services, whether urban infrastructure, health, religious, educational or entertainment services. In towns with migrants it is common to find acknowledgments from the residents to their fellow townsmen for having helped them build a school or health clinic, or to introduce drinking water or build or improve the church,†¦. However the importance of keeping in regular contact: e-mails and text messages can in no way substitute for the physical presence of a parent, but they can help a child feel connected with family members who are away. Finally, there is the importance of the family's relations and communication before the migration. Many parents presumably do not migrate unless they think their children can cope in the first place. A factor found to be extremely important is the child's understanding of, and support for, the family goal. In fact, an individual's migration can be highly valued within a family: it can give status, not only for the material objects the migration may bring, but in more symbolic form of being the family member who gives for others. Some of these observations might be extrapolated to the situation of children affected by HIV and AIDS. Moreover it is generally believed that those migrants who have had the courage to leave one country and move to another are often enterprising and entrepreneurial, even if poor. As such, in many countries, migrants often set up small businesses. They however, become easy targets when the general economic conditions in that host country worsen. In other cases, people become migrants because they have fleed worsening conditions or persecution. In that situation, although they may live in another country, it may initially be quite difficult to adapt and change practices and customs. In such situations migrants are clearly seen as different and in worsening economic times can be seen as sapping away resources that could otherwise have been used for local populations. Furthermore migrating parents may decide, whether by choice or due to untenable circumstances to leave their children in their country of origin, planning either to return to their household of origin or to reunite much later in their destination country. The decision of one or both parents to migrate and consequently, to leave children behind, may be the result of an individual altruistic decision to send remittances in order to make their family members' lives better, or the result of household utility maximization that may take into consideration also the risks and perils of travel. Children whose parents are working abroad have a similar profile to those living in mono-parental families resulting from the parents' separation or from the death of one parent. This shows that, although the work abroad is temporary, the impact on the children could be similar to that of the loss of a parent, through divorce or death. In conclusion, children whose parents are working abroad should be considered at risk. That would be a first recommendation to children protection authorities, who should find solutions to strengthen the relations between school and the social services system. For many migrants, migration represents an alternative for supporting their families. Nevertheless, while going to work abroad contributes significantly to household incomes, it also has many social costs. Migration also affects social relations. Migration also changes the roles within the family additional tasks must be assumed by those left behind.

Things Falling Apart Essay

Insist dead, when they 2 first arrived, the white men seemed harmless and weak to the Bib people. † ‘T hey want a piece of land to build their shrine,' said Quenched to his peers when they cons eluted among themselves. ‘We shall give them a piece of land, let us give them a portion of t he Evil Forest. ‘ † (149) The chief priests and elders suggested this plot of land because it was believed that someone who went and lived in the Evil Forest would die within four days. Who en the missionaries were still alive after the fourth day, everyone was astonished an d confused.It caused some people to think that if this belief wasn't true, perhaps other thin gas in their culture might not be true. As time went on, the missionaries who had come to Jump via harmless and powerless began to gain more converts and more control. The missionaries s coffee at traditions and beliefs that the Bib people had practiced for years. In Bib religion n it was believed that twins were evil, so they put them in pots and threw them into the Evil For est.. The seminaries were horrified by this idea. â€Å"It was true that the missionaries were e rescuing twins from the bush†¦As far as the villagers were concerned, the twins still remain d where they had been thrown away' (154) At first the missionaries' strange beliefs and cacti ions didn't really bother the villagers, but as timed went on they became a more concerned. â€Å"T he white men had not only brought a religion but also a government. It was said that they h ad built a place Of judgment to protect the followers Of their religion. It was even said that the eye had hanged one man who had killed a missionary. (155) Hearing these stories made the boo people worried, but they did not act to stop the Europeans.When his people did not attempt to put an end to the white man's power, Awoken became frustrated; he wanted to fig HTH back. â€Å"l cannot understand these things. What has happened to our peo ple? Why have e they lost the power to fight? † (175) Before, Bib tribes had constantly been fighting trying to secure their power, but now they let the Europeans take over without even putting up a if get. 3 If the foreigners had come to Nigeria with an army and tried to force the anti e people to adopt their religion and culture, the Bib people would have felt threatened and would have united to defend themselves.