Johnson vetoed the first and second reconstruction acts Essay Example for Free

Johnson vetoed the first and second reconstruction acts Essay The impeachment of the 17th president of the United States, Andrew Johnson was a key event in the history of Reconstruction as well as in the history of our nation. In the spring and summer of 1864, it seemed unlikely that Abraham Lincoln was going to be reelected. Not only had the war been going rather badly for the Union, but a president had not been reelected in the past thirty years and it was almost understood that Lincoln would follow that form. One of the ways in which Lincoln helped himself to get elected, as well as planning for the time in which the North and South would need to be reconciled to each other, Andrew Johnson, representative from the border state of Tennessee was selected. Johnson was a Southerner but he hated with a passion, his countrymen from the south who left the Union and despised them. However, despite his hatred for the Southern aristocrats, which Johnson had blamed for the Civil War, he certainly was no friend to the African American and this apathy towards their plight would be seen in one veto after another. Johnson also vetoed the Freedman’s Bill which sought to ensure that the newly freed African Americans would have land and a chance to make a new life for them and to ease the transition from a life of slavery to one of freedom. All of the above mentioned, led to the first impeachment of an American President. The radical Republicans became increasingly frustrated at the rate in which President Johnson was vetoing everything that they had worked so hard to form as it was their goal to make sure that the Civil War was not fought in vain. President Johnson, in the minds of the Radical Republicans and an increasing number of other representatives in both Houses of Congress, started to see Johnson as the enemy. When President Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, it was seen as the last straw and impeachment procedures begun. However, even though Johnson escaped formal impeachment by a single vote, his hopes for a second term, and his first full term, vanished as he was now seen in league with the Southerners whom he had previously professed to hate. When Andrew Johnson was selected by President Lincoln as his running mate in the 1864 election, many Republicans, especially radical Republicans like Thurlow Weed and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, were very suspicious of Johnson’s motives as he was from Tennessee. Their fear left when Johnson expressed his hatred towards the aristocratic land owners of the South, whom he had faulted for the start of the war in the first place. However, suspicion soon returned when Johnson made his feelings know concerning the need for Reconstruction in the first place: â€Å"Those states have not gone out of the Union. Therefore reconstruction is unnecessary. † This would be a theme that Johnson would keep through his formal responses concerning his multiple vetoes. Johnson was either hopelessly optimistic about the plight of the African Americans in the South, apathetic, or purposely took on a mission to help the white farmers against what he considered the legislation of the reformers to be in aid of the black farmer over the white. When Congress met in December of 1865, the first time that both Houses had met since the death of President Lincoln, only Mississippi had failed to adopt the lenient measures that both President Lincoln and Johnson had put in place in order to ease the transition of the South back into the Union. When it was realized that the Southern legislations had placed African Americans in a sort of quasi slavery through the restrictive black codes, Radical Republicans were enraged and sough to instill within the southern states, a series of laws which would ensure and forever protect the rights of the African American as it was their legal rights that were to be protected, the Union had the ability to ensure that these rights were enforced by their military presence in the area and to make sure that the Civil War was not fought in vain. These were the motivations of the Radical Republicans and it soon became clear, that such goals were in direct conflict with the motivations of President Johnson. The trouble between Congress and President Johnson began in February of 1866 with the veto of the Freedman Bill. The original bill had been passed in March of 1865 and it was up for its yearly renewal. The bill called for the redistribution of land to the freedmen, provided schools for their children and set up courts which were reinforced by the military which ensured that these laws would be carried out. President Johnson did not see the need for such expenditures and called it too expensive and unconstitutional. â€Å" I share with Congress the strongest desire to secure to the freedmen the full enjoyment of their freedom and property and their entire independence and equality in making contracts for their labor, but the bill before me contains provisions which in my opinion are not warranted by the Constitution and are not well suited to accomplish the end in view. † Since then, it has become clear by historians that this was not the true motivation of President Johnson. â€Å"President Johnson sought to return African Americans to a state of the oppressive and restrictive black codes. In being an enemy of the large land owners of the South, he still was no friend to the African American. † Also, there seemed to be a sense of ignorance concerning the condition of the African American in these southern states. Upon closing his formal reply in this veto, President Johnson said: â€Å"It is hardly necessary for me to inform Congress that in my own judgment most of these states, so far, at least, as depends upon their own action, have already been fully restored and are to be deemed as entitled to enjoy their constitutional rights as members of the Union†¦Ã¢â‚¬  This would mean, and it would be a common theme that would be seen in many of President Johnson’s responses to repeated measures by Congress to expand or protect the rights of the African America, that President Johnson would not be aiding in any legislation which helped to protect the rights of the African American, despite his aforementioned statements. The next measure which put President Johnson at odds with the Congress was his veto of the 1866 Civil Rights Bill. The Civil Rights Bill was put in place as a reaction the oppressive Black Codes which the South had implemented in order to return African Americans to as close to their previous slavery conditions as possible. Within these codes, African Americans were given a curfew, were not allowed to carry guns, serve on a jury or congregate with other African Americans in a group to name a few of the provisions. The Civil Rights Bill would later be used as a stepping stone for the 14th amendment which said that all persons born in the United States are therefore citizens and as a result, are entitled to equal protection under the law. In his veto of the 1866 Civil Rights Bill, President Johnson stated: â€Å"This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end without invading the immunities of legislators, always important to be preserved in the interest of public liberty; without assailing the independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights†¦Ã¢â‚¬  It was believed by the Radical Republicans that such beliefs were not only overly optimistic and ignorant of the current situation in the South, they were simply wrong. The Congress would override Johnson’s veto on the Freedman’s Bill and sought to do the same here. However, President Johnson continued to veto every bill that dealt with Reconstruction and further alienated himself from both Houses of Congress. 1867 would not be a kind year in the Johnson Administration. On March 2nd of that year, President Johnson vetoed the first of two Reconstruction Acts that would be presented to him. The Reconstruction Bill stated that in order for the previous laws to be enforced within the Southern States, the South would be divided up into military districts and put under a type of martial law, depending upon the severity of those who ignored the law. Again, President Johnson vetoed the bill as he saw it to be unnecessary. â€Å"This is a bill passed by Congress in time of peace. There is not in any one of the states brought under its operation either war or insurrection. The laws of the states and of the Federal government are all in undisturbed and harmonious operation. † This certainly was not the case but it would seem to be out of the character of President Johnson if he ever recognized the grave state that the African Americans were under within the South. President Johnson seemed to be oblivious towards this fact and his voting record surely did reinforce this notion. In March of 1867, President Johnson would veto his second Reconstruction Act which provided for military commanders to reconstruct the Southern states into states which would recognize the rights of the African American by force if necessary. In his veto, President Johnson again stated the lack of need for such pieces of legislation. â€Å"The existing Constitution of the ten States conforms to the acknowledged standards of loyalty and republicanism. Indeed, if there are degrees in republican forms of government, their constitutions are more republican now than when these States, four of which were members of the original thirteen, first became members of the Union. † President Johnson will always assert a sort of â€Å"lassie faire† notion towards the South; a notion that is in direct conflict with the Republican majority in both the House and the Senate and especially with regards to the very vocal Radical Republicans. Throughout 1867, The House Judiciary Committee, further irritated by Johnson’s repeated vetoes, sought to find some illegal activity in which to possibly impeach the President. However, upon their investigation, there was no evidence in which to do this. However, later that year, on August 12, 1867, President Johnson removed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Stanton certainly was no friend of Johnson and there was no love loss between them. Stanton repeatedly undermined the President at every turn and President Johnson viewed Stanton as a hold over of the Lincoln Administration and not loyal to his administration. As a result of the firing, which was in violation of the Tenure of Office Act, eleven articles of impeachment were brought against the president. Ironically, it was this very law which President Johnson had vetoed earlier that year on March 2, 1867 in which he said: â€Å"The question, as Congress is well aware, is by no means a new one. That the power of removal is constitutionally vested in the President of the United States is a principle which has been not more distinctly declared by judicial authority and judicial commentators than it has been uniformly practiced upon by the legislative and executive departments of the Government. † President Johnson had overplayed his hand and formal articles of impeachment would be brought to him. On February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Johnson. Congress. The formal reason was the firing of Stanton but in reality, President Johnson’s refusal to adhere to the political flow of Congress, which at that time, sought to regulate by force if necessary, the Southern states into submission on the issues of securing the rights of African Americans. However, a President could only be impeached if he was guilty of â€Å"high crimes and misdemeanors† as it states in the Constitution. Article I of the Impeachment document formally spelled out his charge of high crimes and misdemeanors: â€Å"That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution, that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America issue an order in writing for the removal of Edwin Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War†¦.. † The impeachment committee was made up of all Radical Republicans: Thaddeus Stevens, Benjamin Butler and James Wilson, the most notable of the cast. Johnson’s defense, as President Johnson was never present at the hearings, was Henry Stanberry, William Evarts and Benjamin Curtis as well as Jeremiah Black who would later resign from the hearings. On the first day of the trial Johnson’s defense team asked for a forty stay since they had not been given enough time to gather up their defense. The trial, which was processed over by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, a former member of President Lincoln’s cabinet, allowed a stay of only ten days. Another six day extension was voted upon by the Senate and granted. On March, 30, the trial began in which Benjamin Butler, former Union General, talked for three hours in which he lambasted the President for his violation of the Tenure of Office Act and the fact that even that the President had given orders to subordinates of General Grant before even allowing him to see and review them. The defense opened by stating that President Johnson had not violated the Tenure of Office Act with the firing of Secretary of War Stanton and that Stanton had tried everything in his power to undermined the President at every turn. Also, the fact that President Johnson had not reappointed Stanton meant that his office was not under the protection of the Tenure Act. The prosecution called other witnesses but in the end, proved unhelpful. The prosecution added further charges to the President. Article VIII stated: â€Å"That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, with intent unlawfully to control the disbursement of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War, did unlawfully, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, , and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States†¦ there being no vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and with intent to violate and disregard the act aforesaid, then and there issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority. The charges went further in order to prove that the firing of the Secretary of War was done with premedidation. Article IX states: â€Å"That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, by force to seize, take, and possess the property of the United Sates in the Department of War, and then and there in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary for said Department, contrary to the provisions of an act entitled An act to define and punish certain conspiracies, approved July 31, 1861, and with intent to violate and disregard an act entitled An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high crime in office. † It would also be the vocal opinions of the Radicals which helped the country to come to this stage in the first place. Charles Sumner stated that his objections with the President came from his many vetoes. † Andrew Johnson is the impersonation of the tyrannical Slave Power. In him it lives again. He is the lineal ancestor of John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis. And he gathers about him the same supporters. Original partisans of slavery North and South; habitual compromisers of great principles; maligners of the Declaration of Independence politicians without heart; lawyers, for whom a technicality is everything, and a promiscuous company who at every stage of the battle have set their faces against Equal Rights; these are his allies. It is the old troop of slavery, with a few recruits, ready as of old for violence cunning in device and heartless in quibble† Senator John Sherman voted to impeach the President because, he had abused his power and in his words: â€Å"Armed by the Constitution and the laws, with vast powers, he has neglected to protect loyal people in the rebel States, so that assassination is organized all over those States, as a political power to murder, banish and maltreat loyal people, and to destroy their property. All these he might have ascribed to alleged want of power, or to difference of opinion in questions of policy, and for these reasons no such charges were exhibited against him, though they affected the peace and safety of the nation. â€Å" However, there would be members of Congress which would come to his defense. One such member was William Fessenden who stated in his defense: â€Å"To the suggestion that popular opinion demands the conviction of the President o these charges, I reply that he is not now on trial before the people, but before the Senate. In the words of Lord Eldon, upon the trial of the Queen, I take no notice of what is passing out of doors, because I am supposed constitutionally not to be acquainted with it. And again, It is the duty of those on whom a judicial task is imposed to meet reproach and not court popularity. The people have not heard the evidence as we have heard it. † Lynman Trumble would also concur by stating in his formal decision: â€Å"What law does this record show the President to have violated? Is it the tenure of office act? I believe in the constitutionality of that act, and stand ready to punish its violators; but neither the removal of that faithful and efficient officer, Edwin M. Stanton, which I deeply regret, nor the ad interim designation of Lorenzo Thomas, were, as has been shown, forbidden by it. Is it the reconstruction acts? Whatever the facts may be, this record does not contain a particle of evidence of their violation. Is it the conspiracy act? No facts are shown to sustain such a charge†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The trial had commenced and now a formal vote would be needed in order to either convict of acquit the President. In the end, senators who voted for his guilt numbered 35 and those for his innocence was 19 which was one shy of the necessary 2/3 vote needed from the senate. The Radical Republicans had gambled and lost and the zeal that the country had for Reconstruction, would eventually end with the Great Compromise of 1877. A quasi form of slavery would impede the African American from experiencing his equal treatment under the law and as a result, future laws which would be used. Jim Crow laws and grandfather clauses kept African Americans from the polls and placed their previous masters, as masters again. Also, the hopes that President Johnson had for reelection were gone and General Grant would follow him in two lackluster terms as President. It was a sad chapter for the President as well as the Presidency as a whole. Such events make historians wonder how the country would have been different had President Lincoln never been assassinated. Tempers among North and South might not have come to a head as they did and most accurately, African Americans would not have had to wait as long as they did for equal treatment under the law. The choice of Andrew Johnson for Vice President had consequences for the Union which could not have been seen when President Lincoln first appointed him as the Vice President in 1864. Only unhelpful speculation can possibly answer what the make up of this country and race relations for the forty years after the end of the Civil War would have looked like, had President Johnson, in the spirit of â€Å"malice towards none and charity for all. † Nobody will ever know. WORKS CITED Commanger, Henry Steele Documents of American History. New York: Century Press. 1947 Goodwin, Doris Kearns. Team of Rivals. New York: Simon Schuster 2006 Reconstruction and the Courts New York: PBS American Experience 2003 http://www. impeach-andrewjohnson. com/ Downloaded on June 5, 2007.

Employment Problems in the US Essay -- Work Corporation Job Loss Unemp

Employment Problems In The U.S. Downsizing, restructuring, rightsizing, even a term as obscure as census readjustment has been used to describe the plague that has been affecting corporate America for years and has left many of its hardest working employees without work. In the year 2001 we had nearly 1.8 million jub cuts, that’s almost three times as much as the year 2000(Matthew Benz). In the 1990's, one million managers of American corporations with salaries over $40,000 also lost their jobs. In total, Fortune 500 companies have eliminated 4.4 million positions since 1979 including the 65,000 positions cut in February of 2002 (Ellen Florian). Although this downsizing of companies can have many reasons behind it and cannot be avoided at times, there are simple measures a company can take to make the process easier on the laid-off employees and those who survive with the company. There are many reasons why a company might need to downsize. In today's corporate America, it is a plain fact that far fewer employees are necessary to maintain a successful operation. Many times, it is the case where a technological advance or breakthrough makes it possible to replace a previously human job. It is also an all-too-common scenario that outside influences such as sudden shifts in the market or changed government policies force corporate executives to make coinciding decisions regarding their staff and these external changes. The fall in interest rates and energy prices have helped companies control spending in the economic recession, but controlling these costs has taken some of the focus away from there employees and satisfying there wants and needs (Economist Vol. 362). Yet another problem facing the employment of our citizens. Another one of the major problems in today's business world are the salaries being paid to the workers. Since employers are not paying their workers high wages, the workers have little to put back into the economy. Some cities have decided to make mandated pay raises for employees who have been with firms for so many years. It would also guarantee that employees make well above poverty levels to insure that more money is being put back into the economy (Eric Roston). This causes the system to plummet and forces companies to downsize to keep from going under. Wall Street firms cut positions in order to bring the Dow Jones Security ... ...ortunities for growth and skill development. After a restructure, there are many ways an employee can grow vertically and horizontally within their company. Since so many positions are eliminated in such a process, the remaining employees sometimes need to learn new skills and adapt to handling greater amounts of work than ever before. While this may be an inconvenience at first, these skills and abilities can assist these people in future job searches.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The downsizing process is a fact of life. It affects all people from managers to laid off employees and their families as well as those who remain with the company. It is something that will continue to occur with no end in sight. As long as our world market continues to grow, so too will the concept of downsizing grow. This process can lead to psychological problems, and creates anxiety and frustration for those of both ends of it. This is a problem that most likely will not have an easy solution, or at least not any time soon. It is something that we all must deal with in one way or another, and as for the victims of downsizing, the only thing they can do is try to piece their lives back together and hope for the best.

Global History †Famines in India and China Essay

The 1876-1879 and 1896-1902 famines in India and China were some of the worst famines the world had ever seen up until that point in time (Rouse Lecture). In China and India from 1876-1882, the estimated mortality was between 31 and 61 million (Davis 2001: 7). If the British and the Chinese governments had made simple changes in their policies regarding India and China, the results of the famine would not have been so catastrophic. In this paper I will analyze, Davis’ argument that â€Å"Millions died, not outside the ‘modern world system,’ but in the very process of being forcibly incorporated into its economic and political structures. They died in the golden age of Liberal Capitalism†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Davis 2001: 9). Almost contrary to that he argues that â€Å"many were murdered†, emphasizing that â€Å"‘millions die’ was ultimately a political choice† and that â€Å"imperial policies towards starving ‘subjects’ were often the exact moral equivalents of bombs dropped from 18,000 feet. † (Davis 2001: 22). I will aim to analyze these relating to British dealings with India, Western dealings with China, the broader development of imperialism and industrial capitalism from the late eighteenth century to the early years of the twentieth century, and also Marks’ claim that there is never such a thing as a purely â€Å"natural† disaster? In 1876, a disastrous famine hit India, starting with an El Nino-induced drought that halted crop production. However, the situation rapidly got worse: due to the inadequacy, there was a major surge in food prices. The vast amounts of Indian grain exports to Great Britain prompted grain speculation, which further raised the price of grain. As prices crept up, the poor could not afford to buy grain, a dietary staple. Furthermore, in 1865, wheat exports to Britain numbered 308,000 quarters. Climate also played an important role in the 1876 famine: El Nino pacific currents brought heavy rains and flooding to some parts of India, but severe drought to others (Rouse Lecture). In fall 1877, the arrival of heavy rains, instead of alleviating the drought, brought malaria-carrying mosquitoes that killed thousands (Davis 2001: 49). There were many responses to the growing famine. The British followed Malthusianism: land does not have a natural carrying capacity. Furthermore, in the few instances when the British distributed aid, they refused it to those unable to work (Davis 2001: 36). In 1896, another famine began due to a failed monsoon and the lack of a substantial 1896 crop (Davis 2001: 142). Grain prices rose again; there was no stored grain to rely on: the excess shipped to England to make up for shipping deficits. People hated the poorhouses: the food they provided was dry flour, salt, and dirt; moreover, as soon as rains fell, the British pushed the poor out of the relief camps (Davis 2001: 147, 158). The British downplayed the famine; overseas, they created stories and paintings that depicted the British as saviors (Davis 2001: 155-56). Finally, by the late 1890s, the British focused their attention on South Africa and India was left to deal with her own problems (Davis 2001: 165). While the famine was happening there were certain British policies that intensified famine in India. The newly constructed railroads, portrayed as agents that could bring relief to the famine were used by the British to build up the inventories for export goods. (Davis 2001: 26). In legislation methods, by the Vernacular press Act, there was see a denial and hiding of deaths saying they’re other diseases, than the famine and also the approval of Anti Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prevented the upper class Indians from helping. (Davis 2001: 34 & 39). Also relief efforts turned away people who could not perform hard labor(Davis 2001: 25 – 36). Seeing that millions had died the British did try to â€Å"prevent† famine again by setting up famine relief and insurance fund had been established in 1878 (Davis 2001: 141). They integrated Burma’s rice surpluses into imperial system. Laid more railroad (financed by Famine Relief Fund) (Davis 2001: 142). But there were many things they chose to overlook, particularly that they didn’t do anything about poor relief or the inflation in the prices of standard goods. They also didn’t spend any money on slum sanitation, which resulted in the Bubonic Plague (Davis 2001: 148). The 1876 famine in China was preceded by the worst Chinese drought in 200 years (Rouse Lecture). In previous famines, the Chinese state would provide generous aid; however, civil war threatened the Qing dynasty. As a result, they put all extra money into the military, as opposed to social welfare. Moreover, the First Opium War severally disabled the power of the Chinese state (Rouse Lecture). The British were known to grow opium in India and then shipping it to China in exchange for other goods the English were in need of. The Chinese administration had been trying to end this now flourishing trade for decades but were unsuccessful I their attempts. This system of trade caused considerable economic damage by the drainage of cash silver from the country to pay for the illegal imports apart from increasing corruption and voluntary unemployment. (Davis 2001: 12) Finally fed up and frustrated with the way the economy was plunging, the emperor too some drastic measures leading to the execution of important individuals involved in the trade (Rouse Lecture). Also the attacking the evil foreign ships in the harbor by the new Commissioner in the area sparked off a bitter battle between the two which ended in the defeat of the Chinese. The 1842 Treaty of Nanjing forced China to pay indemnities to Great Britain and to open up ports for British use: consequently, the Chinese could not give money to relief. (Davis 2001: 12) Furthermore, the Chinese moral economy had turned into a more capitalistic one by the time of the famine. The British, through the illegal trade of opium, instilled an individualistic profit-maximizing outlook on the economy. As a result, the poor received very little aid. Additionally, landowners began to use land to produce commercially crops, leaving even less land for peasants to work on: (empire financially and left bitterness over the relationship between the government and Rouse Lecture). Then came the Second Opium War in the years 1856-1860. This had nothing to do with opium but rather the fundamental problem of imperialism, competition. Other countries are starting to make trade-treaties with China (in other words, Britain isn’t the only imperial power), which leads to Britain wanting to renegotiate Treaty of Nanking and again making it more favorable to them. (Davis 2001: 12) They want to ensure their most favored nation status. They demand to open all Chinese ports, legalize opium trade, exempt imports from duties and again war breaks out and results in Treaty of Tientsin (1858) which again leads to the loss of China and meeting the demands of the British. The Taiping Rebellion, in which millions died, was a massive revolt against the monarchy of the reigning Qing Empire in China. Basically people are devastated and frustrated about China’s defeat in First Opium War and the reaction of the Qing leaders as ineffective and corrupt. Also the1850s flooding causes peasants to lose homes, and they join rebels. The movement was headed by Hong Xiuquan, an unorthodox Christian convert who declared himself the new Messiah (Davis 2001: 12 – 13). The government starts to take note and tries to stop them but Hong and their followers established the Kingdom of Taiping – â€Å"Kingdom of Heavenly Peace† on the basis of a classless society with wealth distribution. But holding their territory against imperial and foreign forces had become virtually impossible which led to their downfall. Almost inspired by this came the Boxer Uprising where a few radicals gathered around Beijing and tried to besiege the embassies of imperialists, as they were tired of the foreign dominance (Davis 2001: 13). The Chinese empire was extremely successful at preventing famine causalities in the past. Landowners and merchants refused aid from missionaries, convinced they would convert the Chinese in payment (Rouse Lecture). The Chinese government should also have cut the taxes: by attempting to gain money, the government stopped the poor from buying food. Finally, if China had limited their military budget they would have been able to keep up famine prevention measures. Both famines in India could have been easily averted by the British had they made certain changes. Lytton did not allow local governments to stockpile grain (Davis 2001: 29). Furthermore, the northwest provinces, historically a subsistence-based system, turned into a commercial system under the British: in order to restore British grain prices, grain was exported to Britain (Davis 2001: 51). If more grain had remained within the country, prices would not have risen so high in the first place. Yet at the same time, many of India’s maharajas gathered grain to sell at high prices, just like the British (Davis 2001: 50-51). Furthermore, the British insisted on collecting taxes from the impoverished rural farmers, who could barely make ends meet (Davis 2001: 50). There were certain social ideas, models and dilemmas that the British were the forerunners for. One of them was the idea of Liberal capitalism; which basically means that the society is based on the principles of capital in its various forms and that almost everything in the society had a price and could be obtained through capital. This idea of gaining capital led to the idea of obtaining it quickly, which came to the idea of imperialism, which was to use up the natural resources of foreigners towards ones own needs. Apart from that great thinkers like Adam Smith said, â€Å"famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconvenience of dearth. † (Davis 2001: 31) which gave base to the idealistic imperialist plans, which were never really implemented. Around the time the idea of Social Darwinism came about which gave imperialists reasons to conquer new territories without worrying about the ethical issues as now they thought that it was just meant to be, as described in Rudyard Kipling’s â€Å"White Man’s Burden† (1899); which came up again at the time. If the British and Chinese governments had implemented these slightly different changes in India and China, the famines’ effects would not have been nearly as catastrophic. China’s numerous rebellions such as the Taiping and Boxer Rebellions wouldn’t have happened: there would be an extremely limited foreign presence in China and its people would not have been unable to provide for themselves. Without foreign influence, famine prevention measures would have been greater than those of the West would have been.

Outline and evaluate the view that families in the UK are...

Outline and evaluate the view that families in the UK are increasingly diverse (33) Families are becoming increasingly diverse in the UK because of changing norms and values in society. Postmodernists highlight that people are free to choose the family type that suits them best therefore allowing for harmonious relationships in society. On the other hand Functionalists are against family diversity and argue that a family that does not fit the nuclear model creates instability. A traditional view of the family is held by Functionalists. Functionalists favour the nuclear family which Murdock identifies as ‘a social group characterised by common residents, economic cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least†¦show more content†¦This family type would be supported by postmodernists because it supports that family types can be picked depending if they suit the people in the family. On the other hand functionalists and New Right writers would not agree with same sex families because they create instability in society and do not fit into the nuclear model. Cohabiting families live together however are not married, they involve a heterosexual couple with their children. In the past there was high stigma against cohabiting families whereas today marriage and commitment are not as valued as before due to society being more secular and people do not depend on religion. Furthermore due to changing norms and values in society it is more socially acceptable to have a cohabiting family. Support for this is that cohabiting families are the most increasing type of family and50% of births today are to non-married parents. However functionalists would disapprove of this family type because they believe because the parents are not married that it is not a secure relationship and would not be a stable environment for the children to grow up in. Nowadays marriage is expensive and therefore couples put off the idea of getting married, according to Postmodernists people are free to pick and choose their family type and therefore a cohabiting family is an acceptable family highlighted by the Postmodernists. The Rapoports identify the second type ofShow MoreRelatedLabour Market Context11897 Words   |  48 Pagesand external labour markets †¢ To outline the role of HRM as the interface between an organisation and its labour markets †¢ To identify the changing labour market conditions under which contemporary organisations operate †¢ To critically evaluate the implications for HRM of the ‘knowledge economy’ †¢ To outline how labour market trends are impacting upon how organisations utilise labour and how HRM practices are driving labour market change †¢ To outline the various ways that firms can respondRead MoreInternational Hr Best Practice Tips38524 Words   |  155 Pagesstructures. Standardisation and knowledge networking are to be examined at both the meta and operational levels. Design/methodology/approach - The paper is based on two case studies of major German MNCs, both with significant operations in Spain and the UK. Data were collected by means of semi-structured interviews with senior managers, HR managers and labour representatives. Findings - The findings show that THRM can be operationalised using knowledge networking and standardisation on a meta level, inRead MoreManagers and Managing15099 Words   |  61 Pagesmanagers face in today’s increasingly competitive global environment. A Manager’s Challenge The Rise of Siemens Werner von Siemens was born in Germany in a small town near Hannover in December 1816. No one could then know that the fourth child of a poor farmer’s family would become the founder of one of the world’s best-known companies. While showing ample potential in science and engineering, Werner was denied a university education due to the ï ¬ nancial constraints of his family. He thus chose theRead MoreEducation response Essay example43180 Words   |  173 Pagespotential applicants 33 Chapter 5 Getting in – university admissions 45 Chapter 6 Staying in – student retention 59 Chapter 7 Getting on – student outcomes 67 Chapter 8 How government can help 75 Annex Acknowledgements 87 References 89  © Crown copyright 2012 You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, go to: Read MoreSociology Essay20437 Words   |  82 PagesCrown copyright  © material is reproduced under Class Licence No. CO1 W 0000195 with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland; Guardian News and Media Ltd for extracts from Ros Taylor, ‘Classes in non-traditional family life proposed by government’, The Guardian, 12.05.00. Copyright  © Guardian News Media Ltd 2000; Will Woodward, ‘Testing †¦ testing †¦ testing’, The Guardian 20.05.00. Copyright  © Guardian News Media Ltd 2000; ‘Adoption boost for gay couples’Read MoreStrategic Management and Leadership25577 Words   |  103 Pageshappier lives. The London Academy for Higher Education: Extended Diploma in Strategic Management and Leadership Course Manual 2011 / 2012 3 Edexcel BTEC Level 7 Extended Diploma in Strategic Management and Leadership This section contains an outline of the units and associated guidance for the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) Edexcel BTEC Level 7 Extended Diploma in Strategic Management and Leadership Qualification. Each unit sets out the required outcomes and content and includes adviceRead MoreCorporate Communications - the Case of the Walt Disney Company13529 Words   |  55 PagesScandals and the Image of Disney.................................................................................... 31 3.3 Responses of Disney ........................................................................................................ 33 3.4 Improvements in Crisis Communications ........................................................................ 34 3.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................Read MoreIntangible Asset Accounting and Accounting Policy Selection in the Football Industry85391 Words   |  34 2 Pagesthesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT The main aim of this thesis is to evaluate the feasibility of intangible asset accounting in financial reporting with particular reference to the football industry. It also examines related accounting policies. Lack of reliable measurement is the major obstacle to the recognition of intangibleRead MoreContemporary Issues in Management Accounting211377 Words   |  846 PagesoYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York ß Oxford University Press 2006 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2006Read MoreCommunication as a Cross-Cultural Challenge for International Management18350 Words   |  74 PagesTri cot, Globalisation, International Business relationships, International Management, Performance Effectiveness ABSTRACT Cross-cultural communication challenges arise for managers in international corporations on a daily basis, and in order to evaluate why these challenges occur we conducted a case study in collaboration with the fast-fashion corporation Gina Tricot. Our work challenges the influential theory that cultural proximity leads to less miscommunication within the business environment