The history of societal revolution has been explained severely by different philosophers. In two pages and using two different theory, explain how industrial revolution led to split of societies and death of some cultural aspects of traditional communities.
Category: History
You are a member of an interdisciplinary team participating in patient rounds at the start of your shift.
Read the scenario and address the discussion question:
Scenario
You are a member of an interdisciplinary team participating in patient rounds at the start of your shift. You notice the physician charting that the patient is alert and oriented x3, but the patient was clearly confused, which the physician acknowledged during rounds.
Discussion Question
How would you approach this scenario? Apply one of the ethical principles discussed in Dynamics of Nursing: Art and Science of Professional Practice to this scenario. Discuss how organizational culture can help manage errors.
Initial discussion question posts should be at least 200 words and include at least two references cited using APA format.
When the United States annexed Texas and acquired what is now the American Southwest through war with Mexico in the late 1840s, the issue of slavery took on a more divisive nature than ever before in the United States.
When the United States annexed Texas and acquired what is now the American Southwest through war with Mexico in the late 1840s, the issue of slavery took on a more divisive nature than ever before in the United States. People who objected to slavery saw the potential of its explosion across the new territories as a frightening prospect, and many stepped up efforts to keep the territories free. On the other hand, proponents of slavery saw this opposition as a dangerous threat to their profits, their constitutional rights to property, and their “superior” racial status. I am posting a PDF with four documents below highlighting key issues of territorial expansion and questions of slavery and race from the late 40s through the 1850s. Your assignment is to read each of the documents carefully– and then thoroughly and specifically answer the four questions below. Type and submit your answers in a Word document. Be sure to answer every part of each question, including numerous specific references to the documents and short quotes to illustrate your analysis. 1. How does John L. O’Sullivan refute claims that the annexation of Texas was an unrighteous military conquest calculated to increase and perpetuate slavery? And why does he believe the United States has a better claim to California than Mexico. 2. How did the residents of Middletown, Connecticut justify their insistence their determination disobey the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, while simultaneously saying that they “reverence law,” and “are the party of law and order”? Can someone both respect the law, and knowingly break the law? Why, or why not? 3. According to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney, were free African Americans eligible for citizenship in the United States? Why or why not? What type of rights and privileges did he say they have in the United States? And how does Taney answer those who say the Declaration of Independence suggests black people should be citizens? 4. What does Stephen Douglas insinuate will happen if Illinois voters elect Abraham Lincoln as senator in 1858? How does Lincoln characterize his own position on black people, and relations between whites and African Americans? How does Lincoln characterize the Republican Party’s current policies and long-term goal concerning slavery?
How did the Great Migration change the United States?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3qA8DNc2Ss watch this ted talk video and write a one and a half page essay in MLA format ‘ and answer this question, Question #5: After watching the TEDx Talk above, in one and a half pages, answer the following question (give examples): How did the Great Migration change the United States? No plagiarism and no AI.
the historical experiences of free Black women, enslaved Black women, Indigenous women, elite white women, and working-class white women in the first half of the 19th century.
PROMPT This week, you explored the historical experiences of free Black women, enslaved Black women, Indigenous women, elite white women, and working-class white women in the first half of the 19th century. In a two-page essay, compare and contrast their lived experiences while placing them in their correct historical context. Be sure to analyze how their social locations factored into their lived experiences, such as race and nationality. Write a two-page essay addressing the prompt above. Do not put the questions in your essay. Remember to include the historical context of this period, which can be found in The Remedial Herstory chapter posted in the module. If you need a stronger understanding of this US History period, you can review your optional OpenStax textbook reading this week (see course schedule in the syllabus). Your response should contain ample direct quotations and in-text citations in addition to your own analysis. Avoid vagueness and narration. Provide supporting evidence and analysis throughout your essay. GRADING A passing-credit response will be a thorough response with specific and cited historical details from all assigned resources (i.e. As found on page 303 of the OpenStax textbook, it’s clear that XYZ.) The answer will thoroughly address the question above with specific historical content. Remember to write in complete sentences with proper writing mechanics. You should have Grammarly installed to help correct your work as you write. source: https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/nineteenth-century-women-struggle-and-triumph/
Ethan Rafuse’s book Robert E. Lee and the Fall of the Confederacy deals with a style of warfare quite different from that described by Grenier in The First Way of War.
Please answer the following in a 3-5-page paper Ethan Rafuse’s book Robert E. Lee and the Fall of the Confederacy deals with a style of warfare quite different from that described by Grenier in The First Way of War. How is the war you read about in Rafuse different from, or similar to, the “first way of war”? Why might they be different? How do you see Grant and Sherman’s strategy of raiding as being like, and yet different than, the “fist way of war”? Finally, why does Rafuse think the North won the war, and the South lost it?
Butler, Octavia, Kindred
All reflections are to:
-summarize the article
-relate the article to the movie “ Butler, Octavia, Kindred”
-relate the readings to your personal narrative (yes, your actual life) If you find yourself unable to relate then pick a different article, I will not accept anyone saying they cannot relate to anything
-relate the reading to the present racial climate
I have attached the article you are reflecting on !
The main fact that supports this argument is how eager the court was to make them guilty.
Reply to all three responses
1. The main fact that supports this argument is how eager the court was to make them guilty. If they were actually being judged for what they did, then the court would be unbiased and would deem them as innocent when the evidence showed that they most likely did not do it. However, they went out of their way to create fake evidence, and even when that failed, still deemed them guilty. This proves that there is most likely another reason for convicting them aside from what they potentially did. Another major signifier were the statements during the trial. The eye witnesses had a very negative attitude towards Irish people and the people of the court made it a very big deal that Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists despite it having zero relation to the case. This makes it obvious that the reason the court wanted to declare Sacco and Vanzetti guilty so badly was because of their identity as an anarchist and an immigrant.
2. There was proof of tampering with evidence, pressuring witnesses, harassment outside of court, declaring guilty without proper evidence, and denying appeals without a proper reassessment. Especially in Vanzetti’s case, he was declared guilty “on the whole of being guilty”, which is another way of saying that they had close to no proper evidence. I believe that this case should have been declared a mistrial so that they can go free, or at least a redo on the trial under fair circumstances. The evidence shows that it is extremely unlikely that they did it, and even if they did, the Judicial system has wronged them so much to the point that they should be allowed to go free unless a major reliable incriminating piece of evidence is found.
3. The cases are similar in that the prosecution tampered with evidence to wrongly accuse innocent people out of racist motives. The two main differences are the outcome and that the Sacco and Vanzetti trial was also affected by their status as an anarchist. This reveals that the justice system can be abused if all of the people in authority act to abuse the system. A lot more is being done to prevent this from happening in more recent times, but the O.J. Simpson trial reveals that this still is a major threat and a possibility that we need to be wary of and work to eliminate.
Why students and the general public get Vietnam wrong and what they don’t understand. Explain the complications Loewen lays out in his chapter.
Why students and the general public get Vietnam wrong and what they don’t understand. Explain the complications Loewen lays out in his chapter.
Assess the images in the chapter. What emotions do they evoke? Why does Loewen use them in this chapter?
How Loewen’s chapter may or may not have influenced your understanding of the Vietnam War.
What legal procedures were violated in the interrogation and trial of Sacco and Vanzetti?
Discussion
The Sacco and Vanzetti Case
Sacco and Vanzetti raised some very serious doubts about the American Justice system and American attitudes towards those that don’t support “American” values. Please give your opinions on the following questions. After you post your thoughts, you will be able to see the posts of your fellow group members. Please post at least ONE response to the opinions put forth by other students in the class (once you post your answers, other students’ posts will become available).
What facts of the case support the belief that Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted for who they were and what they believed, rather than for what they did?
What legal procedures were violated in the interrogation and trial of Sacco and Vanzetti? Should the case have been declared a mistrial, which could conceivably mean that they go free?
The Sacco and Vanzetti case is an example of how the American Justice system, and the jury system in particular, has been (and can be) influenced and manipulated by public opinion. Do a little research on the O.J. Simpson trial, if you are not already familiar with it, or read the brief summary of the trial that I have provided below. The verdict in the trial produced very emotional, and very different reactions from people, not only in the United States, but around the world (Watch the short 6 minute video below of reactions around the U.S.). How are the Simpson / Sacco and Vanzetti cases similar or different? What, in your opinion, do the cases reveal about the fairness and impartiality of the American justice system?
The OJ Simpson Verdict:
A Look Back at the OJ Simpson Verdict – How different groups of people reacted
byu/johnnychan81 ininterestingasfuck