Did Black Nationalism hurt or help African Americans pursuit of civil Essay

Did Black Nationalism hurt or help African Americans pursuit of civil rights - Essay Example As far as the rights of African Americans are concerned, this nation is considered the most discriminated nation especially in the South American regions of the United States. There were several political struggles came forward time to time to bring reforms for the protection of civil rights of this group. Black Nationalism was a supporting struggle that expressed the racial awareness among those Africans living in America. The motto of this movement was to ensure the protection of black power. This move greatly assisted the African Americans in pursuing civil rights. The leaders of the movement offered the ways to combat racism. In early 1960s, this struggle became more active and popular in America. This was the year when the move became more advanced and a well known leader Malcolm X, argued that African Americans should focus to improve their lives in order to integrate in American environment in a better way. Black people should also defend themselves against communal difference s. 2. Describe the anti-lynching movement? Who lead this cause, what were their goals and what was the outcome? Anti-Lynching Movement was a popular movement launched to activate and protect the civil rights of the communities living in America. This movement came forward as a reaction against lynching which, basically, involved extra-judicial killings based on racism. Lynching was a very common practice in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In the years 1890 to 1920, these killings reached at its peak. Extra-judicial killings were practiced to ensure white supremacy especially in the southern parts of America. According to an estimate of Tuskegee Institute, between 1882- 1968, 1297 whites and 3446 blacks were badly tortured and killed due to these racist controversies in America. Goals: The goal of this movement was to end up the violence that was a common practice in US against African Americans. This movement rose from the southern parts of United States. The thrust of the move was to ensure protection for the communal groups and this awareness had to spread among common people through education and legal amendments. It was the aim that the legal actions for communal equality would be made keeping in mind the federal legislation as well. Women played a great role in this movement. Leading Agents of the Movement: This movement was, particularly, leading by different organizations including the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching (ASWPL), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Association of Colored Women (NACW) and the Council for Interracial Cooperation (CIC). Wells- Barnett was a great leader and supporter of this campaign. He was a renowned journalist. The brutality of lynching movement revolted so white people also started joining this anti-lynching campaign. Outcomes: Finally, in 1940s, lynching was declined and this was the positive outcome of anti lynching campaign. It is considered the prime battle against segregation and racism that finally took shape in a positive manner. 3. Who was A. Philip Randolph and what was his contribution to African American History? A. Philip Randolph was an African American labor who also led civil rights in United States. He was the most prominent among all other trade unionists that fought for the cause of ethnic equality. Randolph was born in Florida and in 1911; he left Florida and moved to New York. Later on, in very young age he joined Socialist Party. Randolph was a realist approach human and believed that African Americans could never gain political power and could never get political freedom until they would be financially strong. He

Gay rights Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Gay rights - Research Paper Example In their defense, the supporters of the Florida Marriage Amendment emphasize the benefits of dual-gender childbearing and also point towards the role of dual-gender marriage in procreation. A major moral argument has been thrust upon the United States in attempting to justify such state laws as the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. Not surprisingly, the main backers of the amendment include state churches and pro-family organizations. Florida Marriage Protection Amendment should be repealed because it violates the very basic principles on which this country was built such as the right to liberty and the right for the pursuit of happiness. The law in Florida implies one can choose his or her life partner only from the opposite sex if he or she wants the union to be officially sanctioned by the state. Same-sex couples are experiencing the unfortunate hindrance of their own natural rights as a basis for the state to place a moral compass upon its citizens. By effectively eliminatin g a same-sex couple’s right to marriage, this amendment to state law deprives the same-sex couples numerous financial and non-financial benefits that come with marriage such as joint tax filings, savings on various types of insurance, support payments, and numerous promotional offers offered by commercial enterprises to married couples. This has produced an environment conducive to state-sanctioned discrimination against same-sex couples by denying them the financial and legal rights available to their dual-gender counterparts. The law gives support to the notion that homosexuality is a lifestyle as argued by religious institutions and not a natural phenomenon as argued by the scientific establishment. In other words, gay individuals are believed by the Florida state establishment to be engaging in a lifestyle by choice as opposed to by a fixed destiny based on genetics from birth. The laws are usually intended to protect society from the harmful consequences of one personâ⠂¬â„¢s actions. Human beings are reasonable creatures and thus, perfectly capable of evaluating the potential consequences of their actions. Therefore, it makes sense to hold one person responsible for the harm done to the society as a consequence of his or her own risky behavior. However, the laws attempt to draw a delicate line between individual freedom and one’s rights towards the society. This may explain why not all risky behaviors are regulated in truly democratic societies. While the goal is typically to protect every person within a society, it must also be to provide each person with the natural inalienable rights as set forth by that society’s government and its people. Its people must determine which rights are necessary. As an example, excessive alcoholic consumption can be fatal but there are no laws dictating how many drinks one can drink in a certain period of time but laws do discourage irresponsible behaviors such as drunk driving. Even though both ar e risky behaviors, in the first case, the risk is born by the same person performing the action while in the second case, the risk is involuntarily transferred to the society. The same reasoning could be applied to smoking laws, traffic laws, and numerous other health regulations. By the same logic, same sex marriage is a private matter that does no direct harm to the safety or security of society.