Frank Lloyd Wrights One and Only Synagogue

Dr. Martin Luther King s Dream - 1826 Words

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s â€Å"dream† is based on his electrifying ‘I Have a Dream’ speech that he gave in Washington on August 1963. His speech was a paradigm of how he wanted to have peace and tranquility in America. He believed that all people should be viewed as equal, and have the same access to jobs and freedom, no matter their skin color or nationality. The elation around President Barack Obama’s election has blinded most people from the sad reality for Blacks in America today. They seem to think that his election was the ultimate moment for achieving racial equality. President Barack Obama’s election was not the realization of Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream. In order for me to explain why President Obama’s election isn’t the realization of King’s dream, I must first elucidate exactly what his dream was. Martin Luther King Jr was a leader in the Civil Rights movement, a social movement whose goals were to end racial segregation and discrimination against Black Americans. â€Å"The March on Washington in 1963, which brought together a quarter-million civil rights advocates, provided visible proof of the many grassroots movements outside the south that helped to forge the national civil rights movement† (Franklin Higginbotham 533) The 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s were extremely difficult times for Blacks in America, much like today. They were not treated like white Americans simply because of their darker colored skin. There were also laws, such as the Jim Crow laws, thatShow MoreRelatedDr. Martin Luther King Jr. s `` I Have A Dream?852 Words   |  4 PagesAccording to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s, â€Å"I Have a Dream† speech, Blacks were denied their equal rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I Have a Dream). The Emancipation Proclamation, written by Abraham Lincoln, supposedly freed all slaves but Blacks were still treated with disrespect. Blacks needed to have equal rights for many reasons. Blacks were mistreated, they were subjected to injustice and biased laws. Blacks were the â€Å"victims of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality†Read MoreDr. Martin Luther King s I Have A Dream Speech1696 Words   |  7 PagesDr. Martin Luther King’s â€Å"I Have a Dream† speech has served as inspiration to multiple generations in the 52 years since his words were spoken. Individuals and groups have rallied behind his message of equality and peace and quoted this speech countless times in an attempt to further Dr. King’s dream of bringing racial injustice to an end. In this speech, which was delivered as the culmination of the March for Jobs in 1962, Dr. King addressed nearly 250,000 people to bring awareness to the injusticesRead MoreDr. Martin Luther King s I Have A Dream Essay1331 Words   |  6 PagesDr. Martin Luther King’s â€Å"I have a dream† speech in 1963 emphasized the idea that the founding of the United States entailed a promise of equality for all citizens. This, of course, would have been a very important idea in the mind of Dr. King and his followers as they sought to end racism in the United States, and gain civil liberties for blacks across the nation. Although that movement was turning point regarding civil liberties and racism in the United States, the work was certainly not finishedRead MoreObservations On The s I Have A Dream Speech By Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.881 Words   |  4 Pageshappened 5 years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his I Have a Dream Speech on the Washington Mall 47 years ago, and Mother Teresa was born a century ago. Monday: Katrina; Tuesday: I Have a Dream; Today: Mother Teresa After spending a great deal of time on and devoting a good deal of space to the two previous subjects in this series on recent anniversaries, 2005 s devastating Hurricane Katrina and the world-changing 1963 I Have a Dream speech by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I had lookedRead MoreRhetorical Analysis Of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. s I Have A Dream 1448 Words   |  6 Pageswords have been spoken than those uttered by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s, â€Å"I have a dream,† speech. Perhaps one of the most famous and paradigm shifting speeches in all of history, Dr. King’s was spoken with candor, authenticity, fervor, and an enormous amount of tact. With his incredible intelligence and eloquence as a doctorate in Theological Studies, his establishment as such a respected leader, and his fervor and charisma in delivering the speech, Dr. King effectively established Logos, Ethos andRead MoreAnalysis of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.s I Have A Dream Speech619 Words   |  3 Pages28, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered one of the most famous speeches of all time to an audience of more than 200,000 civil rights supporters on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. In his, â€Å"I have a dream† speech, King addressed his encouragement of white and black people working together to achieve racial peace and harmony. He especially wanted to teach the young blacks that equality could be gained through the use of non-violence. The main reason King used nonviolenceRead Moreâ€Å"a Comparison of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’S ‘I Have a Dream’ Speech and ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’†.1444 Words   |  6 Pagesâ€Å"A Comparison of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech and ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’†. 9% Similarity Born in Atlanta Georgia in 1929, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., conceivably lived as one of the greatest social and religious leaders in a country where a group of its citizens had to endure excruciating conditions of disenfranchisement, inferiority and degradation of a second class citizenship by reasons of race, color or origin. In effort to condemn allRead MoreRhetorical Analysis of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.s I Have A Dream Speech915 Words   |  4 Pages Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his I Have a Dream speech to the thousands of African Americans who had marched on Washington, D.C. at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. The date of the speech was August 28, 1963, but it is one that will live for generations. Of course his purpose was to convince his audience on several fronts: he sought to persuade the black community to stand up for the rights afforded them under the Constitution, and he also sought to Read MoreAnalysis Of Martin Luther King Jr s I Have A Dream Speech1480 Words   |  6 PagesRights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr s I Have A Dream speech was broadcasted across the nation and heard by millions of Americans on August 28, 1963. Throughout the decades, many have promoted the importance of racial equality in America. Leaders such as William J. Clinton, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush have contributed to modern social movements by, doing as Dr. King himself, giving speeches to varying audiences concerning the issue of racial inequality. Above all, Martin Luther King Jr made theRead MoreMartin Malcolm : A Dream Or A Nightmare951 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"Martin Malcolm America Peace† If one man never steps forward to show all the others that change is possible, nothing will ever change. When you look back at history of the American civil rights movement, Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. are still often two of the first names even someone of today’s society may think of. They were, and still are, some of the most influential men to ever live. As young African-American men living during a time of harsh global, but most importantly

The FAO-organised World Food Conference in 1974 Free Essays

Introduction The acceptance of the term at the FAO-organised World Food Conference in 1974 has led to a growing literature on the subject, most of which grab ‘food security’ as an unproblematic starting point from which to address the persistence of so-called ‘food insecurity’ (Gilmore Huddleston, 1983; Maxwell, 1990; 1991; Devereux Maxwell, 2001). A common activity followed by academics specialising in food security is to debate the suitable definition of the term; a study undertaken by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) cites over 200 competing definitions (Smith et al., 1992). We will write a custom essay sample on The FAO-organised World Food Conference in 1974 or any similar topic only for you Order Now Simon Maxwell, who has produced work commonly referenced as foundational to food security studies (Shaw, 2005), distinguishes three paradigm shifts in its meaning: ‘from the global/national to the household/individual; from a food first perspective to a livelihood perspective; and from objective indicators to subjective perceptions’ (Maxell, 1996; Devereux Maxwell, 2001). A primary focus on food supplies as the major cause of food insecurity was given credence at the 1974 World Food Conference (McCaston et al., 1998). But the limitations of this supply focus came to light during the food crisis that plagued Africa in the mid-1980’s and the paradigm shifted to explore individual and household food security as opposed to food security from a national perspective (Argenal, no date) and the household food security approach emphasized both availability and stable access to food. Research work carried out in the late 1980s and early 1990s also focused on food and nutritional security (Frankenberger, 1992). It showed that food is only one factor in the malnutrition equation, and that, in addition to dietary intake and diversity, health and disease and maternal and child care are also important determinants (UNICEF, 1990). Thus, the evolution of the concepts and issues related to household food and nutritional security led to the development of the con cept of household livelihood security (McCaston et al., 1998). Until the late 1980s, most practitioners and theorists were focusing on a 2,100 calories a day standard, which was assumed to be the amount needed for any individual on a daily basis to avoid hunger. More recently, the ethical and human rights dimension of food security has come to the fore. In 1996, the formal adoption of a new definition by World Food Summit delegates reinforces the multidimensional nature of food security; it includes food access, availability, food use and stability (FAO, 2006). This has enabled policy responses focused on the promotion and recovery of livelihood options and included the concepts of vulnerability, risk coping and risk management (FAO, 2006). In short, as the link between food security, starvation and crop failure becomes a thing of the past, the study of food insecurity as a social and political construct has emerged (Devereux et al., 2001). The Rome Declaration of 1996, primarily laid the foundations for diverse paths to a common objective of food security at all levels: ‘food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’. This widely accepted definition points to the following dimensions of food security (FAO, 1996): Food availability: The availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality, supplied through domestic production or imports (including food aid). Food access: Access by individuals to adequate resources for acquiring appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. Utilization: Utilization of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where all physiological needs are met. This brings out the importance of non-food inputs in food security. Stability: To be food secure, a population, household or individual must have access to adequate food at all times. The concept of stability can therefore refer to both the availability and access dimensions of food security. Although nutrition scientists distinguish between ‘food security’ (availability of food on the global, national, local and household levels), on the one hand, and ‘nutritional security’ (satisfactory nutritional status of individuals), on the other (Oltersdorf and Weingartner, 1996), economic, social and behavioural scientists tend to consider ‘food security’ as a more comprehensive term that incorporates both concepts. In the above definitional context, the FAO (1996) stated that to achieve food security at national level, all four of its components ? availability, accessibility, utilization and stability ? must be adequate and that the opposite of food security is regarded as food insecurity. However, national food security depends on the household-level food security as a fundamental unit. Chen and Kates (1994) stated that ‘at a household level, food security tends to be equated with the sufficiency of household entitlements – that bundle of food-production resources, income available for food purchases, and gifts or assistance sufficient to meet the aggregate food requirements of all household members‘. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) concisely defines household food security as â€Å"the capacity of a household to procure a stable and sustain-able basket of adequate food† (IFAD, 1992). Adequacy may be defined in terms of quality and quantity of food, which contribute to a diet that meets the nutritional needs of all household members. Stability refers to the household’s ability to procure food across seasons and transitory shortages. Sustainability is the most complex of the terms, encompassing issues of resou rce use and management, human dignity, and self-reliance, among others (IFAD, 1992). Thus, household food security is as integrated system of the four subsystems of production, exchange, delivery and consumption (Cannon, 1991). Theoretically, poverty, household vulnerability, and undernourishment may be distinct conditions. Yet, in practice, these conditions intersect and overlap: poor households are usually most vulnerable to transitory and chronic food insecurity, hence they are often undernourished (Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992). But the individuals within food-insecure households cannot be assumed to suffer from hunger equally; there are differences in distribution and negotiating abilities of individuals (Argenal, no date). Oshaug (1985) therefore identified three kinds of households: â€Å"enduring households†, which maintain household food security on a continuous basis; â€Å"resilient households†, which suffer shocks but recover quickly; and â€Å"fragile households†, which become increasingly insecure in response to shocks. Similar approaches are found elsewhere (Benson et al., 1986). During the 1990s, authors and practitioners concerned with vulnerability to food security have engaged to define vulnerability and theorize how far people had slid towards a state of food insecurity (Dilley and Boudreau, 2001). The foundation of the concept is closely associated with poverty. But it is not the same as poverty; rather underlying poverty contributes to increased vulnerability (Young et al., 2001). In addition to income, there is a multiplicity of other factors that co-determine whether an individual will go hungry. In 1981, Sen challenged the then widely held conviction that a lack of food availability was the primary explanation for famines; instead, he posited lack of access as the key to understanding who went hungry and why. Because access issues are entrenched in social, political and economic relations, Sen’s work represented a clear shift in emphasis from natural to societal causes of famine (Blaikie et al., 1994). After Sen’s (1981) entitlement ap proach, many authors (Swift, 1989; Borton and Shoham, 1991; Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992; Ribot, 1995; Middleton and O’Keefe, 1998) sought to operationalize Sen’s ideas by using the word â€Å"vulnerability† to refer to the complex web of socio-economic determinants. In food-related contexts, the question, â€Å"vulnerable to what?† is nearly universally answered by ‘famine’, ‘hunger’ and ‘the undesirable outcomes that vulnerable populations face’ (Dilley and Boudreau, 2001). Therefore, vulnerability denotes a negative condition that limits the abilities of individuals, households, communities and regions to resist certain debilitating processes and improve their well-being (Yaro, 2004). According to Chambers, ‘vulnerability refers to exposure to contingencies and stress, and the difficulty in coping with them. Vulnerability has thus two sides: an external side of risks, shocks, and stress to which an indivi dual or household is subject: and an internal side which is defencelessness, meaning a lack of means to cope without damaging loss’. Chambers’ definition has three basic coordinates (Watts Bohle 1993): The risk of exposure to crises, stress and shocks; The risk of inadequate capacities to cope with stress, crises and shocks; The risk of severe consequences of, and the attendant risks of slow or limited poverty (resiliency) from, crises, risk and shocks. According to this definition, the external shock or stress might be drought, market failure, conflict or forced migration and the internal aspect of vulnerability is to do with people’s capacity to cope with these external shocks (Young et al., 2001). As livelihoods are conjured of a combination of exchange entitlements, a massive change in a particularly important entitlement may be decisive in causing entitlement failures, leading to loss of livelihood and starvation. The impact of the external shock on livelihoods depends on the household’s vulnerability, which is a combination of the intensity of the external shock, and the household’s ability to cope (Young et al., 2001). Patterns of vulnerability have become increasingly dynamic, thereby necessitating a dynamic rather than static approach to vulnerability (Yaro, 2004). From this vantage point, the most vulnerable individuals, groups, classes and regions are those most exposed to perturbations, who possess t he most limited coping capability, who suffer the most from crisis impact and who are endowed with the most circumscribed capacity for recovery (Watts Bohle 1993). Thus, the two dimensions of vulnerability ? ‘sensitivity’ (the magnitude of the system’s response to an external event) and its ‘resilience’ (the ease and rapidity of the system’s recovery from stress) ? are crucial. The lower the resilience and the higher the sensitivity, the higher the vulnerability and vice versa (Gebrehiwot, 2001). Swift, (1989) and Davies (1996) further pointed out that most food-insecure households are characterized by a very low resilience. However, extending our understanding of the crucial links of entitlements to wider political processes, Watts Bohle (1993) argue that the mutually constituted triad of entitlements, empowerment and political economy configures vulnerability to food security (Yaro, 2004). Vulnerability will therefore be shaped by several forces that affect the three sources of provision of food and well-being of households. Watts Bohle (1993) see vulnerability as being caused by lack of entitlements, powerlessness and exploitative practices and they defined the space of vulnerability through an intersection of three causal powers: command over food (entitlement), state/civil society relations seen in political and institutional terms (enfranchisement/empowerment), and the structural-historical form of class relations within a specific political economy (surplus appropriation/crisis proneness) (Watts Bohle, 1993). In the entitlement lexicon, vulnerability can be defined as the risks associated with the threat of large-scale entitlement deprivation (Sen, 1990). These shifts are frequently posed as a function of market perturbations, with a particular emphasis on rural land, labour and commodity markets (Watts Bohle, 1993). The heart of empowerment approaches to vulnerability is politics and power. Empowerment encapsulates both freedom to make choices by people and acceptance of culpability by governments who are supposed to ensure the workings of the ‘right to food’ (Dreze et al., 1995) as part of the fundamental rights of the human personality. Vulnerability can be defined, in this view, as a political space and as a lack of rights broadly understood. Property rights ensure access to land and other assets, but political rights are also central to the process by which claims can be made over public resources as a basis for food security, and to maintain and defend entitlements (Watts Bohle, 1993). As a political space, vulnerability is inscribed in three domains: the domestic (patriarchal and generational politics), work (production politics) and the public sphere (state politics). Accordingly, vulnerability delimits those groups of society which collectively are denied critical rights within and between these political domains. Mead Cain (1983) identifies two fundamental realms of risk in rural Bangladesh; one is patriarchal, expressed through gender based differences in wage rates and access to and control over resources (within a specific notion of political ecology); the other is rooted in property rights, and specifically the difficulty for the rural peasantry to enforce and defend their property rights against rapacious local landlords and corrupt representatives of the state (Chen, 1991). Powerlessness can, therefore, be approached at a multiplicity of levels in entitlement and food security; intra-household rule-governed inequities over access to resources and property rights, village level stratification and processes of political inclusion and exclusion with respect to land or access to local credit, national level power (Harriss, 1989). On the other hand, the strength of a rigorously class-based political economy provides a class map on which historically specific processes of surplus appropriation and accumulation (Patnaik, 1991), and the corresponding configurations of crisis, conflicts and contradictions can be located. In general, these crisis tendencies arise under capitalism as a result of structural contradictions and conflicts between classes, between the relations and forces of production, and between accumulation and production conditions (Harvey 1982; O’Connor 1988). Conclusion Vulnerability is here understood not solely in terms of entitlement or empowerment (though both are implicit), but rather as an expression of capacity, specifically class capacity defined by the social relations of production in which individuals and households participate (Watts Bohle, 1993). In the class perspective, famine and hunger are poverty problems but this requires an understanding not simply of assets but of the relations by which surpluses are mobilized and appropriated. Class analyses of hunger and famine are similar, in many respects, to marginalization theories and to â€Å"political ecology† (Blaikie 1985; Blaikie and Brooldield 1987). Vulnerability to food security is thus a structural-historical phenomenon, which is shaped by the effects of commercialization, proletarianization and marginalization (Watts Bohle, 1993). Therefore, dynamic on-going political economic processes of extraction, accumulation, social differentiation, marginalization, and physical p rocesses all affect vulnerability (Yaro, 2004). How to cite The FAO-organised World Food Conference in 1974, Essay examples

Developing the American Identity free essay sample

Developing the American Identity In this essay I will discuss the development of an American Identity which Is evident in writing. Leading up to the American Revolution there were three periods. First exploration which led into colonialism, second the Puritan period, and last the Age of Reason which was actually responsible for the formation of a united America. Though each period was different, It wasnt until the Age of Reason that America started to form its own identity. In 1492 Christopher Columbus sailed from Spain to what he thought would be a shortcut to India. In reality he landed on a Bohemian island in the Caribbean. Europe was civilized living in cities and towns as well as having forms of writing. Natives of North and South America didnt have an alphabet at this time. Their cultures were oral so they relied on speaking to preserve important things. Many of the first writings in America were letters from explorers back to their rulers. In these letters they speak of great beauty and praise their kings. In a letter to Emperor Charles V, Caber De Vacant says, among all the princes who have reigned, I know of none who has enjoyed the universal esteem of your Majesty'(Caber De Vacant 30).Explorers had to report good things and try to please he rulers who were funding their expeditions. Caber De Vacant seemed to give an accurate depiction of what went on. Thomas 2 Other explorers seemed to over exaggerate to please their kings and to make a name for thrillers. English explorer John Smith seemed to spice up his ordeal with the Indians. He speaks of them as savages when It seems they actually treated him very well. The next phase In American literature started In 1620 with the arrival of the Pilgrims. Unlike the Puritans, the Pilgrims wanted nothing to do with the English church. Like the explorers before them they make recordings of their Journeys and vents that happened. Throughout the Puritan period most of their writings are Influenced by their religion. Anything that happens, be It good or bad, was caused by God. When William Bradford comes across Squanto he calls him a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectation (Bedford 87). Something as good as a friendly English speaking Indian had to be Gods doing.In Mary Railroadings writing she blames herself for being taken captive by Indians. She thought that she hadnt been a good Christian and thats why she was taken. At this time the early Americans hadnt become enlightened so the only thing they could hind of to answer things is that God had to cause it. If bad things happened God must be testing you. If good things happened God was showing you good favor. Rowland said, we must rely on God himself, and our whole dependence must be upon 151) The early Americans hadnt yet gained an American identity.At this point they Just considered themselves Christians. They left England to escape religious persecution Thomas 3 1 OFF marked the end of Puritanism (AL 1700-1820 171). Matters and other clerical writers strove to maintain a world centered purely around religion. After his passing the 18th century saw huge changes. Science took huge bounds forwards and offered answers to questions that until this time had been an act of God. Intellectuals now believed in the power of the human mind that had been forgotten since the Roman Empire.The Enlightenment also brought changes to politics that would make America into what it is today. Benjamin Franklin was one of the early men to start thinking critically in America. He wrote the Poor Richards Almanac in 1733 and it became hugely popular. He would later sign the Declaration of Independence and become considered as one of Americas most important forefathers. He was also one of the first to question things that had been considered the norm. It is with Franklin that American writers started to develop similar identities.Too question everything and speak against things they didnt believe in. Education became more important and a highly educated man looks at what is going on around him and tries to understand why. Benjamin Franklin is one of the first to acknowledge that Indians were not as savage as they were viewed. He said Savages we call them, because their manners differ from ours, which we think the perfection of civility; they think he same of Concerning the Savages 227). Until this point, Indians were considered uncivilized because their culture was different than European culture.After a Swedish minister told some Indian chiefs the Christian creation story they told him theirs. The Thomas 4 minister responded what I delivered to you were sacred truths; but what you tell me is mere fable, fiction, and falsehood. A chief answered My brother, it seems your friends have not done you Justice in your education; they have not well instructed you in the rules of common civility. You saw that we, who understand and practice hose rules believed all your stores; why do you refuse to believe ours? (229). Franklin understood that different doesnt mean uncivil.Later Franklin wrote what he considered moral virtues Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity, Humility. (The Autobiography Part II 285). They tend to go along with thoughts of an educated man. A Puritan would have simply said trust in God. Like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson was a highly educated man who wrote about things he believed. In his Notes on the State of Virginia he wrote his thoughts on religion. He said But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god (Notes on the State of Virginia 343).During the Puritan period this would have been heresy, which was punishable by being burned alive. During the Great Awakening in America people became aware of things that made no sense. It was a common thread found in literature from this time. Another writer from this time, Aloud Equation, even wrote about ending slavery (Aloud Equation 350). In his narrative of the life he speaks of a yard where slaves were sold and said Learned you this from your God, ho says unto you, Do unto all mean as you would me should do unto you? (Narrative of the Life 360). Until people started Thomas 5 neighbor as thy love yourself, it wasnt considered wrong to treat humans like animals. Through the beginning of America the styles of writing changed. What started as letters to please rulers, changed into writing on how to be a good Christian. Then after the Enlightenment, American writers began to gain their identity, question everything and speak against things we dont feel is right. These are still apparent in writings from today.