Candacy Lawrence

                                             Demand For Change

"why are you not in jail?' expressed by Henry David Thoreau, mentioned this to his colleague as an incitement to provoke/ urge citizens to take a stand against the government, a stand that will promote better or just governing. He states that blindly accept and follow the laws or the government is to unconsciously support their cause. This relates to the article, all  authors are fighting to make their voices heard by  the government. they are all seeking equal  right, equal justice. They all want to be seen and heard and respected as citizens of the United States

I choose this because  in today's society the government need it's citizen's to function, and they can  not arrest a whole state, so if people where to come together, all people or majority of people come  together and stand against the government in peaceful protest until a positive productive change comes along the government will have no choice but to comply

Candacy Lawrence


                                             Give Us A New And Improved America

After reading Federalism, I got to understand that the practices we participate in today has been around since the begining of  time. With that said old habits are hard to kill, but we must try for a more united state of  America. Jefferson participated in the Declaration of  Independence because he didn't believe it was right for humans to be kept as slaves, this could also be due to his relationship with Sally Hemmings a slave, non the less he opposed  it, even though he didn't see it fit that blacks and white should live together as one. He the people to love the government and knew that for that to happen the government would have support it's people.

I choose "Jefferson did believe however that the Constitution should be updated every ten years or so" because this too is a way in  which  the government could support it's people and ensure that every person is treated with equal rights and their concerns be heard and acted upon.

Jefferson states that despite the different parties we are all one people. And as a people, we have the resource to share the wealth and opportunities amongst our people, this could be how America can Proudly be called the 'Melting Pot' and end the fight against each other and start the lifting and building  of a great nation. 

Candacy Lawrence


                                                       We Need A Change, for Freedom


Funny thing, a few of my classmate from another class and I were discussing politics and the state of the Constitution came up. The Constitution was written in 1776, that is two hundred and forty two  yrs ago. The world has changed so much since then, America has changed so much since. The last time the constitution was amended was between the 1960s and 1970s, that's yrs of improvement of citizenship, equal rights (doesn't really exist, but for the sake of argument), women and Blacks can now vote and counted as an individual and so much more. The constitution needs to change as well. I choose " People often say that the Constitution is a "living document" meaning that it changes and adapts itself to fit the needs of the era." because it shows the need for a change. 

The constitution itself  makes it hard to change, the unattainable requirement for changing the constitution is preposterous, I understand that it's not an easy task, it takes thought, adequate information, an unbiased group of people and the ability to foresee likely outcomes, positive outcomes.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

The constitution has  been written many years ago and the fact that it needs to be interpreted should show that a change needs  to be made. now I understand that the task might sound easy, but I know that it will take a government who is just and fair, a government who sees the people they govern as equals and deserving of equal rights and justice. I choose "This is controversial, because although preventing some (not all) abuses of government authority, it makes it difficult to use the government for more constructive purposes, leading to what is called "gridlock."  as a reason for the change.

Now, I understand that these laws are set  in place for a reason, and it is a great responsibility and requires much deliberation, but America has changed considerably over the years and, so, does a need for change in the constitution. but before the constitution can be improved, we first need a government system that is fair and just.

Though these changes might or might not take place,  it is a necessity in this state, the justice system who's scale weighs unfairly, the government who seeks only to benefit itself and those who share its social class and so much animosity towards minorities. We need a positive change

  Candacy Lawrence              Oh The Sweet Sound of one Sided Freedom

POLITICAL IDENTITY AND POLITICAL CULTURE

     The writer claims this article is an Anti-war  and a defence of Multiculturalism acceptance in America, but i find it says little to defend that, most passages, I've found that the writer says little in defending Multiculturalism, and after reading this from the point of view of an indigenous people, I'd want to reek war on each and every immigrant of America.


In Paragraph 3 or 4, depending if u consider the intro a paragraph, the writer says ' Obviously American culture in some part it is derived from the Anglo-Saxon (British) colonists who settled here in the 17th century, displacing the original Indian Settlers.' This by far doesn't sound like a declaration for peace and need for every individual to unite as one. I believe there is such a thing as setting your own agenda to get one's point across and to convince your readers to agree to your point whatever way you can. I believe this writer is using, call me crazy and I emphasise that  this is my understanding of the essay, that this writer is using reverse psychology.  he further goes to say " To face the fact that our aliens are already strong enough to take a share in the direction of our own destiny..." Most passages in this article seems to refuse the idea of Multiculturalism, yes it points out a few benefits like the technologies that are now useful, or the education system, but it is more of an opposition.

I believe America is built as a Nation of many people and many race, and that is what makes america America. with that said, people of power should ensure that every individual under their government is treated as equals, the laws should be the same for every person, sentences shouldn't be based on race or economic standing, the same opportunities should be equally available to every community, proper education should be granted to all residents and states shouldn't vote, people should.

                                  Citizenship and American Identity


'They did not come to be assimilated in an American melting pot. They did not come to adapt the culture of American Indian' I choose this quote because it summed up what america represent.

Why was America colonized with so many different nations? Was it for freedom from oppression, was it for wealth, was it for freedom of religion? Whatever the reason was, how did immigrants incorporate their beliefs, their culture their identity under one umbrella when there was already a group of natives already in the country? They didn't, America is built on diversity. Diversity in religion, culture, food, languages and so much more. take the Jews for example; they have their own law enforcement, their own religion that gets noticed, so much so they have the opportunity to celebrate their holidays. did they come here with the intention to give up who they are? NO, they came here to make this country their own

I close by saying, immigrants came to America from all ends of the globe with the idea, to build a new or better life for themselves and their family, and with them, they brought their beliefs, their culture and over threw that of the original settlers of America and called it Americanization known as the American culture we've all come to know.

                            Power and Civilization in America


'Equally objectionable to the pluralists and to us-is the sociologists’ hypothesis that the power structure tends to be stable over time.'

Taking into consideration that this was published in the early 60's by  a male, i'm going to have to say this article could use some editing. I choose this quote because it shows that an agreement can not be made on the true distribution of power.

Neither side, the pluralist, elite nor the sociologist can agree how power is shared. The text states 'Pluralists hold that power may be tied to issues, and issues can be fleeting or persistent, provoking coalitions among interested groups and citizens, ranging in their duration from momentary to semi-permanent'. While another group the elite states'  A third criticism of the elitist model is that it wrongly equates reputed with actual power:'

I believe neither have proven to be accurate, for the Pluralists', they seem to base their power on the issues that may arise in a town, city or state and how they are resolved. Not every citizen will share the same problem not every problem can be solved and even if they can it might take a period of time. During that period of resolution, is power being given to the citizen as the wait or to the 'mayor'?