Need help writing 6 paragraphs for each topic:
How did decolonization and nationalist movements affect American Foreign policy during the Cold War? Examples, cuban missile crisis; truman doctrine, vietnam war Civils Right Movement and the1950/1960s:
The years of the Cold War were, of course, the years directly after World War II. Europe had been overrun by the Nazis, parts of Northern Africa had been occupied by Nazi’s and the Italians. Japan and Germany, defeated by the Allies, were occupied by Allied countries for several years. Stalin, in Russia, began to organize the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic—a collection of countries they “won” in eastern Europe. Almost every country in the world was recovering from the war and some were in the throes of complete change.
Germany was divided into East and West, with the East German part ruled temporarily by Russia, and the Western Allies were involved with West Germany. Berlin was divided the same way. Each country was trying to find its identity but also wary of what was happening in other parts of the world.
When the Communist party was beginning to gain strength in the 1930’s that is one issue that Hitler used to put fear into the German people and as a reason to invade Russia. Therefore, the Communists after the war struck fear in most people, and they used force in many ways, when allying with such countries as Bulgaria and Romania.
The countries that used to be Allies (U.S., France, Britain, Russia) lined up into two “camps”—Communist and non-Communist. When the rebels in Cuba, only 90 miles from the Florida shores, wanted to overthrow the then current leader, the result was that Fidel Castro, a Communist-backed dictator, took over the leadership of the country. That put a satellite country from the U.S.S.R. right in our “front yard.”
In 1961 President Kennedy announced to the American people that Cuba was beginning to import and build up military equipment. That was a “wake up” call for the United States people to realize the close proximity of this possibly Communist military base for the U.S.S.R. The President announced that no more missles or any such build up of weapons would be allowed to be brought into Cuba and any ships would be turned back.
Of course, at the end of the War, in 1945, two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan by the Allies. It was the start of the nuclear age. That was a change from any other weapons that every existed before. An atomic bomb could wipe out an entire country easily and then the radioactivity would injure even more people. It was something that was always on people’s minds. It was a “threat” even if unspoken.
Why did the civil rights movement gain momentum in the 1950s? Examples 1964 Civil Act and 1965 Voting Act.
The 1950’s and 1960’s were also directly after the second World War, and after the Korean War. Minorities played a huge part in the military in both of these wars. Blacks were pilots and officers. They learned a trade. When they were released from the military they were eligible for the G. I. Bill to go to school.
Therefore, when they returned home, these soldiers had some money, they wanted to go to college, and get a home and a family. After President Kennedy was killed, Lyndon Baines Johnson became president—a liberal Democrat. He pushed civil rights through the legislature which were the most comprehensive in history.
In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 82-352 (78 Stat. 241). Section 703 (a) made it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
The final bill also allowed sex to be a consideration when sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Title VII of the act created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement the law. This was a huge difference in the work place.
Up until this time, business could refuse to hire women just because they wanted men instead. They could hire blacks but pay them less than white people for the same work. They could put, for instance, an Oriental man on a job that paid less even if another less qualified person was advanced to another job. These types of things seem incredible, but until this time, it was not only possible, but for most businesses, it was the normal procedure.
Besides legislation, there were movements to get people out to vote. Blacks had had the right to vote of course, for many years, but rarely voted in large numbers. One of the reasons minorities in the South did not vote were things called “Poll Taxes” which worked this way: As soon as a person was eligible to vote, they were charged a “poll tax” each year. If someone was eligible at age 21, but did not vote until age 41 years old, then that person would owe 20 years worth of poll taxes, maybe $2000. Most blacks in the South during that time could not afford that, and so, did not vote.
Subsequent legislation expanded the role of the EEOC. Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now protected classes. The proposal to add each group to protected-class status unleashed furious debate. But no words stimulate the passion of the debate more than "affirmative action."
As West defines the term, affirmative action "refers to both mandatory and voluntary programs intended to affirm the civil rights of designated classes of individuals by taking positive action to protect them" from discrimination. The issue for most Americans is fairness: Should the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment be used to advance the liberty of one class of individuals for good reasons when that action may infringe on the liberty of another?
The EEOC, as an independent regulatory body, plays a major role in dealing with this issue. Since its creation in 1964, Congress has gradually extended EEOC powers to include investigatory authority, creating conciliation programs, filing lawsuits, and conducting voluntary assistance programs. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not mention the words affirmative action, it did authorize the bureaucracy to makes rules to help end discrimination. The EEOC has done so.
Today the regulatory authority of the EEOC includes enforcing a range of federal statutes prohibiting employment discrimination. According to the EEOC's own Web site, these include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and its amendments, that prohibits employment discrimination against individuals 40 years of age or older; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in compensation for substantially similar work under similar conditions; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability in both the public and private sector, excluding the federal government; the Civil Rights Act of 1991 that provides for monetary damages in case of intentional discrimination; and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, that prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees with disabilities. Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 forbade gender discrimination in education programs, including athletics that received federal dollars. In the late 1970s Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This made it illegal for employers to exclude pregnancy and childbirth from their sick leave and health benefits plans.
Presidents also weighed in, employing a series of executive orders. President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered all executive agencies to require federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." This marked the first use of the phrase "affirmative action." In 1969 an executive order required that every level of federal service offer equal opportunities for women and established a program to implement that action. President Richard Nixon's Department of Labor adopted a plan requiring federal contractors to assess their employees to identify gender and race and to set goals to end any under-representation of women and minorities. By the 1990s Democratic and Republican administrations had taken a variety of actions that resulted in 160 different affirmative action federal programs. State and local governments were following suit.
The courts also addressed affirmative action. In addition to dealing with race, color, creed, and age, from the 1970s forward, the court dealt with gender questions. It voided arbitrary weight and height requirements (Dothard v. Rawlinson), erased mandatory pregnancy leaves (Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur), allowed public employers to use carefully constructed affirmative action plans to remedy specific past discrimination that resulted in women and minorities being under-represented in the workplace (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County), and upheld state and local laws prohibiting gender discrimination.
By the late 1970s all branches of the federal government and most state governments had taken at least some action to fulfill the promise of equal protection under the law. The EEOC served as the agent of implementation and complaint. Its activism divided liberals and conservatives, illuminating their differing views about the proper scope of government. In general, the political liberals embraced the creation of the EEOC as the birth of a federal regulatory authority that could promote the goal of equality by designing policies to help the historically disadvantaged, including women and minorities. In contrast, political conservatives saw the EEOC as a violation of their belief in fewer government regulations and fewer federal policies. To them, creating a strong economy, free from government intervention, would produce gains that would benefit the historically disadvantaged. Even the nonideological segment of the American population asked: What should government do, if anything, to ensure equal protection under the law?
Protests
Drugs
Hippies
Voting rights
Freedom and Security during times of War: WWI, the cold war and McCarthyism and post Sept 11 and the war on terrorism.
Has there ever been a balance of civil liberties and government policy?.. Are civil liberties infringed upon during war?