The March was about civil rights, voting rights and racial equality, but it was also about the need for jobs and for jobs that paid a decent wage. The marchers wanted the federal minimum wage raised nearly 75 percent, from $1.15 an hour to $2.00 an hour. They also called for “A massive federal program to train and place all unemployed workers—Negro and white—on meaningful and dignified jobs at decent wages.”
In 1963, the unemployment rate averaged about 5.0 percent, which looks good compared to today’s 8.3 percent, but King and the other organizers wanted full employment and believed it was the federal government’s responsibility to provide it. If that meant hiring 3 million people, so be it; every American had the right to decent paid work if he wanted it. The economy had to be structured in a way that left no one behind.
The march’s key civil rights demands were met in 1964 and 1965 with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But the economic demands were never met. The minimum wage was raised to $1.25 in Sept. 1963, but it didn’t reach $2.00 an hour until 1974, by which time inflation had shrunk its value back to 1963 levels.
Today, with the separation of the 1 percent from the rest of us, and the government’s shrinking commitment to the well-being of the less fortunate, the economic disparities in America are worse than they were in 1963. Despite the legislative achievements of the 1960s, African Americans still suffer in fact from segregated housing, segregated schools, and segregated employment opportunities, all of which on average are worse than the housing, education and job opportunities available to whites.
We need a better, higher minimum wage; we need full employment; and we need a national commitment to equal economic opportunity.
All of them were movements occurred in Europe between the 15th and 18th centuries. They were all based on the impulse for learning, science, and human potential, rather than God's power.
<u>
Renaissance</u>: this period revived the ancient classical tradition (Greek and Roman) attempting to develop theories and doctrines reminiscent of classical ideals.
<u>Reformation</u>: initiated by Martin Luther, who promoted a schism in the Roman Catholic Church and England’s separation from the Roman Catholic Church.
<u>The Age of Exploration</u>: was a period of European history when overseas exploration became part of European culture.<u>
</u>
<u>Enlightenment</u>: was based on humanism, the ideas of the Enlightenment weakened the authority of the monarchy and the Church.
The American Revolution was not a civil war because a “civil war” is typically between two groups within the same country. For instance, Parliament and the King fought each other in the English Civil War. Similar conflicts occurred between the Union and the Confederacy during the American Civil War.
Contrarily, the American Revolution was a conflict between a colonizer and a colony. Usually, these are not referred to as "civil wars," but rather as "rebellions," "revolts," or (to their supporters) "wars of liberation."
Any of these might constitute a "revolution," so long as it alters society, the economy, and culture fundamentally as well as the leadership. As you can expect, this makes the word "revolution" very political. The proponents of change refer to it as a "revolution," whilst the opponents use a less admirable term.
The Civil War would have been referred to as a "revolution" if the Confederacy had prevailed, and the Union may have even done so at some point. Instead, it fell short, and now we refer to the conflict of 1861–1865 as a civil war. It's just another instance of how the winners write history.
Answer:
The distinction simply changes which party's primary registered voters are allowed to vote in. An open primary allows any registered voter to cast her ballot in either party's primary, while a closed primary mandates that voters registered with a party vote in that party's primary.
Answer:
??? sorry cant help .........
