Answer:
All of the above are correct.
Explanation:
During the period the US had occupied the Philippines after acquiring them from Spain during the Mexican-American war, many think-tanks in newspapers thought about the subject. Some debaters believed that it would be a good naval base and a strategic location to counter Japanese interest in the Asia-Pacific region. Others believed that Filipinos were uncapable of rule. and others believed that it would be a good area for Asian goods.
B because it doesn’t go along with the others and I had this question before
Answer:
One way to treat discrimination is to have government intervention discrimination, because federal laws of the United States prohibit discrimination based on a person's country of origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status. Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination deem discrimination or discriminatory acts illegal because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language (The United States Department of Justice n.p.). The state government also has the power to make laws prohibiting people from discriminatory acts. Many states enacted laws that ban any and all forms of discrimination. Specifically, six states have passed ballot initiatives in order to amend their constitutions and prohibit state and local governments from portraying discrimination in public, contract making, and educational aspects on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. These states include California in 1996, Washington in 1998, Michigan in 2006, Nebraska in 2008, Arizona in 2010, and Oklahoma in 2012 (Clegg and von Spavosky n.p.).
Another way to eradicate discrimination is to promote diversity in our society. Diversity was introduced as a kind of end run around the historical problem of racism, the commitment to diversity is associated with the struggle against racism. The objective of eradication or treating racism is to create a color-blind society rather and having a color-conscious society. Instead of treating people as if their race does not matter, we should not only recognize but celebrate racial identity (Michaels). Cultural diversity is important, because workplaces, and schools increasingly consist of various cultural, racial, and ethnic groups which we could learn from. Learning about other cultures helps understand different perspectives within the world in which we find ourselves in, dispelling negative stereotypes and personal biases about different groups or ethnicities. In addition, cultural diversity helps us recognize and respect other cultures. It also makes our country a more interesting place to reside, because people from diverse cultures or contribute to our language skills, thought process, knowledge,
Explanation:
Please pick me as the Brainliest
Thanks
NO OTHER country puts as much emphasis on “freedom” as the United States. Patrick Henry demanded “liberty or death”. The national anthem calls America “the land of the free”. Great reformers from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King have urged America to live up to its ideal of “freedom”. When a group of French Americanophiles wanted to flatter the United States, they sent the Statue of Liberty.
And no other country boasts as much about its mission to give freedom to the rest of the world. Woodrow Wilson thought that he had a God-given duty to bring liberty to mankind. George Bush regards his foreign policy as a crusade for freedom—“the right and hope of all humanity”.
But how good is America at living up to its own ideals? A new study by Freedom House tries to answer this question. The fact that Freedom House has devoted so much attention to the United States is significant in its own right. Founded in 1941 by a group of Americans who were worried about the advance of fascism, Freedom House is now the world's leading watchdog of liberty. The fact that “Today's American: How Free?” is such a thorough piece of work makes it doubly significant.
The judicious tone of “How Free?” will undoubtedly disappoint leftists. Freedom House bends over backwards to give the authorities the benefit of the doubt. Other countries have recalibrated the balance between freedom and security in the face of terrorists who want to inflict mass casualties on civilians. America's recent sins, however, are minor compared with those of its past. Newspapers have published highly sensitive information without reprisals. Congress and the courts have repeatedly stepped in to restore a more desirable constitutional balance.
But the verdict on the Bush years is nevertheless sharp. “How Free?” not only details and condemns the administration's familiar sins, from Guantánamo to extraordinary rendition to warrantless wiretapping. It reminds readers of its aversion to open government. The number of documents classified as secret has jumped from 8.7m in 2001 to 14.2m in 2005—a 60% increase over three years. Decade-old information has been reclassified. Researchers report that it is much more difficult and time-consuming to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act.
Government whistleblowers have repeatedly been punished or fired—even when they have been trying to expose threats to national security that their bosses preferred to overlook. Richard Levernier had his security clearance revoked for revealing that some of the country's nuclear facilities were not properly secured. Border security agents have been punished for pointing out that the border is inadequately monitored, and airport baggage-handlers and security people for pointing to weaknesses in the security system. The Office of Special Counsel, which was established to enforce laws designed to protect the rights of such people, is widely regarded as “inept and even hostile to whistleblowers”.
“How Free?” also has some hard things to say about America's criminal-justice system. The incarceration rate exploded from 1.39 per 1,000 in 1980 to 7.5 in 2006, driven, among other things, by the war on drugs. America now has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world: 5.6m Americans, or one in every 37 adults, has spent time behind bars. Even though prison-building is one of the country's great growth industries, overcrowding is endemic, with federal prisons operating at 131% of capacity. America is also one of the few countries to ban felons and, in some states, ex-felons from voting. At any one time 4m Americans—one in every 50 adults—is disenfranchised because of past criminal convictions. This includes 1.4m blacks, or 14% of the black male population.
Freedom House's strictures are, if anything, too soft. America insists on criminalising victimless crimes such as prostitution. Last week Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called DC Madam, committed suicide; the government had thrown the book at her, including racketeering and mail fraud, because it really wished to penalise the arranging of assignations between consenting adults. In her suicide note to her mother she wrote that she could not “live the next six-to-eight years behind bars for what you and I have both come to regard as this 'modern-day lynching'.”
