1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Irina18 [472]
3 years ago
8

How was the Mexican Americans portrayed in the Mass Media?

History
1 answer:
alexira [117]3 years ago
4 0

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

You did not mention any specific text, article, or reference to answer this question. So we are going to answer it in general terms.

How were the Mexican Americans portrayed in the Mass Media?

Unfortunately, Mexican Americans not always receive the best coverage in the news.

It seems that is a lot of stereotyping and prejudice when talking about Mexican Americans. They are not portrayed in the best way possible because most of the time, mass media shares the story of poor Mexican immigrants that had to cross the border legally or illegally, and started to work in the United States in low paid jobs such as gardening, plumbing, or in the construction industry. Jobs that most American people would reject.

The stereotype is that these people are lazy and like to party a lot, not being responsible to assume their labor commitments.

But the truth is that these Mexican Americans are very hard-working people because they have to make ends meet working in two different jobs to try to make a decent living for their families. Indeed, these people have helped the US economy to grow, forming an important social group that in recent years has captured the interest of political candidates during elections.

You might be interested in
BRAINLIESTTTTT ASAP!!!!!
UNO [17]
It grew the Chinese empire. Propaganda brought everyone on board with imperialistic views
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why is king George lll important to the us government
Delvig [45]

Answer:

He was the ruling monarch of Great Britain during the time of the Colonies and the American Revolution. He was essentially the reason that the Colonists revolted.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
How can 3-D printing enable Burton to develop better boards than more traditional methods?
Oxana [17]

Explanation:

For 3D printing, the part can be printed on demand and shipped without any ramp up or tooling, resulting in a lead time as short as 2 or 3 days. The combination of the reduced lead time and the more efficient prototyping process reduces the time to market. This is a great advantage since delay creates uncertainty.

3 0
2 years ago
Which statement about historical claims is correct?
serg [7]

B i just took this test


3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did religious issues contributed to political unrest in England in the 17th century.
Maurinko [17]
The 17th century was a time of great political and social turmoil in England, marked by civil war and regicide. Matthew White introduces the key events of this period, from the coronation of Charles I to the Glorious Revolution more than 60 years later.
The 17th century was a period of huge political and social upheaval. From an age characterised by the Crown’s tight control of the state, the century witnessed years of war, terror and bloodshed that enveloped the kingdom, as well as the execution of Charles I and the introduction of a republic. Yet all this was again to be overthrown with the restoration of Charles II: a short-lived return to autocratic royal influence finally swept away with the installation of William and Mary as ruling monarchs.

Charles I and notions of absolutism

The origins of the English Civil Wars are firmly rooted in the actions of one man: King Charles I. As a child, Charles was never destined to succeed to the throne. The weak and sickly second son of James I, Charles had lived in the shadow of his elder brother Henry, who was educated in the ways of kingship by his father. All this changed when, in 1612, Henry contracted smallpox and died, suddenly placing Charles as heir to the throne, eventually to be crowned in his own right in 1625. The old king, James I, had been schooled in notions of compromise, forced to negotiate with his nobles on matters of religion and affairs of state. Charles, by contrast, adopted a starkly different approach, believing that his authority alone was supreme and ordained by God: defined by the principle of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’. ‘It is for me to decide how our nation is to be governed’ he wrote; ‘I alone must answer to God for our exercise of the authority he has invested in me’.[1]

Charles I’s absolutism manifested itself at a time of emerging self-confidence among the English elite. Though Parliament met only sporadically during this period – and acted mainly in an advisory role to the sovereign – by the time Charles was crowned he was already highly dependent on the gentry’s ability to raise adequate tax revenues (derived from agricultural rents, which far exceeded any other sources of income). It was this body of landowning gentlemen that constituted the bulk of Members of Parliament, men who, in theory, could by withholding his sources of income, hold the king to account. Conflict between Crown and Parliament arose for a number of reasons. In matters of religion Charles appeared to disregard the Protestant settlement secured by Henry VIII, favouring instead the Catholic mass and, in 1625, marrying a Catholic member of the French nobility, Henrietta Maria. Charles also continued to act unilaterally in matters of foreign policy and, in the face of criticism levelled by his chief advisers, dissolved Parliament in 1629. Parliament would not meet again for another 11 years.

Without Parliament to sanction his financial needs, Charles found himself in increasingly difficult circumstances. Rebellion in Scotland (provoked by Charles’s insensitive imposition of a new prayer book) required that additional revenues be raised in order to finance a military response. Reluctantly, the king convened a new Parliament in 1640.

The new Parliament that met that year was at once openly hostile to the Crown. MPs complained bitterly about the imposition of taxes and the blatant disregard of religious toleration in the north. (The Scots had rejected Charles’s prayer book and drafted a National Covenant in defiance of the king, resisting his religious reforms in favour of a simpler form of Protestant worship.) Sensing weakness in Charles’s position, key concessions were demanded from the king, and personal attacks were launched against his key ministers. Among them, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, was to suffer the death penalty for what Parliament labelled acts of treason against the Scottish nation. A botched attempt to arrest five MPs for treason set the king directly in conflict with his people. The scene was set for civil war.

A nation at war

Fearing for his own safety, in 1642 Charles fled London, first heading north to where he believed his main support lay. At Hull, the king was refused entry to the city by the Lord Mayor, and later that year, in Nottingham, Charles raised his royal standard: the first symbol of open warfare with Parliament.

On 23 October 1642 the first true battle of the Civil Wars took place, at Edgehill in Warwickshire, resulting in stalemate between Parliamentarian and Royalist forces. For four years afterwards skirmishing and warfare erupted across the nation, as Roundheads (labelled for the Parliamentarians’ short cropped hair) and Cavaliers (a derogatory term describing the courtly dress of Royalists) pitched themselves against each other.
3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • In what middle eastern country did a terrorist attack on americans take place in the city of manbij?
    13·1 answer
  • With his assembly lines, Henry Ford improved what process?
    6·1 answer
  • How does opportunity cost affect people's wants and needs?
    6·1 answer
  • Like that of Hebron the history of Jerusalem goes back to Abraham true or false
    13·1 answer
  • One way in which Emperor Meiji of Japan and Kemal Atatürk of Turkey are simliar is that they both
    5·2 answers
  • Alexander von Humboldt and Carl Ritter supported the idea that human development was not influenced by the environment. could be
    11·1 answer
  • In the 1760s, American colonists responded to Parliament’s taxes in several ways. Which way was most effective?
    10·2 answers
  • What is the first name of a wagon leader on the oregon trail
    11·1 answer
  • Why does the house need to have stricter rules for debate?
    12·1 answer
  • Which country used denazification as a reason for killing and enslaving millions of German men, women, and children?
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!