N Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Louisiana law passed in 1890 "providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races." The law, which required that all passenger railways provide separate cars for blacks and whites, stipulated that the cars be equal in facilities, banned whites from sitting in black cars and blacks in white cars (with exception to "nurses attending children of the other race"), and penalized passengers or railway employees for violating its terms.
<span>Homer Plessy, the plaintiff in the case, was seven-eighths white and one-eighth black, and had the appearance of a white man. On June 7, 1892, he purchased a first-class ticket for a trip between New Orleans and Covington, La., and took possession of a vacant seat in a white-only car. Duly arrested and imprisoned, Plessy was brought to trial in a New Orleans court and convicted of violating the 1890 law. He then filed a petition against the judge in that trial, Hon. John H. Ferguson, at the Louisiana Supreme Court, arguing that the segregation law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids states from denying "to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," as well as the Thirteenth Amendment, which banned slavery. </span>
<span>The Court ruled that, while the object of the Fourteenth Amendment was to create "absolute equality of the two races before the law," such equality extended only so far as political and civil rights (e.g., voting and serving on juries), not "social rights" (e.g., sitting in a railway car one chooses). As Justice Henry Brown's opinion put it, "if one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane." Furthermore, the Court held that the Thirteenth Amendment applied only to the imposition of slavery itself. </span>
<span>The Court expressly rejected Plessy's arguments that the law stigmatized blacks "with a badge of inferiority," pointing out that both blacks and whites were given equal facilities under the law and were equally punished for violating the law. "We consider the underlying fallacy of [Plessy's] argument" contended the Court, "to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it." </span>
<span>Justice John Marshall Harlan entered a powerful -- and lone -- dissent, noting that "in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." </span>
<span>Until the mid-twentieth century, Plessy v. Ferguson gave a "constitutional nod" to racial segregation in public places, foreclosing legal challenges against increasingly-segregated institutions throughout the South. The railcars in Plessy notwithstanding, the black facilities in these institutions were decidedly inferior to white ones, creating a kind of racial caste society. However, in the landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the "separate but equal" doctrine was abruptly overturned when a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that segregating children by race in public schools was "inherently unequal" and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown provided a major catalyst for the civil rights movement (1955-68), which won social, not just political and civil, racial equality before the law. After four decades, Justice Harlan's dissent became the law of the land. Following Brown, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled racial segregation in public settings to be unconstitutional. </span>
Answer:
A. Man vs. Man - Carol and Brandi race for the gold medal.
B. Man vs. Self - Miguel struggles with feelings of guilt.
C. Man vs. Nature - Farmers experience a terrible drought.
D. Man vs. Higher power - Jonah is corrected by God.
E. Man vs. Society - Reverend Mundo protests Sunday sporting events.
Explanation:
The various forms of types of conflicts that are to be found in any narrative may be between man and nature, man with man, with self or even with the society. All these conflicts may also show the battle that the individual has to get through in order to move on with his life.
The types of conflicts along with the plot are as follows-
1. Man vs. man is seen in the competition between Carol and Brandi in their effort to get the gold medal. This competition to secure the better goal is a conflict of interest of the two persons involved.
2. Man vs. Self is seen in Miguel who is struggling with feeling guilty. This type of conflict deals with an individual and his inner emotions and feelings, a form of inner conflict within the persona and involves no other external identity.
3. Man vs. Nature is found in the farmers and the drought that had destroyed their crops. The farmers are in conflict with the terrible drought, a force of nature. Thus, it is a form of man and nature in conflict.
4. Man vs. Higher power is a form of conflict between an individual and some higher power, in this case God. God is the ever powerful entity over all, thus when Jonah disobeyed God, he gets corrected. This is a type of man vs. higher conflict.
5. Man vs. Society is shown when there is a conflict between an individual and the society he lives in. Thus, when Rev. Mundo protests against the sporting event that occurs on a Sunday, he is in conflict with the society. This conflict is based on the differences in interest.
Answer:
B. The scandal contributes to the characterization of Stalin as anti-Semitic and a continued supporter of the former Nazi Germany.
Explanation:
"The Doctors' Plot" shows how Stalin intended to execute the arrest of 15 Jewish doctors. These doctors were big names in medicine at the time and everyone was involved in the treatment of the diseases that Stalin had. However, Stalin showed no improvement and began to accuse the doctors of poisoning, even without any proof that this was really happening. This shows how Stalin maintained an anti-Semitic sentiment and supported the concepts raised by former Soviet Germany in relation to Jews.
If "y" represents the monthly salary of a salesman then we can rearrange the equation so that "y" is in evidence:
y=2000+100x
If he sells no computers and "x" is the number of computer systems he sells, then x=0.
y=2000+100*0 <=> y=2000+0 <=> y=2000
If the salesman sells no computers, his monthly salary is of 2000.
