Jim Crow Laws enforced segregation between black and white people. The court case "Plessy Vs Ferguson" was trying to please people by enforcing the "separate but equal" law. Basically, they wanted to make the two races separate, but they thought it would be fine as long as both places were the same in quality and quantity.
To sum it up, Jim Crow Laws were to separate the two, but black people were given schools that weren't as good, trashy bathrooms, etc. It was also made to make sure that black people could not go some places on certain days, or at all. The "Plessy vs Ferguson" case was to try to make it better by separating the races, but having both bathrooms the same and both schools the same so none is better than the other.
I hope I helped.
Answer:
Even after the end of colonial empires and the rise of new , modern states in Asia after WWII, old racist prejudices remain. Some circles in Europe, Australia and the US (the West) continue to believe in the superiority of Western values and models, demeaning Asian local cultures and experiences. Those notions and attitudes usually fail to understand local history and political cultures, and customs.
Explanation:
As I understand it, Laissez-faire ideology maintains that the "free market" is the best way to determine what businesses can and should do. This means that businesses, in competition with one another, should be free to determine their paths free from any government rules or regulations. The belief is that the competition among various businesses will ultimately result in the best outcomes for society in general - Adam Smith's "invisible hand". As part of this philosophy, workers should also be free to compete with each other and choose to work wherever they wish and this process will also result in the best results for the workers as well.
However, isn't there a huge assumption in this philosophy? Doesn't the whole justification of this belief depends on the condition that there is perfect competition and that any company and any worker have the equal ability to compete with one another?
What if there is no perfect competition? What if some companies have advantages - due to any of a whole array of reasons - that place them in a non-competitive position vis a vis their competitors? Without perfect competition then other companies are not necessarily able to compete with other companies that have certain advantages. If such a situation exists, then advantaged companies may have the ability to pursue a course that results in their private benefit, but not necessarily to the benefit of society as a whole. The same would apply to workers in that reduced competition among companies would result in decreased leverage for potential employees.
To recap, if the Laissez-faire ideology maintains the best economic policy for society as a whole, and it depends on there being perfect competition on an ongoing basis with minimal government intervention, doesn't it fall apart if there is less than the perfect competition?
Answer:
The Paris Peace Conference was an international meeting convened in January 1919 at Versailles just outside Paris. <em><u>The purpose of the meeting was to establish the terms of the peace after World War.</u></em>
Explanation:
The Paris Peace Conference, also known as the Versailles Peace Conference, was the meeting in 1919 and 1920 of the victorious Allied Powers following the end of World War I to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers.
Answer:
A different Enlightenment thought.
Explanation:
The Declaration of Independence features the Enlightenment ideas of a <u><em>social contract</em></u> (power exchange between citizens and the government to ensure a citizens protection), <u><em>popular sovereignty</em></u> (the idea that the government's power comes from the people, so the people have the right to rule the government), and unalienable <u><em>natural rights</em></u> (rights we are all born with. In the Declaration of Independence, these rights are defines as the right to live, pursue of happiness, and be free [liberty]).
