Answer:
It was almost a hundred years since slavery, but blacks were still threatened by whites. Police used new tactics to arrest African American on minimal offenses and Jim Crow Laws were still relevant. Although black people were not slaves of a plantation; they were still slaves of America’s inequality. Trying to receive civil rights for African Americans in the 1960s was a revolution for equality. African American’s had two leaders that were not afraid to stand up for black people. Malcolm X and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King stood for desegregation, independency, and equality. Although both of them had different approaches, both were equally influential. Upbringings, social environments, and life events affected Malcolm X’s and Martin Luther King’s perspective on the extent to how violence should be incorporated into their ideologies.
In the Ethical Demands for Integration, Martin Luther King stated that “the impact of the nonviolent discipline has done a great deal toward creating in the mind of the Negro a new image of himself.” Because African Americans have a history in slavery, blacks are accustomed to punishment for working too slowing or ruining product. Besides his background, Martin Luther King believes that non-violence is the best way to approach to succeed in revolt because it exposes black to a new wave of being a human. African Americans have never had a time to use their knowledge, words, and actions to fundamentally change their government and Martin Luther King believed that it was the time to use it. On the other hand, Malcolm X had a more violent method. Malcolm X believed that it was silence that suppressed slaves in the past and the only way to change it was to respond violently. Violence allowed for African American to have more than a “voice”. It put their words into actions, which he believed to be more influential than peaceful aggression.
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was born on January 15, 1929 to Martin Luther King Sr. and Alberta Williams King. He had two siblings and he grew up comfortably in a house in Atlanta, Georgia. His family had a middle class income and although he lived in the urban city, he received the best possible education. Until college, his family remained together and they didn’t worry about much financially. He always had the company of his siblings for comfort, support, and enjoyment. Along with his sibling, Martin Luther King’s “second home” was the church. His father and his grandfather were pastors and their role led Martin to want to follow in their footsteps. On the contrary, Malcolm did not have such a cheerful childhood, he states: “People are always speculating- why am I as I am? To understand that of any person, his whole life, from birth, must be reviewed. All pf our experiences fuse into our personality. Everything that has happened to us is an ingredient”. Malcolm Little was born on May 19th 1925 in Omaha, Nebraska to Louise and Earl Little, with the name Malcolm Little. He had ten siblings and his family was well off. His father was financially self- sufficient, a Baptist preacher, and an organizer for Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association. Because his family was constantly under scrutiny, Malcolm lived with constant fear through his childhood. His family was frequently being harassed by the Klu Klux Klan because of his father’s involvement with the UNIA. At the age of four, Malcolm’s house was burned down and when he was six years old, his father was murdered. Martin Luther King developed a more peaceful approach because of his positive childhood, and Malcolm Little was more violent because that is what he is used to.
Answer:
Louis Armstrong
Explanation:
Louis Armstrong was born and raised in New Orleans and became a huge influence in the jazz genre in the 1920s.
Answer:
The event in Boston helped to unite the colonies against Britain. What started as a minor fight became a turning point in the beginnings of the American Revolution. The Boston Massacre helped spark the colonists' desire for American independence, while the dead rioters became martyrs for liberty.
Explanation:
The question is in relation to producing an abundance in the means of living e.g. shelter, food and clothing. Before capitalism became a global system humankind were always confronted with the constant problem of producing sufficient products so there was a surplus and then distributing these surplus products in order to survive. Natural scarcity was to all intents and circumstances the order of the day. Whole communities and civilisations could be wiped out through climate change, flooding, famine or depletion in natural resources, etc; due to this lack of surplus products.
Humankind, was constantly under pressure to adapt to the changing conditions and circumstances. However, with food always in high demand we found through trial and error a stable community based on agriculture was a partial solution to the problem of obtaining a surplus in food. The introduction of agriculture meant a further division of labour with specialists and a communal store becoming an established feature of such societies.
The first settled agricultural communities would have been established by societies which had previously practised hunting and gathering and so had a communistic economic structure. This was characterised by the absence of private ownership of the means of production and by the sharing of products according to need. After the adoption of agriculture, these communistic economic arrangements survived for a while, but tended to break down in the long run as they no longer corresponded to the material conditions of production.
This was not yet the establishment of private ownership, but it meant the end of free access to the means of production that had obtained in hunter-gatherer societies. It ruled out any member of society simply helping themselves to the products of any plot of land. Normally they would only have free access to the products of the plot cultivated by the family unit to which they belonged.
The existence of a common store becomes another aspect of the society's material conditions of production and requires a social arrangement for managing this store -collecting and distributing the surpluses. The usual arrangement seems to have been to confer this responsibility on a particular family. This role of collecting and redistributing surpluses had to be filled if all the members of the community were able to meet their basic needs as of right.
The emergence of control over means of production by a section of society, or social class, was a radical departure in human social arrangements. Production was no longer controlled by society as a whole. Such societies ceased to be communities with a common interest and became divided, with one class, on the basis of its control over access to and use of the material forces of production, exploiting the productive work of the other class and allocating itself a privileged consumption.
After the rise of settled townships on an agricultural base in Mesopotamia, trade between localities developed. For the first time the products of hands and brains took on an alien life as commodities to be bartered, and then bought and sold with the abstract commodity of money. Property, released at the boundary between tribes, began to impinge within them. The first property society came to be developed when people were bought and sold as slaves.
For the sake of brevity we’ll skip the introduction of feudalism and go straight to capitalism. Capitalist social relations emerged with the expropriation of common land by the aristocracy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The lands were enclosed to be used for sheep farming rather than arable cultivation. One reason for this was that the new Flemish woollen industry made sheep more profitable tenants than peasants. Enclosure destroyed the lives of thousands of peasant families, turning them into propertyless vagabonds.
Deprived of their land, their homes, their traditional surroundings and the protection of the law, the expropriated peasants were left to sell the one thing they possessed -their ability to work. The introduction of wage labour was the starting point of capitalism. Wage labour=profits=artificial scarcity.
With the introduction of artificial scarcity the problem of surplus production was solved by capitalism. Nonetheless, the problem of distribution still remains due to the restrictions of the profit system. In a nutshell despite the huge amounts of wealth produced by capitalism global resources can only be freed up with the introduction of common ownership.
