In actuality, the participation in politics of American people is consistently limited, if the process of participation in the political life of the country is viewed as a conscious process, i.e. the process of making conscious choices. In such a context, the participation of the large part of American population in the political life of the country is rather formal than real since the participation in electoral campaigns or voting does not necessarily mean that an individual consciously participates in the political life of the country. Moreover, many Americans ignore the participation in the political life of the USA because of their disenchantment with politics and political leaders of the nation. Also, it is important to underline the fact that some people living in the USA are deprived of the right to participate in the political life of the country because of their legal status, for instance, illegal immigrants. In such a way, a brief overview of the current situation in regard to the participation of Americans in the political life of the country reveals the fact that the participation in American politics is consistently limited.

On analyzing the current situation in the USA and in the political life of the country, it should be said that the American politics is characterized by the dominance of two major political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. In actuality, these two parties play the dominant role, while other parties are insignificant in the national politics of the USA. In such a situation, the existence of only two parties, which ideologies does not differ radically, creates conditions for the low participation of people with different views in political life of the country.

At this point, it is necessary to dwell upon the definition of the concept of participation. As the matter of fact, participation in American politics can be defined as the involvement of people in the political life of the country, which implies the ability of people to influence decisions taken at all levels of the political power of the USA. In actuality, it is necessary to distinguish the participation of Americans in the political life as candidates and active political figures, on the one hand, and voters or electorate, on the other hand. It is worth mentioning the fact that political activists, i.e. people, who participate in elections and work within parties’ apparatus, have larger opportunities to participate in the political life of the country because they have more opportunities to influence or even take decisions defining the political development of the country. The higher the position of a politician is the more opportunities he/she has to take decisions.

At the same time, the role of electorate cannot be underestimated, but, it is the electorate which participation in the political life is often rather formal than real. What is meant here is the fact that voters need to make politically conscious choices, while manifestations and protests organized by ordinary Americans, which involved in political work directly, may be influenced by external factors, such as media or ideological struggle of leading political forces, i.e. the Republicans and the Democrats. In such a context, the electorate can be viewed as masses of people, which political leaders or political elite of the country manipulate using media and various strategies helping to shape the public opinion. Therefore, the participation of many Americans becomes a sheer formality if their opinion or political position is condition or shaped by a political force, but not by their own reason and judgments.

In this respect, it is possible to refer to the campaigns and elections, including the recent Presidential campaign, which rather become a kind of financial competition and populist races than the real participation of Americans in the political life of the country. To put it more precisely, the financing of campaigns and elections grows more and more complicated that increases the risk of corruption or unfair use of financial resources (Lott & Smith, 17). But, what is more important, an average American, who is willing to shift from the role of a voter to the role of an active politician, cannot do it without the support of a serious political force or party, preferably, the Democratic or the Republican one, because he/she cannot raise as much funds as candidates supported by the parties can do. Moreover, the leading political parties and their candidates get a large support of media, which may be divided into pro-democratic and pro-republican, while the appearance of a “third power” inevitably encounters criticism from the part of the media and skepticism from the part of the public, i.e. electorate. As a result, many Americans are doomed to the role of an ordinary voter who can do nothing but vote for the political forces which meets his interests, needs and expectations the most, with little opportunities to elect or organize an alternative political force.

The latter is apparently a serious threat not only to the effective system of election, but to the foundation of the civil society in the USA. What is meant here is the fact that many Americans are limited in their choice to the two-party system. In addition, it should be said that a large part of American population is passive in regard to the political life, because people are disenchanted with politics, since changes in the political life do not bring the improvement of their socioeconomic position. At this point, low-income families and ethnic minorities are particularly susceptible to such politically inactive trends. For instance, many African Americans and Latin Americans are unwilling to participate in the political life of the country because they feel they are outcasts of the American society, while they believe their votes can change nothing in their life (Wayne, 122).

In addition, it is necessary to remember a huge number of illegal immigrants, who live and work in the USA, but they are deprived of basic human rights and liberties and cannot participate in the political life of the country on the legal basis. Obviously, it is unacceptable for a civil society because a large number of people constituting a part of the society, cannot exercise equal rights and opportunities compared to the rest of the society.

Finally, it is worth mentioning factors which influence the current political situation in the USA and participation of Americans in the political life of the country. First of all, it is important to underline that the unequal participation in the US politics is defined by socioeconomic inequality within the USA. The poorest part of American society has the least impact on the political life of the country, in spite of the fact that it is this part of American society that needs political and socioeconomic changes the most. Secondly, the level of political consciousness of American society can influence the participation of Americans in the political life of the country. Today, political consciousness of many Americans is either low or shaped by leading political parties which use media and their dominant position to condition the electorate, shape public opinion and oppress any alternative ideologies. Also, the existing two-party political system is imperfect because other political forces cannot afford the competition with the Republican Party and the Democratic Party not only at the federal but even at the state and local levels.

Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that the development of American political life is characterized by a relatively low participation of Americans in politics. In actuality, from a quantitative point of view, the participation may engage a large of American society, but in qualitative terms the participation of Americans in politics is low because they are often unaware of their actual choices. Moreover, many people  living in the USA are either unwilling or unable to participate in the elections because they consider them ineffective or because they do not have a legal basis for the participation, while who participate do not always take decisions based on their own choices, but rather under the impact of media and promotional campaigns of leading political parties.

The African American population in the Southern states (they used to be the majority) fell exponentially due to the Jim Crow Laws, Ku Klux Klan, etc. Nowadays, the Southern States now caught up with the rest of the country and the blacks are starting to migrate back to the South. The Radical Republicans during the Reconstruction period passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. The 13th abolished slavery, 14th guaranteed anyone born or naturalised in the US a citizen, and 15th all men (white and black, but not women) are allowed to vote. Grant passed the Civil Rights Act, which gave African Americans protection from the Federal Government against States. But the 14th and 15th amendments weren’t upheld, and states started passing laws forcing segregation (which forced a Civil Rights movement and another Civil Rights Act a hundred years later). 

After the Civil War is took a long time before another southern president was elected (Johnson in 1964). After that, more southern presidents were elected (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton). Today, the blacks in the South tend to vote for Democrats (and in the rest of the country) while the whites tend to vote for Republicans. Our first African American president, Barack Obama, was elected partly due to the rise in African American population. The 2010 census results came out and said the white population was overall decreasing while the minorities grew (blacks grew by 37%!). In the end, blacks and the Southern states are being reaccepted into the greater community. 

In response to violence accompanying agitation, the counter-agitation aroused, which opposed to violence and focused on the use of civil, non-violent methods of the struggle and agitation. The counter-agitation became closely associated with non-violence.

Views on violence vary consistently. In this regard, violence is often mixed-up with social disobedience. However, the latter is acceptable for counter-agitational movements because social disobedience is not accompanied by violence or destructions. In contrast, agitational movements often viewed violence as an acceptable or even essential method of struggle. Violence was the use of destructive acts directed against life, health and property of people or public with the use of physical force. As a result, agitational movements using violence as a means of their struggle developed militarized units which could commit violent acts to meet goals of agitational movements. For instance, the Communist movement which grew popular by the mid-20th century viewed social revolution as the means to achieve its ultimate goals – the formation of a new, classless society.

Non-violent agitation is grounded on non-violent principles, which exclude the use of physical force to meet goals of certain movement or group. The development of the Civil Rights movement in the mid-20th century was based on non-violent agitation principles, when social disobedience became the main tool of struggle.

The problem of racial inequality emergence on the ground of the existing cultural biases and prejudices which traditionally position representatives of different ethnic groups and races at different levels of the social hierarchy. In addition, cultural traditions are enhanced consistently by socioeconomic inequality which often affects minorities, which in many cases are in a disadvantageous position. As a result, the racial inequality is determined by socioeconomic and cultural factors which prevent minorities from obtaining better position in the social hierarchy and, in fact, these factors make them outcasts, in spite of all the efforts to avoid racial discrimination and inequality. In such a context, it is possible to estimate that racial inequality is deep-rooted in cultural identity of individuals and this inequality will persist as long as cultural biases and prejudices, being backed up by socioeconomic inequality, persist. The position of black males is particularly difficult because they are subjects to stereotyping and numerous biases shape quite a negative image of a black male. In fact, black males are often associated with criminals, aggressive and violent men, who are socially dangerous. Hence, black males have to stand up against society’s negative stereotyping and for this purpose many black males attempt to get the higher education, to make a successful professional career, found public organizations and non-for-profit organizations to demonstrate that they can be successful and that the existing social biases and stereotypes are wrong, but the society’s negative stereotyping of black males will persist as long as racial inequality persists.

As the matter of fact, the racial inequality is the milestone of the society’s negative stereotyping of black males and such stereotyping raises the problem of racial identification, which influence the self-perception of individuals. First of all, it is important to dwell upon the formation of the racial identity and problems which representatives of minorities face that lead to their inferior position in the society. In this respect, the position of racial minorities is to a significant extent influenced by the education and the overall impact of the dominant culture which shapes cultural and racial identity of an individual. In actuality, it is obvious that an individual cannot live in isolation from his or her social group and the ideology and cultural norms and traditions that are dominant in the society are naturally absorbed by an individual in the course of his or her personal development. Eventually, an individual perceives many social biases, concepts and principles as those of his or her own. In such a context, the role of education turns out to be crucial in the process of the formation of the identity of an individual.

In actuality, an individual cannot avoid the impact of the dominant ideology. Many specialists point out that the ideology of the ruling class affects substantially the ideology of the entire society and the formation of the racial identity is apparently influenced by the ruling ideology. Therefore, the dominant ideology leads to the enhancement of the racial inequality rather than to its elimination because the dominant ideology is shaped by a few to maintain their control over the entire society. In such a context, it is possible to speak about the intentional maintenance of tense relations between representatives of different racial groups to make them coming into clashes that helps to divert the attention of the oppressed classes from the true cause of their problems – the ruling class.

In this respect, the education system becomes a perfect tool with the help of which the ruling elite can impose its ideology and principles on the entire society and each individual in particular. Consequently, the process of the formation of racial identity is under the impact of this ideology and the impact is implemented through the system of education. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that often the education system turns to be exclusive and leads to the widening gaps between representatives of different racial groups that leads to the formation of inferior racial identity of minorities. In this regard, it is possible to refer to the example of the USA and the position of the African American community as well as other minorities.

In actuality, the education system in the USA apparently contributes to the exclusion of certain racial groups from the society and limits them consistently in the access to higher education. It is not a secret that many public schools are predominantly non-white. What is meant here is the fact that students attending publics are basically representative of African-American community, or Latin Americans, Asians. At any rate, often the majority of the students of public schools is non-white. Moreover, in some schools the share of African-American students reaches 99% that indicates to the presence of racial segregation in public education.

Naturally, such a situation in the contemporary education undermines the psychological state of students and determines the future race-related problems increasing inequality. Obviously, students attending public schools and living in the inner city feel their exclusion from the American society and the fact that African-American and non-white students dominate in such schools enforces substantially racial inequality in the society because students believe that it is because of their race and ethnic background they are deprived of benefits of modern education and they are doomed to live in the inner city in a kind of ghetto. This psychological pressure along with low educational opportunities enlarges the gap between white and non-white population in the US because African-Americans and other non-white groups cannot get a perspective, well-paid job because they cannot get the higher education, while the education they have cannot give them good perspectives either.

 In this respect, it is important to emphasize the fact that it is in the childhood, in the course of the formation of the personality of an individual, his or her psychological characteristics and identity at large are shaped. Therefore, the biases, rules, beliefs and prejudices people learn in the childhood as well as psychological traumas which they can suffer from in their childhood influence their adult life and manifest themselves in different forms in the adult life. In practice, this means that, in the course of education, people learn cultural norms and traditions which stand on principles of racial inequality. Even the lack of the access to the higher education or the disadvantaged position of some racial groups in the education system leads to the formation of inferior identity of oppressed racial groups and superior identity of the dominant racial group. The oppression leads to the limitation of economic opportunities of minorities, including low job opportunities, low wages and high unemployment rates.

Native Americans- 2.5 million Native Americans populate the US, with less than half of them living on or near their reservations. Native Americans have the highest school dropout, the highest unemployment, and the highest poverty rates. Their death rates from alcoholism, diabetes, suicide, and other diseases are much higher than the national average. This leads them to be the most disadvantaged minority group in the United States according to our text.

Black Americans- This group is mixed up of Africans and islanders such as Haitians and Jamaicans. Africans are usually successful, with education and middle-class occupations. Islanders have higher unemployment and poverty rates. In 2002, 48 percent of all African American children lived in single parent houses run by females. This could be due to the high teen pregnancy rate. Although African Americans only make up 13 percent of the population, they account for 45% of all murder victims.

Hispanic Americans- Hispanic Americans make up another 13% of the American population. The text is not clear as to whether this number includes illegal immigrants. It refers mostly to those with Puerto Rican, Mexican, and Central American roots. High school dropout rates are at 27%, compared to the 7.3% of white teenagers.  Hispanics usually live within their own ‘communities’, working, living, and going to school together with people of their own ethnicity.   

Asian Americans- Although this race only counts for 4% of the American population in 2002, they are often referred to as the ‘model minority’ due to their educational and professional achievements. 47% of Asian Americans have a bachelor’s degree or more, compared to 29% of Whites and 17% of Blacks. Not all Asians are successful, for example the Cambodians and Laotians whose median family income is half of White’s.

White Americans- The ‘white’ race is combined of many people whose ancestry is traced back so far that their ethnicity is distilled. Many are from European descent. Many associate ‘whites’ with money and success, however in 2002, 23.5 million Whites were living in poverty. Whites have just as many problems in society as any other minority group.  

Illegal Aliens- Although undocumented aliens come from about 100 different countries, the most come from Mexico. They come mostly for better economic and social opportunities. There is an estimated eight million undocumented immigrants in the United States. There are many social issues because of illegal aliens for several reasons. One big complaint is that they do not pay taxes, however they reap the benefits of education, health, and welfare programs.

            What makes Canada such a great place to live? Among its many advantages, including good health care, schooling, and beauty, many people will claim that it is the general compassion and acceptance demonstrated by its residents. Canada was listed as having one of the highest qualities of life among major producing nations[1], and greatly celebrates multiculturalism. As a result of so many ethnicities of people settling in Canada, it has become an essential part of governing Canada to protect the rights of minorities. This is considered to be important because it is strongly rooted in our constitution, it creates a stronger nation, and it provides Canada with a positive reputation all around the world.

            Minority rights are protected within the Canadian Constitution, which shows that they are essential to the government and the basic values of Canada. The protection of minorities can be seen first within British North America Act, then in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is entrenched in the constitution. There is also a special section of the charter involving, specifically, the rights of aboriginals. The first Canadian Constitution was passed in 1867, and was also called the British North America Act. This lays down the general framework for the running of this country, and shows that even in the stages of its infancy, the protection of minority rights was considered. The Canadian Constitution Act of 1867 includes several sections that were used to aid the protection of the French speaking minority in Canada. The main sections are Section 92, Section 93, and Section 98. Section 92 gave “property and civil rights” which allowed Quebec to keep its present civil and private laws which it had previously codified and came into effect, in that province, August 1st 1866.[2] Section 93 made it possible for all provinces to choose their own educational system, which allowed Quebec to keep aspects of their culture in schools.[3] Finally, Section 98 states that Quebec Judges must be trained in the practice of civil law, which was its original way of governing, while the rest of Canada must follow the common law system.[4] By the including of these rights in the Canadian Constitution Act of 1876 it is plain to see that minority rights were important enough to Canada’s founding fathers to include them in the basis of what Canadian laws and beliefs are built upon. Another instance in which the protection of minority rights can be found is in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was entrenched in the constitution in 1982. It includes the fundamental freedoms, found in Section 2 of the Charter, which help protect the most basic rights of all Canadians, including minorities.[5] Democratic rights, which are found in Section 3-5, ensure that all Canadians have the right to vote, which ensures that the minorities in Canada have a say in the running of our country.[6] Finally, Equality rights (Section 15) insure that all Canadians are not discriminated against before the law.[7] By entrenching the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the Constitution, Canada is making the statement that rights of all Canadians, including minorities, is essential and should be protected. Aboriginals, which are a very important minority in Canada, are given special rights within Section 35 of the Constitution. Subsection 1 recognizes and reaffirms the validity of existing aboriginal and treaty rights, which was included to reassure aboriginal peoples, and remind all others, that aboriginal land claims would not cease to be valid because of the new constitution.[8]. Subsection 2 clearly outlines who is considered to be an aboriginal person, someone who is “Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada”, so that there would be no further confusion as to what group of people the rights would apply to, and so that others could not take advantage of these rights.[9] Subsection 4 makes it clear that all the aboriginal treaty rights apply equally to males and females, so that possible gender discrimination is eliminated.[10]  The protection of minority rights is important enough to be embedded into Canada’s constitution, from the beginning to present day, which is considered to be the outline for how the country should run, and the most basic rules on how to govern it. By including the protection of minority rights in such an essential document, it is obvious that rights themselves are essential.

            The protection of minority rights is essential because it puts Canada in a positive light around the world by showing that we accept different people, establishing us as a peacekeeping and forward moving country, and by showing that we have respect for other ethnicities and cultures. By protecting the rights of minorities we are putting forward the attitude that we accept different types of people as they are, and do not try to assimilate them like other countries do. According to a recent article on a website promoting immigration to Canada, multiculturalism is one of the main reasons why people from around the world want to immigrate there stating, “Canada encourages immigrants to retain their unique culture. Nowhere else is there such a diversity of cultures existing together in a tolerant, peaceful society.”[11] Acceptance of diversity is a very important thing and is not underestimated by the global community. This has caused other countries to have a positive view of Canada, as well as a large amount of respect. Secondly, the protection of minority rights establishes us further as a peace keeping and forward moving country. Canada has always been considered to be a peacekeeping nation and during the first half of this century, almost 1.5 million Canadians were called upon to defend peace in different confrontations around the world.[12] It only makes sense that if Canada is such adamant peace keepers, defending the rights of minorities abroad, that the rights of minorities would likewise be protected within the country. Finally, Through the official and minority language rights included in the charter, we see that Canada understands the importance of preserving minority groups cultures, which sends a positive message to the rest of the world. Sections 16-22 of the Charter outline the official language rights in Canada. English and French can be used indiscriminately, because they have equal status and equal rights pertaining to their use throughout the country.[13] This secures that the French speaking minority in Canada do not officially have to learn English to secure equality before the law. By French being considered an official language people are allowed to maintain their heritage through the use of language. Section 23 of the charter outlines minority language rights. This allows provincial governments, because they are in charge of schooling, to provide education in minority languages other than French or English, if they see fit to do so.[14] The continuation of language and tradition is a very important aspect of protecting the cultural identities of minorities. Canadian law recognizes this, and is sure to provide minorities with this right, which shows the country’s general respect for the culture of minorities, which is an asset to the world’s view of Canada. The protection of minority rights is essential to Canada if we wish to maintain the favourable reputation of a accepting, peacekeeping, and respectful country.

            The final reason why the protection of minority rights is essential to Canada is that it makes the nation stronger by promoting acceptance of different cultures inside of Canada, and by making the minorities in Canada feel like they have say which makes them less likely to revolt. When this does not happen you are faced with issues like those seen in the Québec referendums of 1980 and 1995. By making it a priority to protect the rights of minorities we are clearly conveying the message to all Canadians that discrimination is wrong, which makes Canada in general more accepting of minorities. Canada was ranked 2nd out of 15 peer countries in being the more accepting of diversity in 2006.[15] When there is acceptance, there is generally less fighting or discrimination, and this leads to a stronger nation that is able to work together. By dealing with the issues set out by minorities through negotiations and discussions, we are more likely to come to a compromise or agreement with the group of people, instead of ignoring the issue and allowing it to get out of hand, or result in confrontation. By March 1996, 746 specific aboriginal land claims had been received by government. Of those, 151 have been settled by negotiation, 40 settled by litigation and 95 were being negotiated.[16] There has only been 12 serious aboriginal stand-offs between 1990 and 2006.[17] This small number, in comparison to the number of negotiations and settlements, shows that by negotiating and settling land claims, instead of trying to assimilate the aboriginal people of Canada like was attempted earlier on in history, the government is showing the proper respect for this minority group. This action will lessen the chances of uprising or revolts occurring, which produces a stronger and more unified nation. Finally, if this does not happen, if minorities rights are not respected instances such as the Quebec referendums occur. Twice in the past Quebec has put their sovereignty with Canada in question. Referendums were held on May 20th, 1980 and October 30th, 1995, asking the people of Quebec whether or not they wished for Quebec to remain as a part of Canada.[18] Both of these attempts at sovereignty were a result of the people in Quebec feeling isolated and not respected by the majority, and shows that an unhappy minority can break apart a nation. If Canada wishes to remain a strong nation the protection of minority rights is essential because it breaks down discrimination, gives minorities a voice, and prevents events like the separatist movement in Quebec.

             Canada is considered by many the best place to live, and a lot of this is due to its ethnic diversity and many cultural differences that manage to co-exist. The protection of minority rights is essential because it is in the Canadian Constitution, it provides Canada with a globally renowned positive reputation, and it keeps Canada a strong nation. There is a reason why in 2009 we were rated number four in the UN’s annual human development index.[19] There is a reason why there are such things as “the Canadian Kit”, which is sold in the United States for citizens who are travelling abroad, and contains a Canadian shirt, pin, and patch.[20] This is used to disguise Americans as Canadians, so that they will not be harassed. The reason is that Canada is known for treating people with respect, whoever they are or wherever they come from, and as long as Canada continues to respect and protect the rights of minorities  we are sure to receive respect from other nations around the world.

[1] Canadian Aerospace and Defence Industry, Canada is a great place to live — safe, clean and inexpensive.       http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03536.html (Aug. 21. 2008)

[2] Gerald-A Beaudoin. The Constitutional Protection of Minorities in                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Canada.http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/1994/CDL-MIN(1994)007-e.pdf(September 12 1994)

[3] http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/1994/CDL-MIN(1994)007-e.pdf

[4] http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/1994/CDL-MIN(1994)007-e.pdf

[5] Alexandrowicz, George et al. Dimensions of Law: Canadian and International Law in the 21st Century (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2004) pg. 136

[6] Alexandrowicz, George et al. pg. 139

[7] Alexandrowicz, George et al. pg.140

[8] Alexandrowicz, George et al. pg. 212

[9] Alexandrowicz, George et al. Dimensions of Law: Canadian and International Law in the 21st Century (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2004) pg. 212

[10] Alexandrowicz, George et al. pg. 212

[11]Rosenblatt Associates. Immigration Canada, Immigrate to Canada, canadian Immigration & Visa Services. http://www.immigrate.net/law/en/Canada/10ReasonsToCanada.asp (November 9 2009)

[12]Veterans Affairs Canada. “Canada and Peacekeeping – Veterans Affairs Canada.”  http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=teach_resources/peacefact (October 21 1999)

[13] Alexandrowicz, George et al. Dimensions of Law: Canadian and International Law in the 21st Century (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2004) pg. 140

[14]Alexandrowicz, George et al. pg. 140

[15] The Conference Board of Canada. Acceptance of Diversity.  http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/Society/acceptance-of-diversity.aspx (September 9 2009)

[16] Keith Crowe. Land Claims http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004498 (November 9 2009)

[17] CTV. CTV News | Timeline: Aboriginal standoffs in Canada. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060421/aboriginal_standoffs_060421/20060421/ (April 21 2006)

[18] Alexandrowicz, George et al. Dimensions of Law: Canadian and International Law in the 21st Century (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2004) pg.199-201

[19]Olivia Ward. Canada near top in quality of life – thestar.com. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/705955–canada-near-top-in-quality-of-life (October 6th 2009)

[20] Associated Press. American abroad? Try traveling Canadian – Weird news- msnbc.com. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6666338/ (December 7 2004)

Two main acts lead to the constructions of ghettos. The acts were called the 1949 and 1954 federal housing acts. These two acts spurred what is known as urban renewal. The acts gave federal funds to states and organizations to clear out slum areas and redevelop them. This clearing out of slums eventually lead public housing known as the projects.

During this time, most minorities primarily blacks were associated with the slums because of the limited opportunities that they were given. So in essence clearing slums and blights really meant clearing blacks.

Projects were established to house the displaced blacks that were being cleared from their homes. Projects were initially to be located away from existing black communities but politicians in that time said that they wanted them in established black communities. Therefore states were buying slums, clearing them and then putting the same community into a smaller section of their previous neighborhood. This confinement of en entire community into a smaller space than the previously occupied led to projects that were multilayer, high-density housing with little resources use.

This form of urban renewal was merely a process to relocate blacks into a smaller community and make the state money off of their federal funds.

If you wish to write online and make money for it like I do you can join Triond using the link here or Bukisa here

      Lincoln had some good thoughts on prohibition as he believed that it was against the Constitution of the United States.  It made a crime out of no crime at all.  It’s sort of like the homeless who live in the streets in the wintertime.  They are picked up, given a citation on a charge of vagrancy and thrown into the clinker.  Does discrimination come into view behind the thoughts of the homeless?  One would think it does.  How does being homeless become a crime?  If the shelters are filled and the only place where there is warmth is from someone’s door, radiating to the outside, then how can this be vagrancy?

     The belief that we are all created equal and that our forefathers handed down great thoughts on the subject is quite untrue.  We are all made to believe that we are “free,” but we are not.  There are rules to follow and bills to pay.  If a person living in the United States doesn’t pay his or her health insurance bill within the next few years, that will be breaking the law also, and he or she must pay a fine.  Even if the person cannot pay for the insurance, that won’t matter in the eyes of the law.  Even if a person owns her own home, it can be taken from her if she fails to pay her taxes, meaning no individual really owns property in the United States

     Racial profiling still continues toward Latinos, blacks and people of other races.  Black men still are considered lazy when they cannot find jobs in this economy of 2010.  Many people are without work and their saga continues, while the rich, well-dressed people have no such worries. 

     Discrimination occurs when unemployed people — of any race or color — are told to “move along” when they are standing or sitting in front of businesses.  Martin Luther King Jr. believed that without a job and money, no one had freedom.  He said in a sermon, “If a man doesn’t have a job or an income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility for the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists” (Engler, 2010).

     This is true in this nation because people without jobs are persecuted, either directly by being arrested for vagrancy, or indirectly by being shunned by the rest of society.  People were led to believe they could afford to live in nice homes — truly the essence of the American Dream — were scammed by unprincipled bankers, and realtors.  Those bankers, particularly, are not sitting in jail or losing their homes, even though they perpetrated a crime against families who now are homeless because of the housing bust.

     Discrimination, which is a crime, most often is thought of as occurring only against people of a different race or color.  The truth is, that society and the law discriminates much more routinely based upon economic circumstances.  For example, while the penalties for using or selling crack cocaine are higher than for regular cocaine, the discrimination is based on socio-economic class more than race.  Crack is cheaper, so it is more affordable to people lower on the economic ladder than cocaine is.  Cocaine is far more the drug of choice for people in the upper middle and upper classes because it costs more.

     According to federal guidelines, published by the Sentencing Project under title Federal Crack Cocaine Sentencing, the sentence for holding 53 grams of crack cocaine has a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 10 years.  For powder cocaine in quantities as high as 340 grams, there is no minimum mandatory sentence (Federal Crack Cocaine Sentencing, 2007).

     Because the politicians who set such sentencing regulations are in much higher economic brackets than those who use street drugs such as crack, they see no problem discriminating against the poorer classes.  They do not appear ready to increase sentences for drug possession for rich people such as themselves.

     The criminal justice system focuses on the minority among the poorer populations within larger cities where crime is prevalent.  But who is at fault?  Is it really discrimination to focus in on minorities?  The corruption that lingers because of lack of supervision for the police continues.  The supervision will never occur because it isn’t supposed to and this fosters continued corruption.  It isn’t the police officers’ fault they cannot serve their country properly.  It is the system, which is corrupt and burning with prejudice, lies, and deceit.

Engler, M. (Jan. 15, 2010) Dr. Martin Luther King’s Economics: Through Jobs, Freedom. The Nation.

     Retrieved May 3rd, 2010 from

     http://www.thenation.com/article/dr-martin-luther-kings-economics-through-jobs-freedom

Race, The War On Drugs And The United States Criminal Justice System. Retrieved may 3rd, 2010 from

     http://www.drugpolicy.org/about/position/race_paper_crim.cfm

The Sentencing Project: Research and Advocacy Reform: Federal Crack Cocaine Sentencing. (2007)  

     Retrieved May 3rd, 2010 from www.sentencingproject.org

Image via Wikipedia

Done my duty as a poet

And not refused my ties (to the truth)

You see, the brothers with their surliest drawls

Have all changed as changes go

Into white guys (but like those in 1930) strong and burly

The brothers in the emperors clothes, standing tall with unashamed calls

To do that 1930 “white guy thang”

To the innocent children along the way

Who just happen to be raised illiterate, born gay

And to tell you the truth

I must be ruthless brown brothers

For

          my

                  disappointment

                                                  in

                                                            you

To have had to swim the river of history

And have not sympathy nor empathy yet

At the slightest difference

Different than you

When severe love of “sameness”

Was what sent you into the river to drown

But to see you standing there dripping dry

Under some star-lit survival sky

With a guarded look upon your eye

And never ask the question why?

Someone “gay” cannot walk the ground that high

But must swim the river nigh