Essay on Anne Moodys Involvement in the Civil Rights...

Coming of Age in Mississippi Anne Moody’s Coming of Age in Mississippi, talked extensively about the civil rights movement that she had participated in. The civil rights movement dealt with numerous issues that many people had not agreed with. Coming of Age in Mississippi gave the reader a first hand look at the efforts many people had done to gain equal rights. Anne Moody, like many other young people, joined the civil rights movement because they wanted to make a difference in their state. They wanted their freedom and the same rights as the white people had. Many other young people joined the civil rights movement because they felt that a change was needed in the way black people were treated. They felt that this change†¦show more content†¦Through these organizations, Anne had become actively involved in the civil rights movement. She soon realized, though, that there were a lot of preconditions that were needed to achieve significant social change in the black co mmunity. Many of the projects Anne worked on, lacked support from the black community. She did not realize how much she would be harassed by the white people because she was fighting the rights of black people. The main preconditions for social change in the 1950s and 1960s, was getting the black community to support the various projects SNCC and the NAACP were working on. The black people they were fighting for did not always like the projects that Anne, and the other young people in SNCC, had been doing. Many black people tended to ignore the efforts of the SNCC because they were afraid of change. It took a lot of work to convince the black community to support the various projects the young people of SNCC were doing. An example of a project that the black community supported extensively, was Freedom Summer. This project would not have been successful if the black community did not support this. The Freedom Summer project proved to be a success because the black community went out and voted. This proved to the federal government, that black people were interested in gaining voting rights. Anne Moody had thought about joining the National Association for theShow MoreRelatedAnne Moody s Coming Of Age Essay1088 Words   |  5 PagesAnne Moody, a black activist in the twentieth century, wrote an autobiography, Coming of Age in Mississippi, which illustrated how life was like growing up poor and black in the rural south. She wrote in details of her life living in the racist society and what it meant to be black in the South twentieth century. Readers were able to understand her personal thoughts as well as her memories of the fight growing up in the south and her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. Moody grew up with aRead MoreComing Of Age Throughout Mississippi, By Anne Moody1554 Words   |  7 Pagesafter the Civil War, does not mean that you are born with the knowledge of racism. Racism is something that we are not born with and that we are raised to experience, follow, or fix. During the 19th century and all the way up till mid 20th century, racism was one of the biggest issues in America. Former slaves and anyone who had lived in America for some time, was aware of the racial tension that traveled through the heart of the nation and only got worse the more south you go. In Anne Moody’s autobiographyRead MoreAfrican Americans Freedom1653 Words   |  7 Pagesrecognized and remembered by every American black or white. Many of those people led the way and instituted themselves leaders in the movement which directed everything that is connected to the life of African Americans. The biography of Anne Moody Coming of Age in Mississippi chronicles the many events she lives while enduring the harshness of discrimination. Moody’s traces her life from the age of four to twenty three divided into four different parts which reflect her inner growth and maturityRead MoreComing Of Age Throughout Mississippi By Anne Moody10 57 Words   |  5 PagesNicholas Allen History 109-003 21 April, 2016 Paper 3 In the book Coming of Age in Mississippi by Anne Moody, it shows about a Moody growing up in Mississippi poor and in the during Civil Rights era. Throughout the book it shows the experiences that Moody went through growing up and how they affected her views on the Civil Rights movements. First, during her childhood the experiences of growing up as an African-Americans in the southern limited Moody to what she can achieve in life. Then inRead MoreComing of Age in Mississippi by Anne Moody Essay1223 Words   |  5 PagesAnne Moodys Coming of Age in Mississippi is a narrated autobiography depicting what it was like to grow up in the South as a poor African American female. Her autobiography takes us through her life journey beginning with her at the age of four all the way through to her adult years and her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. The book is divided into four periods: Childhood, High School, College and The Movement. Each of these periods represents the process b y which she came of age withRead MoreWhat are the most Difficult Obstacles to Black Progress in the Jim Crow South?1263 Words   |  6 PagesFor Anne Moody, what were some of the most difficult obstacles to black progress—both within and outside of the African-American community—in the Jim Crow South? What degree of success did she and others achieve in addressing those obstacles? What was her perspective on her own past and future, and on the past and future of her country, by the book’s end? The dictionary defines racism as â€Å"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produceRead MoreAnne Moody Coming Of Age In Mississippi1626 Words   |  7 PagesAnne Moody’s autobiography, Coming of Age in Mississippi, depicts the various stages of her life from childhood, to high school, then to college, and ends with her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. In the novel, Anne tells the reader her story through events, conversations, and emotional struggles. The reader can interpret various elements of cultural knowledge that Anne Moody learned from her family and community as a child. Her understanding of the culture and race relations of the timeRead MoreBook Review of Coming of Age in Mississippi Essay514 Words   |  3 Pages Coming of Age in Mississippi is an autobiography by Anne Moody. It is the story of a black girl growing up in Mississippi at a time when racial discrimination was taken for granted and the NAACP movement had no formal name. In her autobiography, Anne Moody displays the hardships of living in the rural south while the Negroes were just starting their fight for equality. Her story is amazing. Life was difficult for all poor Southerners. But for a poor black family with little hope and livingRead MoreLife of Anne Moody Essays1044 Words   |  5 Pages Anne Moody has gone through such an exceptionally eventful life that she was able to transform it into a powerful book, A Coming of Age in Mississippi. All of Annes childhood not only prepared her for her involvement in the movement during the 1960s, but also kept her inspired and motivated. Anne Moody sees a lot of ups and downs, which causes her to have depressing set backs from time to time. As told through out the book, descri bing her first twenty-four-years, her uncertainty is justifiedRead MoreSinging The Praises Of The Unsung Hero1309 Words   |  6 PagesCoverage of the civil rights movement follows this same pattern, emphasizing the most commonly known protagonists such as Martin Luther King Jr. and too often fails to highlight the ordinary people who also participated in the movement on local scales. These people regularly do not receive credit for their daily efforts because individually their actions did not ensue large-scale results but as a collective population they served a major role in the civil rights movement. Anne Moody’s narrative, Coming

According to Arlov Grammatically Free Essays

Many instructors urge their students not to start their sentences with the word â€Å"but†, or any other coordination conjunction for that matter. This can be disheartening for students because we commonly speak with our sentences beginning with a conjunction. However, writing is not like speaking. We will write a custom essay sample on According to Arlov Grammatically or any similar topic only for you Order Now There are two schools of thought on beginning a sentence with the word, â€Å"but†. According to Arlov, â€Å"Grammatically, it is correct to start a sentence with but or any other FANBOYS conjunction. However, your instructors may discourage the practice for two good reasons† (343). She goes on to list the reasons. One good reason not to begin a sentence with the word but is because it is informal and casual. Academic writing is not usually casual or informal, and using â€Å"but† at the beginning of a sentence may make a more formal paper appear less than well thought out. While it is OK for some sorts of writing such as narrative or dialog, a professional paper is seldom written with coordination conjunctions at the beginning of sentences. Also, using words like â€Å"but† is addictive! It is easy to use and overuse. Arlov advises using conjunctions to begin sentences sparingly so as not to make it a hard habit to break. The other side of the issue says using but is just like using any other word to begin a sentence, and therefore, there is nothing wrong with it. How to cite According to Arlov Grammatically, Papers

Machiavelli and International Relations System †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Machiavelli and International Relations System. Answer: Introduction The study of international political science is approached by using three major theories, Marxist, Gramscism and liberal IR theories. The theoretical constructs have different perceptions and the ends differ starkly. The theories provide valid arguments about the cause and effects explained by these theories. In any type of analysis it would be nave to consider that an approach adopted by leader states or institutions is pure, and hence, it is important for the leaders to study and understand the impacts of the theories when constructing important administration policies. The paper provides an overview of the IR theories and explains the importance of the difference between these IR theories. Marxism is described as the social and political theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel in the 19th century. Marx attached great importance to the concepts of class, and as per his views, the class system was a dominant actor in the traditional international system (Buecker, 2003). According to Marx, the clashes in the international system were majorly due to the class conflicts. Marxism talked about the transformation of the society into a workforce largely due to the economic conditions (Buecker, 2003). Marx argued that this workforce is classified as a class in relation to the capital, however, it has not yet transformed into a class for itself. Marxism states that eventually this call would struggle, unite and become a class for itself(Buecker, 2003). Marx identified two main classes in the society, the bourgeoisie or the oppressor class and the proletariat or the working class as the oppressive class, and according to Marx eventually, the proletariat will unite strugg le and throw the oppressor and establish a new classless communist society (Burchill et al., 2013). Similarly, the international society is also divided between the capitalists (Bourgeoisie class) states which are the rich and the powerful states who have established political power over their colonies due to economic power of these powerful states. However, Marx did not consider nationalism and its immense consequences. Marx postulated that nationalism had no place in the proletariat organizations, however, his assumptions that the society infrastructure and division of labour are the factors which will influence the behaviour of communist society classes and states was largely disregarded by working class and bourgeois nationalism (Buecker, 2003)(Burchill et al., 2013). Scope of Marxism later expanded to explain the international relations (walt, 1998). Marxism and its conception to international relations, advocates communist society, and explained that the societies must witness not only economic, and political but a social change, and in the communist society, the means of production will be owned by the people equally and will not be concentrated in the hands of few. Marxist theory of international relations argues that the communist societies should witness social and economic equality. Marxist theory gives more importance to economic situation in the formation of international relations, and argues that the people who hold the economic control exploit the workers which relates to the modern day private sector (Schram, 1988). Marx talks about disproportionality and states that capitalist states would overproduce goods for capital gains. Marx suggests that disproportionality largely based on the anarchy of the industry and market would cause eco nomic depressions. In the international relations theory Marx also posited that capital will be accumulated among the wealthy will lead to improverishment of man(Baylis et al., 2017)y. Thus, the recent 2008 crisis, where the organizations accumulated wealth and became efficient in the operations, and later to accumulate profits, the companies laid off millions of employees. Hence, Marxist IR theory can be largely related to the contemporary international politics and relations. Although no single thought can explain the complexities of global international relations, Marxist concept of International relations has significantly contributed in elaborating the insights of international relations. Marxism and the underlying concepts and thoughts have influenced many other modern sociologists (Kegley, 1995). The ideologies of Marxism have explained the present disparities and societal occurrences and economic divisions. Moreover, the Marxist philosophy has been considered as the base for the formation of Soviet Union with a view to achieve economic and social equality and justice. Gramscian IR theory Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci has made significant contributions in the field of International Relations. Gramscis conceptual framework provided the theorists different innovative concepts which illuminated the hegemony mechanisms in international relations. Gramscian ideologies and thoughts have inspired many theorists are hence, are referred as Gramscian school of thought in IR (Germain Kenny, 1998). Gramscian described state as a major actor of the then international system is considered as ruling class of the defined civil society. The state is also described as the system which involves the entire society and unifies all the classes and also the contradictions between the social classes. Gramsci describes Hegemony as the dominance of the social class in rule (Cox, 1981). The dominance is described with respect to the control exercised by the ruling class over the interests, and the ways in which other groups conduct their tasks. Gramscian IR theory suggests that the state wil l gain dominance through consent from the other groups, and the state will get into crisis, if the ruling class will lose its consensus. In realist theories, Hegemony is described as the dominance of a single actor through coercive power, however, in Gramscism hegemony is described as the combination of both coercion and also consent by the specific ruling class (Bieler Morton, 2004). Inspired by the thoughts of Gramscism, Robert Cox developed neo-Gramscism school of thought, and applied the thoughts and ideologies of Gramscism in the global world. Coxs work largely focuses on the effects of global capitalism on global inequalities and explains that hegemony at global level first starts on the national scale and is established nationally by the social class, and later expands to the global scale. Neo-Gramscism then illustrates US supremacy as an example of outward expansion of American social class (Femia, 2005). Hence, from Gramscism it is evident that for an actor to exert force efficiently and effectively, there must be consent and persuasion, and the persuasion will occur only if the actor has sufficient power. Also, persuasion can help the actor to achieve consent, and the actor can therefore use the power of persuasion to gain consent from the other parts of the society who do not give consent. Gramsci gives the example of Russia in explaining the balance be tween force (power) and consent. He explains that in Russia there was presence of government power but they did not have the consent from the civil society, and hence, Bolshevik revolutionaries could succeed and establish a new civil society (Burchill et al., 2013). Similarly, other than power and coercion and consent, Gramscian IR theory also describes the importance of material conditions as an important condition for achieving hegemony. When all the conditions for achieving hegemony like, power, coercion, consensus, and material wealth are achieved, the state would act as the educator, and it would thereby present itself as cultural, moral and intellectual hegemonic (Germain Kenny, 1998). Thus, Neo-Gramscism extends the theory to include that a country that has powerful culture, consensus, and ideology would be capable of becoming a hegemonic power that will enjoy power for a longer time. Hence, Gramscism explains the American supremacy, by stating that universality of a specific nations powerful culture, and ability in establishing set of rules and specific institutions for governing international activity are referred to as important sources of power (Dirzauskaite Ilinca, 2017). Thus, Gramcism explains the American Supremacy established b y the international institutions like UN and WTO. Thus, it can be said that the nations or state experiencing hegemony would therefore create institutions to legitimize their power on the other groups. Gramscian IR theory, therefore explains the functioning of the international institutions like International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations (UN), which establish specific international rules that are largely consistent with the democratic principles and structures of powerful American Capitalist Hegemony. Similarly, these international institutions also establish hegemony over the member states by giving loans to the developing companies who give consent to their policies and accept their set rules (Booth Erskine, 2016). Thus, the Gramscian IR theory largely explains international relations based on the principles of hegemony. Gramscis, Marxism and Global Capitalism Gramscis work relates to the concepts of Marxism, which forms the basis for developing and analyzing the concept of hegemony. Marxism conception on IR had predicted about communist and socialist revolution that would first occur in the advanced capitalist societies. Marx already focused on the concepts of power which lies within the proletariat class and its connection with the civil societies. Based on Marxism, Gramsci analyzed that the Russian revolution would survive because the then Russian government had no connection with the civil societies, and the revolutions in western societies failed because the powerful state or class in the western societies were well connected with the civil society (Budd, 2007). Thus, Gramsciam expanded Marxism to include the importance of power, coercion and consent, in explaining hegemony. Gramcism ideologies which explain hegemony of nations based on power, coercion, cultural leadership, consent, material capabilities and also by legitimizing their power by establishing international institutions (Cox, 1194). Hence, cooperation among the elites and the international economic and political institutions helps in maintaining hegemony. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider that global governance achieved through political conditionality and pressures from international institutions and international powers explain global capitalism. Liberal IR Theory Liberal International Relations theory is based on certain liberal principals and assumptions. The roots of the liberal IR can be found in the Immanuel Kants ideologies on Perpetual Peace, where Kant describes three important conditions for perpetual peace, and these three conditions have become the basis of liberal IR theory (Doyle Recchia, 2011). The three main conditions explain neoliberal institutionalism expresses the significance of the international institutions in maintaining peace (Cristol, 2017). Commercial liberalism, explains the significance of international trade in maintaining peace, the democratic side of the liberal IR theory that for maintaining peace, all states should fulfill a major condition of being democracies and that democracies would get into war only rarely (Moravcsik, n.d.). Hence, Liberal IR theory, unlike the Marxist IR theory and Gramscism IR theory does not give importance solely to states but to individuals and institutions. Liberals anticipated that the then formed international institutions would play a major role in reducing uncertainty and thereby improve relationship among states by increasing mutual trust. Thus, a security dilemma would be attenuated which would promote international cooperation among states and further strengthen possibilities of world peace (Buchan, 2002). Thus, Liberal IR theory focuses on International regimes, which include mutually agreed rules, and procedures which will help the states to coordinate their policies and together collaborate in the free trade, control of arms and also environmental protection (Moravcsik, 2001). Thus, the international institutes would encourage collaboration and information sharing and reduce competition among states over gains and thereby increase international cooperation. Liberal IR theory places great importance on sovereignty and institutions duty to maintain nonintervention, and thereby supports stable international relations to ensure th at every political state is free to determine its way of life. Hence, it can be said that liberals agree that states becoming democracies is not the final cure, but there must be consolidation of the liberal democracy among states so as to reduce the chances of civil and world war. However, liberal IR theory also suggest that the grounds that establish peace may also establish grounds for conflict, and that the democracies might enter into conflicts, and thereby explains the relationship between America on one side, and resurgent Russia, China and Iran on the other (Moravcsik, 2003). Thus, although Liberal IR theory supports peace, it is just a recipe which provides guidelines for promoting peace and requires constant vigilance to avoid any crusades. Marxist, Gramscism, Liberal IR Theories: Importance of Differences The differences in the Marxist, Gramcism and Liberal IR Theories are important as they enable the readers to understand the modern day International Relations in the light of the traditional theories. The differences have formed the basis for the evolution of new theories that have largely contributed in the field of International Relations (Baylis et al., 2017). The Gramscism IR theory takes ides from the Marxist IR theory and also the differences among the ideologies and the actual situations in the international relations have led the modern thinkers to critique the traditional and real IR theories and postulate new theoretical concepts. Marxist theory talks about the dismissal of the powerful state and formation of communist societies based on the revolution by the oppressed class (Burchill et al., 2013). However, Marx did not emphasize the role of nationalism and civil societies in transformation which was captured by Gramscism theory that explains the importance of power and co nsent in the formation of a powerful state, which will exercise power and control over other groups via formation of institutes. The Liberal IR theory critiques the Gramcism IR theory and claims that Modern international institutions should not exercise power of a single state but should work towards promoting peace and institutionalize liberal policies. Hence, it can be said that the differences in the IR theories are important in evolution of new theories and explaining the present day international Relations. Conclusion The roots of the present day international relations can be traced back to the 19th century and where the postulation of the modern day IR was started. The Marxist, Gramscism and Liberal IR theories have played a major role in establishing the IR school of thoughts and have formed the basis for the evolution of new thoughts, ideologies and theories. The Marxist and Gramscim thoughts have explained that global governance achieved through political conditionality and pressures from international institutions and international powers explain global capitalism. The differences between the theories have led to the evolution of new theories which better explain the modern day international Relations. Bibliography Baylis, J., Smith, S. Owens, P., 2017. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. 7th ed. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press. Bieler, A. Morton, A., 2004. A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations. Capital Class, 28(1), pp.85-113. Booth, K. Erskine, T., 2016. International Relations Theory Today. Second Edition ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Buchan, B., 2002. Explaining War and Peace: Kant and Liberal IR Theory. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27(4), pp.407-28. Budd, A., 2007. Gramscis Marxism and international relations. International Socialism, 10 April. Buecker, R., 2003. Karl Marx's Conception of International Relations. Glendon Journal of Intrenational Studies, 3, pp.49-59. Burchill, S. et al., 2013. Theories of International Relations. Fifth Edition ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cox, R., 1194. Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cox, R., 1981. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), pp.126-55. Cristol, J., 2017. Liberalism. Oxford Bibliographies. Dirzauskaite, G. Ilinca, N., 2017. Understanding "Hegemony" in International Relation Theories. Aalborg University. Doyle, M. Recchia, S., 2011. Liberalism in International Relations. International Encyclopedia of Political Science, pp.1434-39. Femia, J., 2005. Gramsci, Machiavelli and International Relations. The Political Quaterly, 76(3), pp.341-49. Germain, R. Kenny, M., 1998. Engaging Gramsci: international relations theory and the new Gramscians. Review of International Studies, 24(1), pp.3-21. Kegley, C., 1995. Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and Neoliberal Challenge. New York: St. Martin's Press. Moravcsik, A., 2001. Liberal International Relations Theory: A Social Scientific Assessment. Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. , pp.1-53. Moravcsik, A., 2003. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization, 51(4), pp.513-53. Moravcsik, A., n.d. Liberalism and International Relations Theory. Harvard University, pp.92-96. Schram, S., 1988. Power and Marxist Theory: A Realist View. American Political Science Review, 82(3), pp.975-76. walt, S., 1998. International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy, 110, pp.29-32.