Importance of Matrifocal family in the caribbean Essay Example for Free

Importance of Matrifocal family in the caribbean Essay The Matrifocal family Is very prominent in the Caribbean. This is noted more as among people of Africans in the regions. Reasons for this diversity, Cultural Retention, Plantation system of slavery, SOCIO economic and the culture of property. Cultural retention, Melville Herkevitts was one of the first researchers to trace the African Origin of the slaves who came to the Americans he believed that despite attempts to strip Africans slaves ot their cultural heritage the practice ot polygyny was retained from the practice. affected by bonding and closeness of mother and child because the husband/ father was somewhat marginal. This pattern remained in the Caribbean society especially about lower class people of African descent. Plantation system, there is the belief that the persistence of the Matrifocal family can be seen as a consequence of the plantation system of slavery, M. C. Smith wrote that under plantation slavery stables families were not given a chance to develop unions of whatever sort, were often broken up as slaves were sold. The unit of mother and child was less likely to be torn apart than a unit of man, woman and child, males were denied family rights which resulted in a system of female centeredness therefore became marginalise. Women now lead their families. It is a well-organized social group which represents a positive adaptauon to the circumstances of poverty. By not tying herself down to a husband. the mother is able to maintain causal relationships with a number of men who can provide her with financial support. The above Information shows that the Matrlfocal family can be regarded as a form of family structure in its own right. It is therefore Important because it shows that a woman doesnt need a man to take care of her and her family, she If fully cable of performing both tasks all by herself. so Matrltocal family Is very Important.

The Ebonics Controversy Essay -- Education Language Speaking Essays

The Ebonics Controversey What is the controversy over Ebonics about? The Internet offers diverse views on the Ebonics topic. Ebonics entered the lime light in December of 1996. The television and news media have made the issue unclear and have left many people wondering what the recent controversey over Ebonics entails. Long after the "six o'clock news" has comfused and abandoned the public on the issue of Ebonics, the Internet is alive with commentary. Sampled together, the pages present a social mood, conscience, or lack thereof. Depending on the page you visit, you will learn that the answers for the above question are mixed, jaded and sometimes very opinionated. The term "Ebonics" is the most recently coined name for a speech pattern that has been around for several hundred years. Synonyms for Ebonics include, but are not limited to, Black English, Black Vernacular, African American Vernacular English (AAVE),"Jive," "Rappin," even the derogatory term of "Nigger Talk"(Shabaz). The words "language" and"dialect" are ambiguous and often interchanged when they should not be, because of the confusion they can elicit. For my own use of the terms, I draw on the commonly available reference book, Webster's New World Dictionary. I will use the word "language" to signify " the vocal sounds, words, and the ways of combining them, common to a particular nation." When the term "dialect" is used, it is to signify "any form of speech considered as deviating from a real or imaginary standard speech [or language]". The use of these two words as interchangeable has led to much confusion, particularly in the case of the Oakland Unified School District 's resolution. Through its use of the word "language", in reference to Ebonics,... ...us/AmendRes9697-006.html]. (4/12/97). Kephart,R. "Views of linguists and anthropologists on the Ebonics issue (Part 1)." [http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rickford/ebonics/LingAnthro1.html] (3/7/97). Labov,W. [http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~labov/L102/Ebonics_test.html]. (4/9/97). Labov, W. "Can Reading Failure Be Reversed? A Linguistic Approach to the Question." [http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/RFR.html]. (4/9/97). Landrum-Brown, J. "Black English." [http://www.west.net/~joyland/BlkEng.html]. (3/7/97). "Original Board Resolution." [http://www.emich.edu~/linguist.issues.html/8-53.html#1]. (2/17/97). Royko, M. "When you talk Ebonics, words just get in the way." Chicago Tribune. [http://www.chicago.tribune.com/news/ebonics/ebon3.htm]. (4/9/97). Shabazz, A. "All Our Fault Now!." [http://www.afronet.com/COLUMN/ARCHIVES/121296malik.html.] (3/7/97).

Name of college or university

A review of the successful strategy and tactics of warfare will inevitably lead to the concept that battlefield victory will depend on the decisive employment of the proper elements with the appropriate equipment in the right place at the correct time.Col. P. I. Lisitskiy[1] describes specific assault and special operations deployments during World War II illustrative of this model and that military leadership on both sides understood the necessity of airborne methods to accomplish battlefield victory. Unfortunately he fails to provide sufficient illustration and examples of the use of special operations forces. Further, he provides little insight into the training regimen and capacity of these specialized forces.However his historical perspective and review is still significant as recent military actions demonstrate military commanders must have a thorough understanding of the critical strategic role of airborne and airmobile tactics in the successful use of assault and special oper ations forces.World War II was in essence the â€Å"laboratory† for the development of airborne operations and special operations. British, German and American armies formally organized airborne units â€Å"and by the fall of 1943, the U.S. armed forces had as many as five airborne divisions (11th, 13th, 17th, 82nd, and 102nd).† (169).Lisitskiy defines â€Å"special operations† of the World War II era as being either â€Å"airborne, subversion and terror, and subversion and reconnaissance troops.† (169) He subdivides this broad categorization by detailing mission- and objective-specific operational groups. Lisitskiy concludes the World War II experience demonstrates the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these operations and they will be a vital component of any future military engagement.Lisitskiy describes three methods of movement of airborne troops during the war: parachute drops, troop placement via glider, and air transport to seized airports.Plac ement of the force could be (a) immediately on top of the area to be assaulted, (b) adjacent to the field of battle, or (c) within striking range of the target. According to Lisitskiy these troops had their share of personnel, logistical and communication problems, usually directly related to the nature of the battlefield and the speed, method of their arrival and distance from support bases.Lisitskiy uses actual battles to illustrate his theme regarding the method of transport and placement of troops. He cites the German Army â€Å"airdrop on a Belgian fort, Eben Emael, 10 May 1940. It was possible to capture the fort only by landing troops atop it.† (172) the allied Operation Overload, what Americans refer to as D-Day, perfectly illustrates â€Å"the airlifting of units with seizing airfields ahead of their landing.†(171) the feasibility and necessity of landing paratroops away from the target is exemplified by â€Å"the operations of the 3rd German Paratroop Rifle Regiment on Crete. Assigned to take the town of Khania the troops were dropped on the road†¦some 3km from Khania, whence the regiment began pushing towards its objective in a planned manner.† (172)Other examples given illustrate the notion that special operations come with special problems. Of a critical nature to a rapidly inserted or swiftly moving force are logistics and communication. Airborne operations by their very nature require stringent weight scrutiny.Lisitskiy refers to the German developments specific to airborne operations, including lightweight shoulder arms as well as specialized artillery pieces. The same weight considerations applied to communication gear. The failure of German commanders in Crete was directly attributed to communication difficulties between entrenched and newly arrived troops.[1]   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Col. P. I. Lisitskiy is the Sector Deputy Chief at the Center for Military-Strategic Studies of the General St aff of the Russian Federation Armed Forces.   

Pros and Cons of Gun Ownership in the U.S.

About 80 million Americans, representing half of U.S. homes, own more than 223 million guns. And yet, 60% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans favor stronger gun ownership laws. Historically, states have regulated laws governing individual ownership and use of guns. State gun laws vary widely from loose regulations in many southern, western and rural states to restrictive laws in the largest cities. In the 1980s, though, the National Rifle Association increased pressure on Congress to loosen gun control laws and restrictions. In June 2010, however, the Supreme Court struck down Chicagos restrictive gun-control laws, declaring that that Americans in all 50 states have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense. Gun Rights and the Second Amendment Gun rights are granted by the Second Amendment, which reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. All political viewpoints agree that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the government to maintain an armed militia to protect the nation. But disagreement historically existed as to whether or not it guarantees the right of all persons to own/use guns any place and at any time.. Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights Until the mid-20th century, liberal constitutional scholars held a Collective Rights position, that the Second Amendment only protects the collective right of the states to maintain armed militias. Conservative scholars held an Individual Rights position that the Second Amendment also grants an individuals right to own guns as private property, and that most restrictions on buying and carrying guns impede individual rights. Gun Control and the World The U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership and of gun homicide in the developed world, per a 1999 Harvard School of Public Health study. In 1997, Great Britain banned private ownership of almost all handguns. And in Australia, Prime Minister John Howard commented after a 1996 mass killings in that country that we took action to limit the availability of funs, and we showed a national resolved that the gun culture that is such a negative in the U.S. would never become a negative in our country. Wrote Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne in 2007, Our country is a laughingstock on the rest of the planet because of our devotion to unlimited gun rights. District of Columbia vs. Heller Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings, District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), effectively struck down or nullified restrictive gun ownership and use laws for individuals. In 2003, six Washington D.C. residents filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of Washington D.C.s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, considered among the most restrictive in the U.S. Enacted in response to a horrifically high crime and gun violence rate, the D.C. law outlawed ownership of handguns, except for police officers and certain others. The D.C. law also specified that shotguns and rifles must be kept unloaded or dissembled, and with the trigger locked. (Read more about D.C. gun laws.) The federal District Court dismissed the lawsuit. The six litigants, led by Dick Heller, a Federal Judicial Center guard who wanted to keep a gun at home, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. On March 9, 2007, the federal Appeals court voted 2 to 1 to strike down the dismissal of the Heller suit. Wrote the majority: To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The NRA called the ruling a significant victory for individual... rights. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence called it judicial activism at its worst. Supreme Court Review of District of Columbia vs. Heller Both litigants and defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear this landmark gun rights case. On March 18, 2008, the Court heard oral arguments from both sides. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to overturn the restrictive gun laws of Washington D.C., as depriving individuals of their right to own and use a gun in their own home and in federal enclaves, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. McDonald v. City of Chicago On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved anmiguities created by its District of Columbia vs. Heller decision as to whether or not individual gun rights apply to all states, as well. Briefly, in striking down Chicagos strict handgun laws, the Court established, by vote of 5 to 4, that the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States. Background Political focus on U.S. gun control laws has increased since 1968 passage of the Gun Control Act, enacted after the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. Between 1985 and 1996, 28 states eased restrictions on concealed weapon carrying. As of 2000, 22 states allowed concealed guns to be carried almost anywhere, including places of worship. The following are the federal laws enacted to control/tax guns held by individuals: 1934 - National Firearms Act imposed a tax on the sale of machine guns and short-barrel firearms, in reaction public rage over gangster activity.1938 - Federal Firearms Act required licensing of gun dealers.1968 - Gun Control Act expanded licensing and record-keeping; banned felons and the mentally ill from buying guns; banned the mail order sale of guns.1972 - The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was created to oversee federal regulation of guns.1986 - Firearms Owners Protection Act eased some gun sale restrictions, reflecting the growing influence of the NRA under President Reagan.1993 - Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires gun dealers to run background checks on purchasers. Establishes national database of prohibited gun owners.1994 - Violent Crime Control Act banned the sale of new assault weapons for ten years. The Act was sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). the Republican-led Congress allowed the law expire in 2004.2003 - Tiahrt Amendment protects gun dealers and manufacturers from certain lawsuits.2007 - via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, Congress closes loopholes in the national database after the mass shooting at Virginia Tech University. (For more info from 1791 to 1999, see A Brief History of Firearms Regulation in America by Robert Longley, About.com Govt Info Guide.) For More Restrictive Gun Laws Arguments in favor of more restrictive gun laws are: Societal needs for reasonable gun control lawsHigh rate of gun-related violence and deathSecond Amendment does not provide for individual gun rights Societal Needs for Reasonable Gun Control The federal, state and  local governments  enact laws to protect and defend the people and property of the U.S. Proponents of more restrictive gun ownership laws contend that under-regulation puts U.S. residents at unreasonable risk. A  1999 Harvard School of Public Health study  revealed that Americans feel less safe as more people in their community being to carry guns, and that 90% believe that regular citizens should be prohibited from bringing guns into most public places, including stadiums, restaurants, hospitals, college campuses and places of worship. U.S. residents have a right to reasonable protection from dangers, including danger from guns. Examples cited include the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting deaths of 32 students and teachers and the 1999 killings at Colorados Columbine High School of 13 students and teachers. High Rate of Gun-Related Crime Americans favoring more restrictive gun ownership/use laws believe that such measures will reduce gun-related crime, homicide and suicide in the U.S. About 80 million Americans, representing 50% of U.S homes, own 223 million guns , easily the highest private gun ownership rate of any country in the world. Gun use  in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides and over half the suicide,  per Wikipedia. More than  30,000  U.S. men, women and children die each year from gunshot wounds, the highest homicide rate from guns in the world. Of those 30,000 deaths, only about  1,500  are due to accidental shootings. Per the Harvard 1999 study, most Americans believe that U.S.  gun violence  and homicide would decrease by reducing the private ownership and use of guns. Constitution Does Not Provide for Individual Gun Rights ... nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit,  per the New York Times. For hundreds of years, the prevailing opinion of Constitutional scholars has been that the Second Amendment does not address private gun ownership rights, but only guarantees the collective right of states to maintain militias. For Less Restrictive Gun Laws Arguments in favor of less restrictive gun laws include: Individual resistance to tyranny is a civil right guaranteed by the Second AmendmentSelf defenseRecreational use of guns Individual Resistance to Tyranny Is a Constitutional Right No one disputes that the intended purpose of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is to empower U.S. residents to resist governmental tyranny. The controversy is whether that empowerment is intended to be on a individual or collective basis. Holders of the  Individual Rights  position, which is considered the conservative stance, believe that the Second Amendment gives private gun ownership and use to individuals as a basic civil right to protection from government tyranny, such as the tyranny faced by the founders of the United States. Per the  New York Times on May 6, 2007: There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists - thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns. Self-Defense in Response to Crime and Violence Holders of the  Individual Rights  position believe that allowing increased private ownership and use of guns as self-protection is the effective response to controlling gun violence and homicide. The argument is if gun ownership is legally restricted, then all and only law-abiding Americans will be unarmed, and therefore would be the easy prey of criminals and law-breakers. Proponents of less restrictive gun laws cite a  number of instances in which stringent new laws  resulted in a dramatic increase, not decrease, in gun-related crimes and violence. Recreational Use of Guns In many states, majority of citizens contend that restrictive gun ownership/use laws impede safe hunting and shooting, which to them are important cultural traditions and popular recreational pursuits. For us, guns and hunting is a way of life, said Mr. Helms, the manager of Marstillers Gun Shop (in Morgantown, West Virginia) per the  New York Times on March 8, 2008. In fact, a  bill was recently passed  in the West Virginia legislature to allow hunting education classes in all schools where twenty or more students express interest. Where It Stands Gun control laws are difficult to pass in Congress because gun rights groups and lobbyists wield enormous influence on  Capitol Hill  via campaign contributions, and have had great success in defeating pro-gun control candidates. Explained the Center for Responsive Politics in 2007: Gun rights groups have given more than $17 million in... contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989. Nearly $15 million, or 85 percent of the total, has gone to Republicans. The  National Rifle Association  is by far the gun rights lobbys biggest donor, having contributed more than $14 million over the past 15 years. Gun control advocates... contribute far less money than their rivals -- a total of nearly $1.7 million since 1989, of which 94 percent went to Democrats. Per the Washington Post, in the 2006 elections: Republicans received 166 times as much money from pro-gun groups as from anti-gun groups. Democrats received three times as much from pro-gun as anti-gun groups. Congressional Democrats and Gun Laws A sizeable minority of Congressional Democrats are gun rights advocates, especially among those newly elected to office in 2006. Freshman senators who strongly favor gun rights include  Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA),  Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA), and  Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT). Per the NRA, House members newly elected in 2006 include 24 pro-gun rights advocates: 11 Democrats and 13 Republicans. Presidential Politics and Gun Laws Statistically, Americans most likely to own guns are men, whites and southerners... not by coincidence, the demographics of the so-called swing vote that often decides the victors of presidential and other national elections. Former President Barack Obama believes that the country must do whatever it takes to eradicate gun violence... but he believes in an individuals right to bear arms. A full transcript of his 2013 remarks on gun violence are provided by ABC News.. In contrast, U.S. Senator John McCain, reaffirmed his unequivocal support of unfettered gun laws,  saying on the day of the Virginia Tech massacre: I do believe in the constitutional right that everyone has, in the  Second Amendment to the Constitution, to carry a weapon. Following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and subsequent student-led protests in 2018, President Donald Trump tweeted on March 28: THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED!