Sunday, January 26, 2020

Slavery in Chesapeake and the Economy

Slavery in Chesapeake and the Economy The development of slavery in the Chesapeake was due solely to the economic needs of white settlers. Do you agree? History can never adequately provide answers regarding the motives of men and women throughout recorded history; what it can do, however, is to provide a prism through which to gauge the consequences of their actions. With regards to slavery, the consequences of the Southern United States’ intrinsic involvement in the practice of slavery were truly seismic, resulting in the American Civil War and the cementation of the world’s most powerful economic and military force. The role of the Chesapeake in this tumultuous domestic conflict should not be underestimated such was the deep seated nature of the region’s association with slavery. Certainly, economic necessity appears to be at the forefront of this historical fact with the rich tobacco and other grain industries flourishing in the South as a direct result of the burgeoning slave trade. Indeed, as Fogel (2003) underscores, even the slaves themselves could be traded amongst white settlers for economic profit. For the purpose of perspective, the following analysis into the development of slavery in the Chesapeake region must adopt a critical stance attempting to show that economic reasons were indeed the dominant paradigm in the region’s development of a sophisticated slave trade while also underscoring the complex and diverse nature of the early American slave trade. First, however, a conceptualisation of the issue must be attempted. It is important to note that Chesapeake differed markedly from the slave trades operating in the Georgia Low Country after the first arrival of enslaved African workers in the early seventeenth century (transported by Dutch merchants to replace a dwindling European labour force in the North American colonies). Unlike in other English colonies, the Chesapeake was a locale that was only colonised for economic reasons with a sparse colonial population in the days immediately prior to the introduction of slavery. Likewise, the differences within the Chesap eake itself highlight the way in which the values of trade, profit, production and the economy were central to the genesis of slavery in the region, as Philip Morgan (1998:9) details. â€Å"By the late seventeenth century, Virginia had a plantation economy in search of a labour force, whereas South Carolina had a labour force in search of plantation economy.† From the very beginning, therefore, a symbiosis began to form between the determining economic factors of the white settler communities and the introduction of large numbers of slaves into the colonies, with the number of African workers increasing from 13000 to 250000 in the Chesapeake Bay area between 1700 and 1770. The fact that this unprecedented level of African recruitment was accompanied by a drive to attract more female slaves to the colonies so as to increase the plantation population is testimony to the economic imperative at the heart of slave development in the Chesapeake. If slavery were a temporary measure to increase population levels in the area then the imposition of female slaves would not have occurred; only because of the permanence of the economic necessity for slaves did this phenomenon occur. Furthermore, the sheer expanse of the New World landscape required the development of slaves to even begin to cultivate the land for economic production. After the introduction of rice crops in the 1680’s, Boyer (2003:85) estimates that a farmer planting 130 acres of the crop would require at least 65 slaves to do so. With the rapid reduction of the white indentured slaves after the turn of the eighteenth century, the absolute economic need for African slaves in the Chesapeake further increased so that the white plantation owners were utterly dependent on slave manpower in order to function as viable enterprises, competing with highly productive colonies such as the West Indies. Without the slave trade, the Chesapeake region of America particularly the states of Virginia and North Carolina could never have emerged as a major player in the expanding trans‑Atlantic trade system. It was not just for economic reasons that slaves were seen as integral to the rise of the Chesapeake. Health imperatives likewise played a part in the development of slavery during the early years of the colonial era. The African workers were immunised against the malaria that came with the imported rice and grain crops – a disease that rendered white workers obsolete during the formative years of the Chesapeake’s economic development. Moreover, the hot and humid climate of the Chesapeake was wholly alien to the white settlers from the colder European climate while the African workers imported to work on the plantations were much better equipped to cope with the working conditions in the New World, though Oscar and Mary Hadlin (1950:199-222) refute this claiming that it is unjust to blame nature for barbaric human institutions. It is also important to recognise, as Edmund Morgan (2003:314-344) points out, that the slaves were important for sociological and cultural reasons, helping to underpin the rigid class structure that flourished in the southern American states. By taking away the need for a white working class, the slaves of the Chesapeake performed the task of cultural underdogs, which was an integral part of the economic rise of the region as a world exporter. Despite the diverse range of cultural and sociological factors prevalent in the development of slavery in the Chesapeake there is no escaping the pre‑eminence of economic imperatives. Indeed, the manufacturing of the term ‘slave trade’ implies the significance of economic issues in all parts of America that indulged in slavery with the transaction of human beings working in tandem with the production of profits garnered from the rich plantations. As Winthrop Jordan (1976:110-115) details, the underlying prejudice of the white settlers incorporating a profound sense of racial and ethnic superiority facilitated the evolution of slavery as a comprehensive way of life in the Chesapeake. The fact that the Chesapeake was willing to go to war with the Yankees for the perpetuation of the profits generated by the slave trade proves beyond doubt that economic reasons were the catalyst behind the development of slavery in the region. References Boyer, P.S. et al (2003) Enduring Vision: a History of the American People: Fifth Edition New York: Houghton Mifflin Breen, T.H. (Ed.) (1976) Shaping Southern Society: the Colonial Experience Oxford: Oxford University Press Fogel, R.W. (2003) The Slavery Debates, 1952-1990: a Retrospective Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press Morgan, E.S. (2003) American Slavery, American Freedom London: W.W. Norton Co. Morgan, P.D. (1998) Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth Century Chesapeake and Low Country Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press Selected Articles Jordan, W. (1976) Unthinking Decision: Enslavement of Negroes in America to 1700, quoted in, Breen, T.H. (Ed.) Shaping Southern Society: the Colonial Experience Oxford: Oxford University Press Journals Hadlin, M.F. and Hadlin, O. (April 1950) Origins of the Southern Labour System, quoted in, William and Mary Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 2

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

â€Å"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness† is the cornerstone of our nations Declaration of Independence. When considering this quote and identifying an individual or group of individuals who have continued to pursue this belief in the twentieth century and beyond, one must consider the name Cesar Chavez and the organization, The United Farm Workers, he was so instrumental in its formation, as being synonymous with this phrase. (U. S. Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776))Cesar Estrada Chavez was born March 31, 1927 on a small farm near Yuma, Arizona that his grandfather had homesteaded during the 1880's. Chavez was the second born of six children to Librado and Juana Chavez. At age 7 Cesar began school, but found it very difficult due to the fact that his family only spoke Spanish. Chavez preferred to learn from his uncles and grandparents who would read to him in Spanish and additionally he learned many things from his mother who believed that violence and selfis hness were wrong and stressed this with all her children.In the 1930's, at age 10, Chavez was forced to begin his life as a migrant farm worker when his father lost the land homesteaded by his grandfather during the Great Depression. These were bitterly poor times for the Chavez family and together with thousands of other displaced families, they migrated throughout the Southwestern United States, laboring in the fields and vineyards. Cesar in an effort to help support his parents and brothers and sisters dropped out of school after the eighth grade. (www. clnet. ucla. edu) At the age of 18, Chavez joined the U. S.Navy and served in the western Pacific front during the end of World War II. In 1948, Cesar married Helen Fabela, who he had met while working the vineyards in Delano, they later settled in the East San Jose barrio of Sal Si Puedes, where Chavez later authored a book entitled â€Å"Sal Si Puedes (Escape If You Can)†. Following his return from serving in the U. S. Na vy and his marriage to Helen, he returned to the fields as a migrant farm laborer, but he began to fight for change. That same year, 1948, Cesar took part in his first of many strikes in protest of low wages and poor working conditions.However, within several days the workers were forced back to the fields. In 1952, Chavez met Fred Ross, who was an organizer for a group known as the Community Service Organization (CSO), which was a barrio-based self-help group that was sponsored by a Chicago-based group which had been formed by Saul Alinsky called the Industrial Area Foundation. Chavez soon became a full-time organizer with CSO, coordinating and spearheading voter registration drives, battling racial and economic discrimination against Hispanic residents, and organizing new CSO chapters across California and Arizona.Chavez became the national director of CSO in the late 1950's and early 1960's, but his dream was to create an organization to help farm workers whose suffering he not o nly empathized with, but had shared and endured. After approximately 10 years of acting as the national director and continuing to organize Hispanic's throughout California and Arizona for the CSO, Chavez resigned his paid position, the first regular paying full-time job he had since being discharged from the Navy, as he was unable to convince the CSO to commit itself solely to farm worker organizing.Following his resignation he moved his wife and 8 children back to Delano, California where he became a full-time organizer of farm workers and founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) , and this newly founded organization grew rapidly. (www. clnet. ucla. edu) In 1965 the NFWA, headed by Chavez, began a boycott of grape growers in Delano, California, which lasted some 5 years. In 1966, during this boycott, Chavez led his followers on a 340 mile march to the state capitol in Sacramento, California to bring the plight of the farm workers to national attention.The march started with only 75 workers and supporters and the rally ended in Sacramento with over 10,000 people on the capitol steps. That same year Schenley Vineyards was the first grower to negotiate this nation's union contract with a farm union, the NFWA. In 1966, the NFWA merged with the mostly Filipino-American union, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC) to form the United Farm Workers (UFW). As the strike continued and the story of the farm workers became more widely known in the United States and around the world, many Americans rallied to their cause and joined the boycott of all table grapes produced in the U.S.. By 1970 more than 65 percent of California grape growers had negotiated and signed labor contracts with the UFW. Also, to avoid a similar UFW boycott, many of the Salinas Valley lettuce and vegetable growers signed labor contracts with the Teamsters Union. In response to this Chavez and the UFW called for a boycott of lettuce and more than 10,000 farm workers in Ca lifornia's Central Coast went on strike. In 1972, as the UFW membership continued to grow and increase in numbers, the UFW became the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO.By 1979 the UFW had won pay increases for its members and had signed contracts with a significant number of growers of lettuce and other produce growing farms, and their membership grew to over 100,000. The UFW experienced numerous conflicts with the Teamsters Union which led to the murder of several UFW supporters. These events, coupled with the election, in California, of the Republican governor George Deukmejian whose administration supported the growers, led to many setbacks for the UFW movement as thousands of farm workers were fired, and their membership began to decline.From the mid 1980's through the early 1990's Chavez and the UFW continued their fight for improved conditions for farm workers. On April 23, 1993, Cesar Chavez died in his sleep at the home of a migrant farm worker in San Luis, Arizona. In commemoration of his life 35,000 mourners walked behind Chavez's casket during his funeral which was held 6 days after his death in Delano, California. In 1994, President Bill Clinton honored Cesar Chavez's fight for farm workers rights by awarding him the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.In his citation President Clinton praised Chavez for having â€Å"faced formidable, often violent opposition with dignity and nonviolence†. (www. ufw. org) Following his death, Chavez was succeeded as leader of the UFW by the veteran UFW organizer, Arturo S. Rodriguez. In 1994, in honor of Cesar Chavez, Rodriguez and his supporters retraced the steps of Chavez's historic march of 1966. By the time this commemorative march reached the steps of the state capitol in Sacramento it had amassed over 20,000 in UFW workers and supporters, thus marking the start of a new UFW campaign to unit, organize, and empower farm workers.This reinvigoration of the UFW movement has since si gned up more workers in California as well as Florida and the state of Washington. Since this rejuvenation of membership the UFW, in the early 21st century, has continued to fight for better wages, win better collective bargaining rights, and gain better housing and sanitation for its worker members as well as restrict the use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and other dangerous pesticides which are commonly used by growers. Cesar Chavez, by his tenacity, drive, and personal efforts, left our world better than he found it, and his legacy inspires us still.He was for his own people, the farm worker, who labored in the fields and yearned for respect and self-sufficiency and who associated themselves and their hopes on this man who, with faith and discipline, soft spoken humility, and amazing inner strength, led a courageous life. Every day in California and in other states where farm workers are organizing, Cesar Chavez lives in their hearts and he lives wherever Americans far m workers, who he inspired, work nonviolently for social change. (www. ufw. org)

Friday, January 10, 2020

Ppt About Forbidden City Essay

1 Introduction The Forbidden City, also called the Palace Museum, which was the imperial palace during the Ming and Qing dynasties. The Forbidden City was built from 1406 to 1420 by the Yongle Emperor who was the third emperor of the Ming Dynasty. The English name of the Forbidden City is a translation of its Chinese name Zijin Cheng, which means that the Forbidden City is the residence of the emperor and his family, and no one could enter or leave the palace without the emperor’s approval. The Forbidden City is a rectangle 961 metres from north to south and 753 metres from east to west. Besides, it consists of 980 surviving buildings with 8,886 bays of rooms. It is obviously the largest palace around the world. As the home of 24 emperors, 12 of the Ming Dynasty, and 10 of the Qing Dynasty, the palace was the political centre of China for more than 500 years, and this is one of the reasons why we interested in this topic. In the following sections, we will introduce the Forbidden City’s three main halls, The Hall of Mental Cultivation, the famous emperors and the stories of the palace, famous music about the Forbidden City, online virtual Forbidden City, and the best time to travel. 2 Descriptions 2-1 The three main halls There are three halls stand on top of a three-tiered white marble terrace of the square of the palace. They contain the Hall of Supreme Harmony (Chinese: Ã¥ ¤ ªÃ¥â€™Å'æ ® ¿), the Hall of Central Harmony(Chinese: ä ¸ ­Ã¥â€™Å'æ ® ¿), and the Hall of Preserving Harmony (Chinese: ä ¿ Ã¥â€™Å'æ ® ¿). The Hall of Supreme Harmony is the largest and highest level hall of the Forbidden City. Every emperor’s coronation, birthday ceremony, wedding ceremony, and other important ceremonies or political affairs had taken place in this hall. The Hall of Central Harmony is a smaller and square hall, used by the Emperor to rehearse and rest before and during ceremonies. Behind the Hall of Central Harmony, the Hall of Preserving Harmony, it was used by the emperor to banquet the nobility on every Chinese Eve, or other important festivals. In Qing Dynasty, the emperor had taken the most important imperial examinations, Dian Shi (Chinese: æ ® ¿Ã¨ © ¦) in this hall. 2-2 The Hall of Mental Cultivation The reason why we introduce this hall separately is that the Hall of Mental Cultivation is a particularly significant building of the Forbidden City of Qing Dynasty since 1722. The Hall of Mental Cultivation is well-known for the Yongzheng Emperor, who was the 5th emperor of the Qing Dynasty, and son of the Kangxi Emperor. He ruled the Chinese Empire from 1722 to 1735. During his ruling time, the emperor lived in this hall. After his death, other emperors lived in this hall continually, thus the hall had been the actual dominate centre of the Chinese Empire from 1722 to 1911, the ruin of the Qing Dynasty.

Thursday, January 2, 2020

Grahams Law Example Gas Diffusion-Effusion

Grahams law is a gas law which relates the rate of diffusion or effusion of a gas to its molar mass. Diffusion is the process of slowly mixing two gases together. Effusion is the process that occurs when a gas is permitted to escape its container through a small opening. Grahams law states that the rate at which a gas will effuse or diffuse is inversely proportional to the square root of the molar masses of the gas. This means light gasses effuse/diffuse quickly and heavier gases effuse/diffuse slowly. This example problem uses Grahams law to find how much faster one gas effuses than another. Grahams Law Problem Gas X has a molar mass of 72 g/mol and Gas Y has a molar mass of 2 g/mol. How much faster or slower does Gas Y effuse from a small opening than Gas X at the same temperature? Solution: Grahams Law can be expressed as: rX(MMX)1/2 rY(MMY)1/2 whererX rate of effusion/diffusion of Gas XMMX molar mass of Gas XrY rate of effusion/diffusion of Gas YMMY molar mass of Gas Y We want to know how much faster or slower Gas Y effuses compared to Gas X. To get this value, we need the ratio of the rates of Gas Y to Gas X. Solve the equation for rY/rX. rY/rX (MMX)1/2/(MMY)1/2 rY/rX [(MMX)/(MMY)]1/2 Use the given values for molar masses and plug them into the equation: rY/rX [(72 g/mol)/(2)]1/2rY/rX [36]1/2rY/rX 6 Note that  the answer is a pure number. In other words, the units cancel out. What you get is how many times faster or slower gas Y effuses compared to gas X. Answer: Gas Y will effuse six times faster than the heavier Gas X. If you were asked to compare how much more slowly gas X effuses compares to gas Y,  just take the inverse of the rate, which in this case is 1/6 or 0.167. It doesnt matter what units you use for the rate of effusion. If gas X effuses at 1 mm/minute, then gas Y effuses at 6 mm/minute. If gas Y effuses at 6 cm/hour, then gas X effuses at 1 cm/hour. When Can You Use Grahamss Law? Grahams law may only be used to compare the rate of diffusion or effusion of gases at a constant temperature.The law breaks down, like other gas laws, when the concentration of gases becomes very high. The gas laws were written for ideal gases, which are at low temperatures and pressures. As you increase the temperature or pressure, you can expect the predicted behavior to deviate from experimental measurements.