Other - Society & Culture - 3 November 2006

I don't think they really look like that and they speak Russian.

2006-11-03 08:09:49 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

in general.

2006-11-03 08:09:16 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

-Any time a question is asked about race, one is branded a racist

-People do not like acknowleding that their are differences between races

-P. Diddy wants to be James Bond because he thinks it's time for Bond to break the color barrier. Bond is a white man. That's just how it is.

-Affirmative action based on race rather than income

Etc., etc., etc.

My question is: can we not simply acknowledge that differences do exist between races and not try to equalize everything? Or is it necessary to equalize everything?

The James Bond thing, as unimportant as that specific issue is, really bugs me because I don't understand what's wrong with having a character that is white, stay white.

2006-11-03 08:07:57 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

and if you can, how far or where would you like to visit? If you can!

2006-11-03 08:07:47 · 7 answers · asked by Today T 4

We are trying to pay back a check that didn’t clear our bank due to financial difficulties. My husband is in the army and deployed and we had some problems financially. Something very distrbing happened. This check writing collection agency somehow got our non published phone number and cell phone number and I have no idea how they could retrieve this information since they never had it the first place. This is a new number. I feel that confidentiality has been broken and I just would like to know how they go about getting our cell phone numbers and home number when they never had it to begin with. How do they do this and what should I do? Please help.

2006-11-03 08:02:53 · 3 answers · asked by baby13 1

I run a group for people with learning diffculties. We used to be called the Peter Pan club (ie never grown up) but we are going to have to get rid of that name. Any good and relevant suggestions would be fantastic.

These people are classed as being mentally handicapped so no maliciousness please.

2006-11-03 07:54:56 · 6 answers · asked by ? 3

Are the young doing it at a younger age and Is it society that pushing them to...peer pressure, music Video and such

2006-11-03 07:52:28 · 4 answers · asked by Lovely B 3

I really dont feel their is a point in living anymore. Could someone try to shed some light here.

2006-11-03 07:51:56 · 5 answers · asked by Kenny Smooth 2

To best explain the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its many connotations, the United States’ concept of “Manifest Destiny” should be covered first. Manifest Destiny was the belief of English-speaking Americans that God had ordained them to take and hold the lands from the Mississippi River to the coast of the Pacific Ocean, much of which was claimed and occupied by Mexicans and Indians. The United States’ people believed its means of fulfilling this destiny were justified, a Machiavellian concept (“the end justifies the means”).

The US found its opportunity to use this concept to obtain a large portion of Mexico when Texas gained independence in 1836. Though Texas had agreed not to annex itself to the United States in exchange for its independence, it did so in 1845. However, at the time of annexation, the southern border of Texas had still not been specified. US President Polk took the position that recognized the Rio Grande as the southern border. In what was later to be considered a deliberate provocation by the United States to begin a conflict with Mexico, US troops entered the area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande (land believed to belong to the US through annexation). The conflict that occurred between the US military and Mexican military was considered an act of war by the US, even though Mexico had not confirmed whether or not the Rio Grande was the southern border of the Texas territory.

After many unsuccessful peace negotiations (open and secret) and after many military skirmishes, the US military gained occupation of Mexico City in August 1847. It was then that the final peace negotiations began in what would become the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty demanded a large section of Mexico’s northern territory, with the Rio Grande as the southern border (for to accept the Nueces would be admitting guilt for starting the war). It was signed and sent to Mexico and the United States’ senates to be ratified on February 2, 1848.

In the United States, President Polk only conceded to accept it and send it on to the Senate for ratification after coming to the conclusion that continuing the war would not acquire for the United States a treaty that was any better. However, he recommended to Congress that an amended one be ratified and sent to Mexico for approval, one that did not contain Article X, which guaranteed property rights for Mexicans and Indians living in the ceded territory being. His main reason for this recommendation was that questions over the validity of land grants in Texas would come up on whether or not the treaty would apply to Texas since they had acquired their independence prior to the treaty.

Many factions within Congress were against ratifying the treaty, but for different reasons. The Whig party believed that the treaty would increase the southern states’ power by legalizing slavery within the new territory. Some were opposed because they were “morally against the war.” Others didn’t want it because they were Polk’s rivals, and some like Sam Houston wanted more territory than the treaty claimed. The treaty suffered few changes otherwise due to “each faction’s opposition to the proposals of the others.” The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, without Article X and with changes made to Article IX, passed the Senate and was ratified on March 10, 1848.

In Mexico, a letter of explanation by US Secretary of State James Buchanan followed the amended treaty. His letter included reasons why Article X was stricken and why Article IX was reworded. According to the letter, Article X was deleted because Buchanan firmly believed the US Constitution’s promise to protect a person’s property would be upheld regardless of whether or not the article was included in the treaty. As for Article IX, Buchanan explained that it had been revised as a “result of the Senate’s wish not to violate precedents established in treaties negotiated with France and Spain.” Also, a document known as the Protocol of Querétaro was presented to the Mexican Congress prior to the treaty’s ratification that explained the United States’ reasons for changing the original treaty. It said that the changes to Article IX “did not intend to diminish in any way” the rights that would be given to Mexican citizens becoming US citizens, and that the deletion of Article X “did not intend in any way to annul grants of land made by Mexico in the ceded territories.” However, the protocol’s interpretation of the treaty was never considered by the US government to be obligatory, meaning it had “no legal force.”

Mexico’s handling of the issues that surrounded the ratification of such a treaty went more along the lines of survival. Many factions in Mexico’s political system were against the treaty. One liberal by the name of Manuel Crescencio Rejón argued that the treaty would mean Mexico’s “economic subordination” and that since it had been signed before Congress could discuss this option, the treaty went against the Mexican Constitution. Another against the treaty was José María Cuevas, who spoke about his opposition to the Chamber of Deputies. Some did favor the treaty because it stopped the US from taking more territory and costing Mexico more military funding. One such person was one of the original commissioners, Bernardo Couto, who called the treaty one of “recovery rather than one of alienation.” In a later book about the war, one author called the treaty merely the confirmation that the US had taken land which had little value and was hard to defend. Mexico deemed it wise to choose the “lesser of two evils” and ratified the treaty on May 19, 1848.

It wasn’t long until the United States began a series of treaty violations, which for the most part went unresolved, and some which still are unresolved today. The Land Act of 1851 established a Board of Land Commissioners which required that land-owners “present evidence supporting title within two years, or their property would pass into the public domain.” According to the protocol (earlier noted to be of “no legal force” according to the US government), the property rights of Mexican landowners would be protected. In the fine print, though, the deletion of Article X made it hard for landowners with “imperfect” titles to complete the processes of land confirmation, whether it was via Mexican law or United States law.

Another violation of the treaty was the Foreign Miners’ Tax Law that inadvertently discriminated against those Mexicans who should have been exempted from the tax because of the treaty’s provisions for US citizenship. “Since there was a legal distinction between the Mexicans who had migrated to California after 1848 and those who were there before the gold rush,” outcry over the tax law being enforced on Mexican-Americans could not be justified.

It was violations such as these that inspired the Chicano movement in the 1960s, the same era as the Civil Rights movement. The movement sought to “redefine” the position of Mexican-Americans. To help with that cause, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was used to point out abuses to their human rights, such as the right to property denied those who were kept from completing their land titles, and such as the right to the full enjoyment of US citizenship which was indicated as forthcoming in Article IX of the treaty. Though the movement did not do well at obtaining help from the US government to restore land to Mexican-Americans, a recent move to take the case of the Mexican-American and the Native-American to international courts by the IITC has begun to meet with increasing success.

Since the signing of the treaty, a policy of arbitration has existed between Mexico and the United States, though the US does use it mostly when to its own advantage. However, this policy, the intertwining of the two cultures due to the Mexican influence in the US Southwest, and advances in both countries’ sense of human rights and diplomacy is slowly warming the friendship of the neighboring nations.

2006-11-03 07:44:58 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.aaaunity.com

2006-11-03 07:37:23 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-03 07:36:33 · 16 answers · asked by Queenslander 1

2006-11-03 07:33:41 · 8 answers · asked by Tony 2

NASA's a freakin' joke. Is there any politician that wants to scrap NASA? All NASA does is:

Blow up spaceships and people
Take pictures of planets that no one cares about
Spend a jillion dollars on a telescope...Then 5 jillion trying to fix it.
Wow they put a remote control car on Mars! Oh Wowee-wow!
Shoot monkeys in space
Wait don't forget....VELCRO! Oh, thank god worth every penny!

Space race is over, set fire to America's beer can collection...
NASA.

2006-11-03 07:32:44 · 1 answers · asked by shawn1980 3

if you had a million doll hairs what would you get?

2006-11-03 07:29:02 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Please don't get the wrong idea; I know that white people are not the only race that can be prejudiced. However, in the Northeast at least, it seems that Irish folks and Italian are particiularly prejudiced, perhaps even more so than the predominately Anglo-Celtic whites in the South. Consider that they had busing riots in the (largely Irish) South Boston in the 1970's, a decade during which not even Southern whites rioted against busing and integration. Thanks, in advance, for your thoughtful replies!

2006-11-03 07:25:11 · 7 answers · asked by misteronyx 1

To give some direction to this question I'll share an example: when I was in London, people asked me if I rode a horse to school and were completely serious.

I'm just curious if such ideas are prevalent elsewhere.

Also, please state where you're from when you answer.

2006-11-03 07:19:14 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-03 07:18:39 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-03 07:17:11 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-03 07:13:41 · 9 answers · asked by Silva 6

A lot of other countries require compulsory military service for two years. What do you think of doing something similar here, EXCEPT--and this is a big except--people can either choose the military or an international or domestic service program. Both options provide housing, food, an income, and a ranking system whereby the person can improve his/her status and income (like the military) in exchange for the two years' service. I think this would be a good way to teach people responsibility and ownership of their actions.
Everyone would do this, male and female, and two years would take place immediately following high school or GED. Those who wanted to go to college first could do so, but they would be required to fulfill their two years when they graduated (for example, a med school graduate could do his two years as a government doctor, and would be paid government doctor rates, but would have to go where there is need, just like "non college" participants.

Suggestions?

2006-11-03 07:11:26 · 6 answers · asked by sarcastro1976 5

Create systems like the government, stores, jobs, grow food,etc?

2006-11-03 07:09:28 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-03 07:07:20 · 15 answers · asked by lozzi_pop22 4

I've seen that sentiment a lot today.

If you don't believe that people of the same gender can really love each other, why not?

If you do, why?

I'm genuinely curious. I'm 50/50 bi; I feel as strongly for my wife as I ever did for a man, and that is *strong*.

2006-11-03 07:06:10 · 6 answers · asked by GreenEyedLilo 7

2006-11-03 07:06:10 · 19 answers · asked by rainee 1

I need help to get out of this hell hole of a place. There is nothing here but stupid people, drugs and hillbillies. All 3 put together is rediculous. The nick name for Muhlenberg is Methenberg world wide, for real, if that gives you just a hint of how bad it actually is here.

2006-11-03 07:03:22 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

for example ,
blacks : yo!
whites : awesome.

2006-11-03 07:01:50 · 12 answers · asked by blondepeach 1

2006-11-03 06:56:06 · 7 answers · asked by INOTFRIEND 4

2006-11-03 06:51:39 · 1 answers · asked by Finnale 2

why do they say firemen and police men and soldiers are heros i say they are highly trained people who get paid to do what they do if i run into a burning building i would say i would be a hero cause i dont know what im doing but a fire man no hes not and why do people get upset when police and soldiers die its part of the job you dont want gangbangers and radical insurgents blowing your head off dont join the army or police force i hope i havent offended anyone here its just my opinion

2006-11-03 06:44:10 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Where the hec ( of the globe) does everyone in this community come from? I am from Altrincham near manchster, UK. I work as a bin man, waking up early to dispose off all your rubbish including used condoms in my area. I love the job because I do get quite some ££,s. I hate it in the winter though. What about everyone?

2006-11-03 06:40:42 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous