The Aborigines Act of 1905 Essay Example for Free

The Aborigines Act of 1905 Essay The Aborigines Act of 1905 supposed to be an act that raised provision for the better protection and care of the Aboriginal inhabitants of Western Australia; however in reality the real purpose of the act was not to make the general wellbeing of the Aborigines better, it was to control every movement they made and have power over every aspect of their lives. The following essay discusses several of the clauses in the text that prove its intention most deceiving, and what the act truly accomplished. Clause 4 declares that there is to be an Aborigines Department under the Minister whose duty is to promote the welfare of the aborigines by providing them with food, clothing, medicine and medical attendance when they would otherwise be destitute, providing for the education of aboriginal children, and generally assisting in the preservation and well-being of the aborigines. This is the only clause in the whole of the Act that sees to the rights of the aborigines. Clause 8 of the Act states that the Chief Protector is to be the legal guardian of every Aboriginal and half-caste child until they attain the age of sixteen; as well as Clause 60 again highlighting that the governor has custody of the Aborigines and half-caste providing for their care and education. They saw the parents as unfit to raise their own children; they didn’t want them teaching their traditional ways and so, against a parent’s basic right, they took the children and raised them under European light. According to clause 12 the minister may cause any Aboriginal to be removed and kept within the boundaries of a reserve, or to be removed from one reserve or district to another. The government had the power to just remove any aboriginal from their homes whenever they felt fit and place them in a completely different district. Not only was this most inconvenient for them in ways any being would understand, it was damaging to their cultural identity and the spiritual belonging to a home land. As far as employment went; clause 17 states that it was against the law to employ any indigenous person without permit from the chief protector, which was difficult to obtain. Even if they were given permit, clause 22 said that they had to be paid with rations rather than money like the whites- in efforts to control everything they owned. If they were unhappy in the job in which they were employed, clause 58 said that if they wanted to leave the jobs, it would be an offence against the act and they were liable to imprisonment. The question we have to ask ourselves again is ‘how was this in any way beneficial to their wellbeing’? Under Australian law, it is illegal to arrest any person without warrant. On the contrary; clause 55 stated that it was perfectly lawful to arrest any aboriginal or half-caste without warrant who offends any provisions against the Act. Which brings us to Clause 52, which established that any Aboriginal or half-caste was deemed to be proved guilty in the absence of proof to the contrary; In other words, guilty until proven innocent. Who would defend them? How would they prove themselves innocent? Furthermore, who would believe their word for it? What this basically meant was that any Indigenous could be imprisoned for the smallest of accusations without a second thought. In conclusion, to call the Aborigine’s act of 1905 unjust is an understatement. The many clauses mentioned proved the said purpose of the act as for the better protection and care of the aboriginal inhabitants was misleading and far from the truth. The overall impact of most of the clauses would be deemed an outrage in the white society and certainly would not be accepted let lone tolerated.

Essay --

Throughout the twenty and into the twenty first century, the world has seen much academic and historical reflection on the subject of the Holocaust. Scholars have avidly debated both the motives of the perpetrators and the inaction of the Jewish race during the Holocaust. Both the offenders and the offended have been criticized in one way or another for s variety of reasons. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen specifically looks at the perpetrators, the Germans, and argues that in fact, the Holocaust could only have taken place in Germany because of the German peoples’ great anti-Semitism. Goldhagen, a smart, cognitive and historically knowledgeable man strives to prove his theory in a three-pronged reasoning trident. He seeks, through his theory, to directly connect a country’s apparent anti-Semitism to the mass murder that directly succeeded it. The initial part of his argument is to look at the Police Battalions and the Einstadtzgruppen, and make the claim that the men committing the mass murder in these military ranks were in fact what Goldhagen calls â€Å"ordinary Germans†. Goldhagen looks specifically at their economic and social backgrounds to make this claim. (Handout; Police Battalion 101: Men’s Deeds) The second part of Goldhagen’s thesis is to equate the â€Å"ordinary Germans† coordinating the death marches to the entire German population: Golhagen takes a focus group and decides that in fact it is a distinct match for the whole population of Germany – something that I will cover later on. The third prong of the t rident is the conclusion in which Goldhagen says that all Germans were in fact, Nazis and bought into Nazi ideals of eugenics and mass murder. Essentially, to wrap up the â€Å"trident of reasoning† metaphor into one simple sentence ... ...explaining evil is just as difficult as preventing it, which is primarily the reason for so much debate on the subject of the Holocaust. Most of Goldhagen’s theories are intelligent, well articulated and backed up with evidence, but this doesn't mean that they are flaw-free. While on the surface his theory of the perpetrators being all ordinary Germans makes simplistic sense, it is slightly flawed. A, it is a generalization to group â€Å"all ordinary Germans† with a specific set of Germans who carried out the mass murder and B, Goldhagen comes to his conclusion and then looks for evidence to support his claim. Usually one finds specific evidence and then after piecing the evidence together one comes to a conclusion based on one’s evidence, not the latter. Regardless, what Goldhagen offers in his thesis is a totally unique look at who was responsible for the Holocaust.

Changing Your Social Class Essay

Social stratification is a ladder of positions with respect to economic construction which influences the social rewards to those in the positions (â€Å"Questions on Social Stratification†). With that, a person may belong to a specific class while being part of the whole society. Social class means the existence of sharing among the people of similar status with respect to wealth, power and prestige. For a layman’s understanding, social class refers to being rich or poor as regarded by the society. A concrete example of this is a situation wherein a person’s social class has changed overnight, where he suddenly becomes homeless. That situation happens to me, and I could say that at that particular moment, my life has changed drastically and dramatically. The privileges that I experienced when I am still rich were lost when I become suddenly homeless. In addition, my opportunities in life also changed when I become poor. While I am still in a higher social class, I do not need to work hard just to earn a living. At that time, I can hire people to work for me and help me to improve my life’s station. But when I become homeless, everything was altered such that I cannot even afford to pay all my basic commodities like food, shelter and clothing. For me, there is always shortage of food when I am already in the lower social class. My family is suffering so much since we need to share a little amount of food everyday. All we can do is to think of those times that we enjoy eating all the food that we want. Since I become homeless, seeking for a good shelter is a problem. I realized that living in the streets is possible. I learned to look for places where squatters stayed. Aside from that, my clothing materials are not enough to keep me warm all day. I need to ask help from those who have enough clothes and request for old but clean and usable clothing materials. With all these hardships that I encountered, people view me as living in extreme poverty. Moreover, the opportunity to work is limited since those people who knew me before no longer consider me as a friend. Yet, I tried hard to find a job just to earn a living. Although people view me recently as poor, I need to work hard and show to them that I am worthy for a decent living. I will work hard for me to rent a house for my family. While it is true that housing costs pose the biggest obstacle for low-wage workers, I also believe that there are realistic solutions to the lack of affordable housing. The government is the only hope for the poor people to help them have their own homes. What the government should do is to facilitate a housing project that offers an affordable housing loan to low-wage workers. The government may also provide homes for the homeless in such a way that presence of perennial squatters will be lessened.   In that way, those who are living in poverty will have the chance to work hard and pay for a simple yet decent home. As a worker, having a work system that does not offer benefits like overtime pay, retirement funds, and health insurance is not fair. The workers should be given good working conditions as they are considered the strength and backbone of the economy. Besides, the request for an increase of salary for workers is not the solution for lack of benefits. Both provision of benefits and increase of salary for workers is necessary things that a worker must have in the society. It is but fair for workers to receive compensation that could improve his station in life and escape from extreme poverty. Therefore, an increase of salary for workers could not redress the lack of benefits for them such that it is completely a separate problem. References Sociology Guide. (2006). Questions on Social Stratification. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://www.sociologyguide.com/questions/social-stratification.php.

Arguments for Legalizing Gay Marriages Essays - 719 Words

Homosexual Marriage Since 1971 when the first same sex couple Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell applied for a marriage license and were denied in the Baker vs. Nelson ruling, America has been forced to debate whether homosexuals should be allowed to be married even though they are not the classical definition of a couple. There are many opinions about this subject from government officials, religious leaders and even the president of the United States. Homosexuals should be allowed to be married because they need to be treated fairly and equally. Homosexuals have been denied the right to be married because many people feel, The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in†¦show more content†¦Additionally, being married is not only a social commitment to each other, but it also comes with 1,138 benefits that a civil union does not offer. Benefits such as: Social Security programs, employment benefits, federal, military, civilian benefits, medical health and illness benefits, estate and taxation benefits, trade, commerce and intellectual rights, and various other legal benefits. As these rights and benefits are denied to homosexual couples, many people insist that a constitutional violation exists. The Bill of Rights states The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Clearly, our first documents were written to leave room for changes in society, so that everyone remained equal and were granted basic human rights. Gay activists have The Bill Of Rights to back up their argument, while anti-gay activists have the DOMA to support their argument. DOMA was only initiated after homosexuals insisted on the right to marry. Opposers think that legalizing homosexual marriages will not be the end of the line; they perceive that homosexual marriages will ruin the sacred sanctuary of marriage. They question what social repercussions legalizing gay marriage will cause. Concerns are: Gay people adopting children and what kind of life would it be for the children, what will be the next social tradition will be demolished if homosexual marriages are legalizedShow MoreRelatedGay Marriage1250 Words   |  5 Pageshead: LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE Factors In Favor of and Against Legalizing Gay Marriage in the United States David Vance May 28, 2012 Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Instructor Verhaegh Argosy University Factors In Favor of and Against Legalizing Gay Marriage in the United States Proposal/ Issue: Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. Six Reasons For: Weakest to Strongest 1. Other countries (Denmark, Canada etc.) have legalized gay marriageRead MoreRedefining Marriage in Our Country1390 Words   |  6 PagesStates. Gay marriage will have an effect on the country, and the people need to decide whether it will be a positive or negative outcome. â€Å"When you talk about redefining marriage, youre really talking about an overthrow of this natural order or natural law, because marriage is something that predates government. So this is a big deal, a once-in-a-lifetime debate about whether to overturn the natural order upon which our rights are based† (Masci 1). The societal risks of legalizing gay marriage far outweighRead MoreGay marriage persuasive essay1663 Words   |  7 PagesGay Marriage in the United States The debate between whether gay marriage should be legalized or not has been a controversial topic recently. In the past twelve years, equal marriage rights have been legalized in 6 states of the U.S.. Eighteen states do not allow gay marriage and do not recognize civil unions. The other twenty six states allow civil unions, and some are debating legalizing gay marriage. Gay marriage should be legal across the United States. Not allowing gay marriage in any stateRead MoreEssay about Lets Legalize Gay Marriage872 Words   |  4 PagesLet’s Legalize Gay Marriage Gay marriage is a right. Heterosexual couples are allowed to enjoy all the marriage benefits, so why shouldn’t same-sex couples be able to? Why should other people be able to choose who marries who? If a man and a woman get married, no one seems to care. Gay marriage should be legal because it’s an issue of equal rights, it would save society money, and it will increase the chances for foster children to be adopted into loving families. Same-sex marriage is an issueRead MoreThe Legalization Of Same Sex Marriage1091 Words   |  5 PagesThe legalization of same-sex marriage is a hot topic in the U.S. approving, it in all fifty states can be harmful to the country. Same-sex marriage should not have been legalized in the United States. First, legalizing can be harmful to the society, Second, same-sex marriage it always denies a child a father or a mother, Third, legalizing It Offends some religions and violates tradition. In addition, It means all citizens should have understood of the consequences before making the decision. OneRead MoreShould Same Sex Marriage Be Legalized? Essay1509 Words   |  7 PagesOver the past couple of years, one major argument that people talk about constantly is legalizing same sex marriage. Since same sex marriage has become a popular topic that everyone has to deal with, it has provoked many problems around the world. People have different aspects stating that gay marriage has pros and cons. Fortunately, even though everyone constantly can not stop talking about gay marriage, it keeps spreading throughout the world and causes more problems day after day. In an articleRead MoreGay Marriage Should Be Legal1684 Words   |  7 PagesGay marriage In discussions of gay marriage one controversial issue has been whether or not it should be legalized. On the one hand, some people argue that gay marriage should not be accepted in our society. On the other hand, some people believe that gay marriage should be legalized. Others even maintain that gay marriage is not a problem, and we should respect the preferences of everyone. My personal view is that gay marriage is not a big issue because we are in a free country, where everyoneRead MoreGay Marriage Should Be Legal1691 Words   |  7 PagesIn discussions of gay marriage one controversial issue has been whether or not it should be legalized. On the one hand, some people argue that gay marriage should not be accepted in our society. On the other hand, some people believe that gay marriage should be legalized. Others even maintain that gay marriage is not a problem, and we should respect the preferences of everyone. My personal view is that gay marriage is not a big issue because we are in a free country, where everyone has to respectRead MoreThe Legalization Of Gay Marriage1411 Words   |  6 PagesAbstract The legalization of gay marriages is one of the most controversial issues throughout particularly in modern life. This paper, based on secondary research, arguing for legalizing same-sex marriage through specific analysis of its positive influences. In particular, there are two main benefits regarding society as well as economy. The finds of the research indicate that gays or lesbians are completely an important part of society. Therefore, they must have the rights to live and marry legallyRead MoreGay Marriage Should Be Legal1126 Words   |  5 PagesJune 26, 2015 for gay marriage to be legal in all fifty states, thirty seven out of the fifty and Washington D.C already legalized gay marriage. Many support gay marriage and many do not, with widespread values and reasons for and against it. Due to religion and rights people across the nation have differing views and opinions of it.In a five to four vote in the Supreme Court gay marriage became legalized in all fifty states. Shortly a fter that a few marriage officiators and marriage licenses people