Civil rights

at
Categories
Tags

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whenever civil rights has been covered in history class, or when I’ve seen a documentary or read an article
concerning such, I have always been very aware of what is missing, and it is something that I am interested in
and looking for. Where is the plight of the Woman, Hispanics and African American represented in the civil
rights discussion In Texas History?
Some of us have heard the stories from older relatives about the treatment of Mexican-Americans in Texas in
the 1900s. From what I have been told to me, it was not much different from how African Americans were
treated in Texas. Through my grandparents & parents, I have heard of schools for Mexican children, separate
drinking fountains, having to sit in the “upper” balconies at movies, and not being able to go to restaurants and
other establishments that were designated as “whites only.”
You are going to write a Chapter as if were the author of a government history chapter in a Texas text book. I
have included an outline of what you are going to talk/discuss/ inform students about.
1200 words and 4 resources are required. Each body paragraph would act as a chapter in the ” textbook”. You
can talk subjects such as: court cases, the changing of laws and the higher educational system

 

 

 

 

Sample Solution

Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised. The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, sho

This question has been answered.

Get Answer