Defend or Refute:  The foundations for the civil rights act movment were laid in the 1950s?
456712
Actually, the foundations go back to the beginnings of the African slave trade.  Prior to the African slave trade, enslavement was not an act of racism.\n\nIn the past slaves were criminals, children sold by their parents, or prisoners captured in war time.  In some asian and middle eastern cultures such slaves are still openly traded (official government positions are that it is illegal, but the laws are not enforced).\n\nWhen Britain banned the enslavement of British residents in the 16th century , slave traders needed to find a new source of slaves.  They discovered that African tribes were willing to sell members of their tribes and thus began the trade of African slaves in the western world.\n\nThe reason that the trade of British residents was outlawed was because the church had concluded that slavery was incompatible with Christian Values.  In order to reconcile the trade of African Slaves with their Christian beliefs the British and later the French looked for evidence that Africans were not fully human.  They used everything from the way they stood to the fact that they had no written language to justify their stance that Africans were not fully human.\n\nAs African slaves learned to speak English and as some learned to read and write the slaves began to produce intelligent ideas into the culture both in Europe and in the American colonies.  This disproved the theory that Africans were less than human. \n\nThe new justification for holding African slaves became converting them to Christianity.  This justification could be validated until the international slave trade was banned by Britain in the late 18th century and by the rest of Europe and the United States in the early 19th century.  Within a generation nearly all African slaves had converted to Christianity.  \n\nAfter 300 years of African slavery, that enslavement was deeply rooted into the cultures and into the economies of Europe and the United States.  \n\nAbolitionist groups had begun forming in the late 18th century, but in the early 19th century their support bases grew quickly. Abolitionist papers were published openly in the U.S. and underground in most European countries.  \n\nIn the Mid 19th century western countries began outlawing the ownership of slaves.  Britain was the first (It was outlawed, but the trade continued in their colonies), followed by the other countries of western Europe.  It was only in the United States that the ending of slavery resulted from a war.  \n\nThe former owners of slaves and those who were too poor but had envied slave holders turned on the newly freed slaves particularly in the United States.  The KKK for example was formed as a political action group to eliminate republican party candidates from national offices but changed their focus to persecuting freed slaves after the civil war.  \n\nIn response to the racist propoganda Black advocate groups such as the NAACP were formed.   \n\nDuring reconstruction many freed slaves moved to northern cities.  Shortly after reconstruction a recession occured and there were accusations that blacks were taking the jobs of white men. Added to the tension was the fact that many of the whites in those cities had rarely or never seen a black person. Fueled by the propoganda put out by racist groups, fights broke out between blacks and whites.  These among other incidents led to the "seperate but equal supreme court decision" which at the time was supported by most black advocate groups.\n\nThe early twentieth century brought more conflict as Black advocate groups tried to enforce the equal part of "Seperate But Equal".  The racist groups fought back and gained support as Whites became defensive about their treatment (as a whole) of blacks.\n\nWhen the stock market crashed and a drought devestated the mid west, the focus of hate groups turned from the blacks in the cities to Mexican field hands in California and blacks came to be more accepted by society since they w
853674
ooohhh, cant list exact source but i believe if you look up the  IDEA law on that was created in the 1970s after the civil rights movement, it may give you a clue.  do you mean private preschool for sped, or inclusive?  because these answers will be different.  it wasnt until the civil rights movement that disable kids were even thought to have rights of their own to an equal education so my guess is that most of these kids were institutionalized.  but again, look up the IDEA and the history of special ed.  or the history of preschool sped.  good luck!
301550
Lyndon Johnson has been credited with being one of the most important figures in the civil rights movement. Johnson does have some distracters who believe that he was merely an unprincipled politician who used the civil rights issue when he realised the worth of the "Black Vote". However Johnson himself claimed to be an idealist who dreamed of making America a "Great Society". It was Johnson who put the presidential signature to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
733566
The question is vague. However, if "a law" is depriving you of your constitutional rights, then you would want an attorney who has experience in civil rights cases. Remember, every state has a constitution that often offers more civil rights than even the U.S. Constitution. So you may obtain an attorney and pursue the matter in state court or federal court.
1088758
He was a civil rights lawyer. Chief Attorney at Cleveland School.\nThere are a ton of websites on his cases.
983622
Martin Luther King Jr., also protested for many African Americans to have the right to vote in certain southern states like Alabamba, Missississippi, Louisiana, etc. \nCheck out this source to find more information for your report.
1028774
What hinders civil rights these days is the bastardized expectations of what civil rights really means these days.\n\nLiberal minority leaders subscribe to the idea that affirmative action is needed to equalize the injustice done to various minority groups throughout our history.\n\nConservative minority leaders subscribe to the idea that the opportunity is here, people just need to reach out and take advantage of it.\n\nHere are my thoughts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, creed, etc. This means that if you can put yourself into one of these classifications, you cannot be discriminated against. Many people today think that the Act protects minorities from the majority.\n\nNothing could be further from the truth. If you are black (I refuse to use the term African-American) or white or brown or yellow, you are protected from discrimination based on race. If you can show you are a male or a female, you are protected from discrimination based on sex. If you are Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Baptist or a Satanist, you are protected from discrimination based on religion.\n\nThis means that a black person cannot be given preference over a white person for a job or college admission anymore than a white person can be given preference over a black person. It really is just that simple. The introduction of affirmative action bastardizes the meaning and intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.\n\nAnd, by the way, here is why I refuse to use the term African-American. The basis of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s was to show that we are all basically the same. We are all men, and we are all women - regardless of the color of your skin. We are all Americans. Yet, today, many INSIST on being called African-American or Mexican-American or Arab-American sending out the message, "Hey! We ARE different!"\n\nI say we are NOT all different. We are all Americans. My family consists of me (white), my wife (black and Indian) and my two boys (a little bit of everything). We stress to our boys that all are equal and should be treated with dignity and respect. We show them that everything they want can be theirs with planning, hard work and sacrifice. We teach them that no one owes them anything except themselves.\n\nRemember Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech ... color of skin ... content of character ... Think about it.
1098098
What civil rights do we have today?
183569
After the Dems embraced the spirit of civil rights, there was an exodus of "the racist element" from that party to the Republican Party. The latter accepted them with open arms. Contrary to another answer the Dems have not only voted for most CR legislation but have introduced most legislation into the House and Senate. The president who most hindered those efforts was - in my opinion -  himself part of that exodus from the Dems, Ronald Wilson Regan. He is the one who claims to have "never seen discrimination in this country". I am not saying he was a Racist, but it was his blatant opposition to traditional CR policies that set the mood for acceptance of anti-Black sentiment in this country.
1173210
Rights must be defended -- but intelligently;  although in some situations it may be wise to voluntarily refrain from exercising some rights for a time...\nFirst step is to think.  What is freedom?  Is it the freedom to do what you want, or the freedom to do what is right?  Which freedom(s) have you been able to exercise previously that you cannot exercise now?  Does the exercise of this right infringe in any way on anyone else's right(s)?\nSecond step is to determine the appropriate approach.  Do you air the issue in the public forum and make people aware that way, and possibly make people think you're a bit of a lunatic?  Or do you take the approach championed by Gandhi, M.L.King, Thorough, and others, which is to protest an unjust law by breaking it and accepting the consequences, thus demonstrating a mature respect for the rule of law.\nAgain, defend our rights, but do it wisely.
337293
The first instance of it was in 1866 appearing under the umbrella of civil rights laws.   \n  \nOriginally, civil rights programs were enacted to help African Americans become full citizens of the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution made slavery illegal; the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law; the Fifteenth Amendment forbids racial discrimination in access to voting. The 1866 Civil Rights Act guarantees every citizen "the same right to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens ... " \n\nIn 1896, the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld a "separate, but equal" doctrine that proved to be anything but equal for African Americans. The decision marked the end of the post-Civil War reconstruction era as Jim Crow laws spread across the South. \n\nIn 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph. \n\nDuring 1953 President Harry S. Truman's Committee on Government Contract Compliance urged the Bureau of Employment Security "to act positively and affirmatively to implement the policy of nondiscrimination . . . ." \n\nThe 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." \n\nIn 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women. \nOther equal protection laws passed to make discrimination illegal were the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title II and VII of which forbid racial discrimination in "public accommodations" and race and sex discrimination in employment, respectively; and the 1965 Voting Rights Act adopted after Congress found "that racial discrimination in voting was an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of the country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution." \n\nMuch of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called "reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences." In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefitting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications.
514424
Essay on The Civil Rights Movements of the 60?s\nThe Civil Rights Movements of the 60?s ... However this was the beginning of many future accomplishments.\nhttp://www.dedicatedwriters.com/paper/The_Civil_Rights_Movements_of_-120363.html
651135
I'll point you in the right direction, but that question is about a ten-page paper.\n\nThe shift began in 1948 when Harry Truman desegregated the military and call for civil rights reforms. Southern Democrats bolted the party and supported Strom Thurmond.\n\nThe shift was finalized in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson supported the Civil Rights Act. Southerners backed Goldwater, and he won the states that Thurmond had in 1948, and not much else. Some long-time southern Democrats began defecting to the Republican party.\n\nDuring the 1970s, you had the rise of people like Jesse Helms, and Nixon's "southern strategy" which overtly used racist symbols to court white southern voters. This trend continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and was a key factor in the GOP takeover in 1994.\n\nYou also saw the rise of powerful Southern Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and Trent Lott.\n\nIt started with a dealignment - Democrats leaving the party over civil rights, then a realignment to Republicanism.
21461
Here is a site that will answer your question.\nhttp://orig.jacksonsun.com/civilrights/sec4_sheledfight_mcferren.shtml
464561
If it had not been for slavery, the civil rights movement would not have been necessary. \n\nThe purpose of the civil rights movement was to correct the damage done by slavery and 100 years of oppression that followed.
485830
Ok you don’t seem to be getting many answers so I’ll try to be more helpful.\n\nMany Western governments attempt to reduce discrimination through civil rights and equal opportunity laws and policies like affirmative action.\n\nMost religious discrimination is banned along with discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, etc.  Crimes directed against people on the basis of religion are actually lumped in with “hate crimes”, meaning they are considered more severe because the motivation was based on prejudice as opposed to anger, fear, etc.\n\nLyndon Johnson kicked off the more recent federal protections with Executive Order 11246 in the sixties. It dealt mostly with hiring practices.\n\nOther presidents and legislators have expanded on this. \n\nRegards,\nArmus
123214
i don't think there is one.   Just read it.  If this is for school, I would focus on the amendments.