To what extent were Malcolm X and the subsequent Black Power Movement the 'Evil Twin' of the Civil Rights Movement in the late twentieth century in the United States of America?
To what extent were Malcolm X and the subsequent Black Power Movement the 'Evil Twin'1 of the Civil Rights Movement in the late twentieth century in the United States of America? Malcolm X2 and the subsequent Black Power3 Movement (BPM) stemmed from the nationalist African American population and so took a different stance in their fight for Civil Rights than other leaders such as Martin Luther King4 (King). With this distinction, has come a historical debate into whether Malcolm X and the BPM aided or hindered the Civil Rights Movement (CRM); something that has been debated between historians such as Sitkoff and Cook. The purpose of this study is to decide whether Malcolm X and the BPM are indeed the 'evil twin' of the CRM or whether this title is unjust. Malcolm X was a black nationalist5 and a member of the Nation of Islam6. Malcolm X, through his father, garnered the beliefs of Marcus Garvey7 and his 'Back to Africa' campaign. He also believed in militancy as a method to attain black independence through the notion; 'fight violence with violence'. He believed that rather than allowing the continual persecution of African Americans by whites, it was rational for African Americans to defend themselves with as much force as was necessary as advocated in his 'by any means necessary'8 speech. This caused much tension between the two distinct civil rights movements because it
Assess the view that the Supreme Court was the most important branch of federal government in assisting African Americans to achieve their civil rights in the period 1865-1992.
Assess the view that the Supreme Court was the most important branch of federal government in assisting African Americans to achieve their civil rights in the period 1865-1992. The three main branches of America federal government often show great divergence of opinion - something that has a huge impact on the way laws and attitudes in the US change over time - and this is blindingly obvious in terms of the Civil Rights movement and the fight for African American civil rights - for example, even at times when Congress was highly conservative, the Supreme Court was able to make rulings, based on previous legislation, that dramatically improved the rights of African Americans, and even at times when the Supreme Court and Congress were both heavily opposed to further movement on the issue, the President was able to step in and issue Executive Orders. One of the first steps, of course, on the journey toward equal rights for African Americans was the 13th Amendment. Ultimately, unless the slaves had been freed, there could never have been equality for them with the rest of society. Followed by the 14th and 15th Amendments, which further extended the de jure rights of African Americans - indeed, the Amendments gave African Americans equal rights, in a de jure capacity. All three of these amendments were passed by Congress, and are indicative of the positive attitude towards the
To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of Red Tsar when assessing his rule in the context of Russian government from 1855- 1964?
To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of 'Red Tsar' when assessing his rule in the context of Russian government from 1855- 1964? When Stalin rose to power in 1929 he claimed to the Russian public that he was a devote follower of Leninism; his slogan 'Lenin is always with us'1 meant that Stalin wanted to show how similar he was to Lenin. However Stalin asserted his power at the head of government much like the Tsars by employing tactics of fear and propaganda. Stalin's personal dictatorship meant he had strong elements of being 'Red Tsar' as he established unquestionable rule, this idea of being a 'Red Tsar' came from the belief that Stalin wasn't committed to communism, as his traditional ideas were reminiscent of Tsarist autocratic rule, so effectively he was a fusion between the two ruling styles. As Stalin wished to portray himself as a 'God-like' figure; this made him an isolated leader who tolerated no criticism, similar to the style of ruling under the Tsars, as both leaders dismissed ministers at their own will and chose to act on their own personal feelings, for example like the Russification policy of employed by all the Tsars, but in particular Alexander II and the nationalistic policies of Stalin. Stalin's government was 'top-down'2, and unlike Lenin and Khrushchev, Stalin was very wary of how much his fellow party members knew. Therefore he employed a
Explain how the effects of the First World War caused the collapse of the Tsarist regime
) Explain how the effects of the First World War caused the collapse of the Tsarist regime (8 marks) There were many causes of the collapse of the Tsarist regime. One of the biggest causes, however, was the First World War, as it had many effects on everyone in Russia, who all blamed the Tsar. The Tsar abdicated in 1917 because he had no control over anyone in Russia. He had no support. This was because everyone in Russia blamed the Tsar for something. They layed all the blame at his feet because he was in charge and was the only person who could change things. One of the main reasons why the 1905 revolution failed was because the Tsar had the support and control of the military. By the time the 1917 revolution had started, the Tsar had lost this support and control. He had no protection. This happened because of the war. Firstly, the army was very poorly equipped, as some men didn't have any boots and only a third of men had rifles. The army also had very incompetent leaders. There is evidence of this in the battles at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes. In both of these, the 'huge Russian armies' (Brooman 1994) were wiped out when they should have easily beaten a single German army. The poor leadership combined with the poorly equipped army made Russia suffer many defeats in the war. By 1917, 0.8 million Russian troops had been killed, 4.6 million wounded and 3.3 million
Major Causes of French Revolution
The Major Causes of the French Revolution The French revolution overthrew the country's ancient monarchy, proclaimed Liberty, Equality and Fraternity and fought off a hostile Europe. It ushered in a new age, but at a terrible price in blood and human suffering. There were many causes of the Revolution. The French Revolution appears to have been the outcome of both long term and short term factors, which arose from the social and political conditions and conflicts of the ancien regime. The long standing grievances of peasants, townsmen and bourgeoisie; the frustration's of rising hopes among wealthy and 'middling' bourgeoisie and peasants; the distress and breakdown of government; a real (or at least perceived) 'feudal reaction'; the stubbornness of a privileged aristocracy; the creation of radical ideas among wide sections of the people; a sharp economic and financial crisis; and the successive triggers of state bankruptcy, aristocratic revolt and popular revolution: all these factors played a part. The middle and lower class were becoming more conscious of their increased social importance and because the peasants were becoming more independent, more literate and prosperous that the old feudal freedoms and aristocratic privileges appeared all the more burdensome and intolerable for the struggling discontents of France. For more than one hundred years before the accession
'In His Domestic Policy Between 1515 and 1529 Wolsey Promised Much But Achieved Little' - How Far Do You Agree With This Statement?
'In His Domestic Policy Between 1515 and 1529 Wolsey Promised Much But Achieved Little' - How Far Do You Agree With This Statement? Wolsey was a man of much promise. Born a butchers son in Ipswich in either 1472 or 1473, he had an undisputedly low say in the running of the country. He rose through the ranks of the English church, and excelled himself until the King, Henry VIII, appointed him Lord Chancellor in 1515. When in this positioned, he promised great amounts of modification to the Church, the people and the foreign policy. Not all of this was achieved though, and some would say that Wolsey achieved little. He did not. Wolsey made many promises, because he tried to impress people, and most importantly, Henry. He made so many promises because he wanted to keep his position in power, and the way to keep this was to promise people he would do things for them, even though he may have eventually not got round to doing them. Maybe Wolsey was greedy? Maybe he wanted to be King, but Henry just stood in his way? We do not know precisely why Wolsey promised so much; we can only assume that it was to keep his power. Wolsey had a programme for reformation of the government. He disliked anybody that came close to the King and threatened his position, and tried to get rid of them in a clever way, for example, the minions. Wolsey, when in his privy chamber, would have the Great
How serious a threat did the Puritans pose to Elizabeth I and her Church?
Top of Form How serious a threat did the Puritans pose to Elizabeth I and her Church? The rise of Puritan ideology in Elizabeth I's Church and Government was potentially an extremely dangerous threat to her power. However in practice, any attempts to promote Puritan ideas were crushed so quickly and effectively by Elizabeth that the movement never got the chance to develop into anything more serious. There was undoubtedly an increase in extreme Protestant views throughout her reign, an area of particular concern to Elizabeth being the Puritan tendencies of some of her most senior advisors. There were also some individuals from within the Church and within Elizabeth's government whose opposition to the Religious Settlement was influential to an extent, particularly during the 1570s, but all received a zero tolerance punishment and so never gained enough support to be a substantial threat to the Monarchy. Historians' views on the extent of the Puritan threat have been extremely varied, from J. E. Neale's argument for the rise of a Puritan parliamentary opposition, known as the 'Puritan Choir', to the less extreme views of those such as Michael Graves who agreed that 'the new generation of Presbyterian-Puritans did make concerted efforts to demolish the Religious Settlement', but that there was no evidence of a 'Puritan Choir'. John Guy agrees with Graves in that Neale based
The Liberal Reforms (1906-1914)
The Liberal Reforms (1906-1914) Between 1906 and 1914, the lives of many British people were improved due to the introduction of a series of welfare reforms by the Liberal Government. In 1906, the Liberals won the general election based on the values of "old" Liberalism, which favoured Laissez-Faire rather than government intervention. However, with the resignation of Campbell-Bannerman in 1908, and the introduction of David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill to the cabinet, these values were replaced by the values of "new" Liberalism. Both Churchill and Lloyd George were New Liberalists who believed that the state should look after the Welfare of those who could not help themselves. The government identified five main groups of people who were in need of help (the young, old, sick, unemployed and employed) and attempted to aid these groups of people by introducing several reforms. After it was made compulsory for children to attend school until the age of ten, it became obvious that many children were going to school hungry, dirty and/or suffering from ill health and hence were unable to focus on their work. This meant that children were not fully benefiting from the education system. Margaret Macmillan was an educationalist who firmly believed in the adage, "Feed the stomach, then the mind", and she pushed forward educational reforms. Also, the government had recognised
In what ways and to what extent does the concept of Spain's Golden Age apply more specifically to the reign of Philip II than to the whole period 1474 - 1598?
In what ways and to what extent does the concept of Spain's Golden Age apply more specifically to the reign of Philip II than to the whole period 1474 - 1598? Justify your answer by reference to the similarities and differences you detect between the periods before and after the accession of Philip in 1556 The concept of a Golden Age is a highly contested issue among modern and contempory historians. There is debate over the dates of such an age, or even its existence at all. Working on the assumption that a golden age occurred in some form, to deduce whether it was more specifically under Philip's reign, we must look at the condition of Spain in key areas before and after Philip's accession in 1556. If differences arise a judgement must be made on whether they were an improvement for Spain, or signify a decline. The keys issues include religion, the military, territory, the economy, law and order and the organisation of government. The Golden Age over all should be the period where most of these concerns have reached their peak. The point of entry into the Golden Age in terms of the army is complex, and depends on the definition, i.e. whether it is the number of troops or their individual skills, loyalty and motivation which determines it. In the period 1525 - 1536, the army was highly thought of and comprised of members of the aristocracy fighting for social pride and
Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused "the mid-Tudor crisis"?
Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused "the mid-Tudor crisis"? "The mid-Tudor crisis" is a term often used by historians to describe the reigns of Edward VI (1547-1553) and Mary I (1553-1558). This period can be seen as a crisis, due to the fact that there were so many problems, financial, social, religious and constitutional, all of which led to rebellions, and placed the country in a very unstable position. It is clear that many of the origins of this 'crisis' have their roots in the reign of Henry VIII, especially in his final years, and therefore to an extent his policies were responsible for the 'mid-Tudor crisis'. He left a very difficult legacy to his successors, but it must be remembered that Somerset exacerbated the problems already in existence and Northumberland and Mary then had the difficult task of resolving them. Henry VIII on his own can not be held entirely responsible for the crisis, he was only one contributing factor. There were many underlying social and economic problems which his policies did not cause. Henry's policies relating to the constitutional difficulties can not be held to blame for the crisis. Indeed, during his reign, Cromwell's reforms had actually made the Tudor state more powerful, but "this advantage was weakened by a minority". Before he died in 1547, Henry had attempted to prevent a power struggle by setting up a
