The life of James Derham Essay Example for Free

The life of James Derham Essay James Derham is identified as one among the ten most famous male nurses in the history of mankind (National Institute of Health). He is indeed termed as the first African-American to practice formal medicine in America despite the fact that he owned no M. D. degree. Derham was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by a slavery couple (Kirschman). Being a slave, he was owned by many medical practitioners, one of whom was Dr.  Robert Love, who identified Derham unique potential and encouraged him to practice medicine. With permission for his master, Dr. Robert Love, Derham successfully worked as a nurse, managing to by his freedom from slavery in 1783 (Kirschman). Being a freeman, he went on to open a medical practice. It is estimated that at the age of 26, Derham was earning over $3,000 annually from his medical practice (National Institute of Health). This has been closely attributed to large patient pool he enjoy owing to his ability to speak various languages. He was fluent in speaking English, French, and Spanish languages. It is claimed that Derham once met with the father of American medicine, Dr. Benjamin Rush, with whose encouragement he moved to continue his medical practice in Philadelphia (Kirschman). In Philadelphia, Derham emerged as a medical expert mainly dealing with the treatment of throat and climate caused diseases. He is given great honor for his historical contribution on the relationship between climate and diseases affecting mankind (National Institute of Health). However, James Derham disappeared in 1802 and no available information about his fate. He his believed not to have had married by the time he disappeared (Kirschman). Due to his honor, the state of New Orleans established the James Derham middle school in 1960. Derham was and still is a hero of the American history.

Emily Rice Essay -- English Literature

Emily Rice Both â€Å"Lamb to the slaughter† and â€Å"The Speckled Band† shares some of the characteristics of murder mysteries. Explain the similarities and differences between the two stories and say which story you think is more compelling to read. After reading both â€Å"Lamb to the slaughter† and â€Å"The Speckled Band† I intend to analyse the stories in detail showing their similarities, differences and success in fulfilling my expectations of a murder mystery story, taking into consideration that the two stories were written at very different periods in history. In order to do this I will make comparisons between characters, settings, language and overall story line, etc. I will constantly be considering how writing techniques and styles have changed through time and how this affects the story. Finally, I will attempt to come to a conclusion stating which story is generally most compelling to read. Roald Dahl and Arthur Conan Doyle were very different authors with very different writing styles, but they shared the same love for writing stories with a twist and for pleasing their readers in their own unique ways. They were both born in different centuries, had dissimilar views and were very incomparable for their time. Arthur Conan Doyle knew what the public wanted to read, they wanted to be able to associate with and love the main character, Sherlock Holmes. In this age, crime was at an all time high and people lived in fear of crime; with knowledge of this is, he decided to create an appropriate character. So, Conan Doyle wrote of a character that could solve mysteries and counteract crime in such a way that amazed the Victorian public so much that they became dependant on the stories. This meant that Cona... ...he murderer. I found this interesting. There were very clear difference in the two stories such as the time that they were written, the style of language and general story line. But, after looking more deeply into the plot I have found out that there are a lot of similarities between the stories. Even though writing styles have changed over time, the fact that authors need to know about their readers is a very important part of writing a story. After all, if the audience don’t like reading a certain story, it is likely that the rest of the nation won’t as nationalities usually share beliefs and opinions. If a story or book contradicts the opinions of people at the time they were written, the story will most likely be unsuccessful. In conclusion, the most important factor about these two stories is that they were suitable for the time they were written.

21st Century Racism in Canada Essay

Racism in Canada is one of the least publicised problems modern Canadian society has faced in the Twenty First Century. With the majority of the Canadian and world public holding the census that Canada through its lax immigration policies and political reform, is far from a racist state. This belief is a falsehood that has either been achieved through white lies from history textbooks or a lack of endeavor to uncover the real racial issues that permeate through out Canada. Canada has been and is a racist nation that continues to not face the fact that racism is alive and well in Twenty First Century Canada. Racism towards slaves coming to Canada in search of solace from the racist United States was not an uncommon occurrence in the mid 1800’s before the American civil war. Halifax was the last stop on the Underground Railroad, although what African Americans were coming to was a whole different story. The popular depiction is of slaves that were granted freedom and loved and welcomed into society, as evidenced by this television advertisement. (YouTube) The truth was a lot harsher. In Halifax the majority of freed black slaves resided in â€Å"Africville†, the atrocities of which are not widely known but are still keenly documented. In order to turn â€Å"Africville† from poor black slum to profitable industrial land, the city of Halifax erected a hospital for diseased WWII veterans nearby along with leaving massive mounds of toxic garbage to be incinerated in the same vicinity. (Taylin) â€Å"Africville† is not mentioned in Canadian history books nor do most people across Canada know of its existence. It was nothing short of genocide of people that Halifax felt did not deserve the rights any other Canadian citizen would take for granted. Racism towards black immigrants and natural-born Canadians was not and is not limited to â€Å"Africville† or even Nova Scotia for that matter. Don Oliver a Canadian senator pointed out how most Canadians do not know about great black Canadians. Portia White was a classical musician that was known the world over, and Elijah McCoy’s  invention of modern lubrication for industrial purposes were so famous that it is thought the catch phrase â€Å"The real McCoy† could have been named after him. (Oliver) History books as well as the public because of overt racism tend not to celebrate the successes of black Canadians. Although there are very notable exceptions especially in music such as popular rapper Drake and R&B singer The Weeknd, by and large only in sports and music are the successes of black Canadians prevalent in mainstream media. There have been numerous studies done to show the effect having colored skin has on every day life in Canada. Carlos Teixeira found that black Portuguese Immigrants faced significant disadvantages in housing in comparison to people who were not of color. The Study showed that in the rental market of Toronto, people of color could expect to pay on average 30% higher rental rates versus white counterparts of similar Portuguese descent. He further concluded that people of Asian descent also were subjected to the same treatment. (Teixeira) A further study where over 6,000 mock resumes were sent out showed that applicants that had Chinese, Pakistani or Indian sounding names got 40% less call backs than those with English sounding names. Although it should be seen that this study was conducted in Toronto and a different result perhaps not as favorable towards English sounding names could have been found in Quebec or other parts of Canada. The key point is if racism exists in Canada’s most multicultural city, how widespread and to what severity is racism in the rest of Canada. (Oreopolous, Dechief) The Canadian armed forces are noted world wide as one of the top armed forces, and are known to pay the second highest salary behind only the Australian army. However the racism that Mr. Fowler and Mr. Coward experienced while serving was clearly targeted towards their color. (CBC NEWS) It is impossible to fathom the l ow level of respect garnered for these men who put their lives on the line every day to defend a country that does not give them the respect they deserve simply because of their color. It should be noted that their case is still in the process of being investigated so any judgment as to whether they were subjected to racism cannot be confirmed. A study into Canada’s judicial system showed alarming results that independent juries are more likely to find black defendants guilty approximately 40% of the time more frequently than defendants of other races. This is worrying as it could have significant ramifications for Canadians of African descent residing in  Canada. (Pfeifer, J. E. , Ogloff, J. R. P.) This combined with recent findings in 2011 that black prison populations have risen by 52% since 2000, means that this issue has gone unresolved. Points should further be raised that the majority of the black prisoners are young and are spending their formative years in prison. This could have a knock on effect where they find it hard to integrate properly into society and influence more friends and such and could land themselves back behind bars. This could lead to many defendants getting â€Å"caught in a cycle of criminality†. (Crawford) The facts show that with the current education, welfare and societal norms in place, more and more black youth are behind bars than before and it is thought they will only end up back behind bars. The racism of minorities is probably most controversial when analyzed in the context of the abo riginal peoples of Canada. This is because they were originally not a minority but rather a majority as Canada is technically their land. The aboriginal people have been subjected to racism since the very beginning and the facts show it. â€Å"Aboriginal life expectancy is lower; they have fewer high school graduates, higher unemployment, almost twice as many infant deaths and spend more time in jail. They have lower incomes, enjoy fewer promotions in the workplace and remain, as a group, the poorest in Canada.† (Hutchings) The Indian Act was used to create â€Å"Indian Agents† which acted as sort of police for the aboriginal peoples but in truth denied them basic rights, such as the right to sit on juries, vote or permission was needed to do mundane tasks such as wearing traditional garments off the reserves. It was policies like these that truly segregated the aboriginal people from the mainstream consciousness and must have caused a chasm of sorts to exist between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. To combat this chasm between aboriginals and non-aboriginals Duncan Campbell Scott and the department of Indian affairs came up with the policy of enfranchisement. At first voluntary but later forced enfranchisement was used to basically strip Aboriginals of their Indian status. Getting university degrees, becoming doctors or ministers meant enfranchisement. In short it was trying to send the message that once Aboriginals became civilized and held positions of power and respect within the community they should no longer be looked at as Indian. Furthermore in a sexist as well as  a racist policy any Indian woman who married a non-Indian man would lose her status as an Indian as would her children. Duncan Campbell Scott went on later to state: â€Å"Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question and no Indian Department.† (Hutchings) It was clear from that quote alone that the Canadian governments views on Aboriginals at that time was that they should not exist and should be absorbed into the community. Canada would later give up the goal of enfranchising Aboriginal peoples after the â€Å"Lovelace† case that was brought before the International Court of Human Rights led to the United Nations condemning Canada for its discriminatory policies. It would be 1985 when Canada would pass bill C-31 to remove the discriminatory parts of the Indian Act. The Indian Act also gave the Canadian government the power to erect residential schools. Schools where pupils were malnourished, had to work to make up for inadequate funding and were taught â€Å"dumbed-down† subject material so that â€Å"To this end the curriculum in residential schools has been simplified and the practical instruction given is such as may be immediately of use to the pupil when he returns to the reserve after leaving school.† (Hutchings) This led to segregation of Indians and non-Indians from a very young age. The worst part about residential schools however was the physical and sexual abuse that went underway up until the 1970’s when schools started closing. Children’s tongues would be nailed down for speaking native languages, as well as having semi regular checks of genitalia. The abuse was so widespread and gruesome that the Canadian government pledged over three hundred and fifty million dollars to help the Aboriginal peoples that attended the residential schools. The Canadian government continues to however maintain the Indian Act, which by sheer existence is a blatant act of racism. The act itself means that Aboriginal peoples are treated in a different way than other Canadian citizens, there is no other first world country in the world that has policies that differentiate people based solely on the race. Canada is often seen as very welcoming towards the Asian peoples with a  recent study by the Canadian Immigration showing that by 2031 it is predicted that white people will be in the minority in cities of Toronto and Vancouver. (Young) This however was not always the case with the infamous â€Å"Chinese head tax† that was invoked on Chinese immigrants. The tax rose from fifty dollars to five hundred dollars during the period of 1900 to 1903. This is inexcusable and blatantly targeted those not just of Chinese descent but rather â€Å"Orientals† in general. (Greengrass) The racism towards the Chinese reached a high on July 1, 1923 when the Chinese Immigration Act was invoked. It is more commonly known to Chinese Canadians as â€Å"Humiliation Day†. The act meant that only selected classes of Chinese immigrants would be granted entry into Canada, namely Diplomats, students, children of Canadians and Investors. Canada was now openly using racist policies to pick and choose which class of a certain race of people they wanted to enter their country. Only in May of 1939, was the Chinese Immigration Act receded. In general South East Asian’s were subjected to not being granted entry in Canada simply because of their race. Between 1914 and 1920, only a single Indian was admitted into Canada because of the racist immigration policies in place. The discrimination against Indians came to a head when The â€Å"Komagatu-Maru† passenger vessel was denied entry into Vancouver even though there were three hundred and seventy six Indians on board having sailed all the way from China. (Greengrass) It is quite possible that the worst treatment towards â€Å"Orientals† was in fact towards the Japanese that called Canada home or were otherwise refugees. During the period of the second world war, in 1942 Japanese Canadians were forced to live in camps, the living conditions were only slightly better than the camps that the Nazi’s had built. (Greengrass) The Japanese people were subjected to a comparable fate as Jews would have felt in Nazi Germany, however there was no extermination or genocide on the scale of Nazi Germany. All in all, the biggest conclusion should come through a key exclusion. There is no racial prejudice that has been recorded towards that of â€Å"White Aryan† Canadians. Canada is a racist country and has clearly been one for some time. Although the Canadian government has apologized and tried to make amends the clear sentiment still permeates through the people. It is something I personally felt while residing in Ottawa. Whether Canada likes it or not, by the year 2031, whites will no longer be of the majority in the two biggest cities in  Canada. This brings a certain comfort as change is coming and there seems to be no way to halt it. Those who remain and insist on fielding racist views will be forced to change or may face racism on themselves. Although no two wrongs make a right, it is probably of no comfort to racist Canadians that history does repeat itself. I personally am of the belief that should Canada grow to appreciate what makes different cultures unique and create a â€Å"fusion culture† whereby different customs are integrated into Canadian customs, Canada as a whole will benefit. Works Cited Crawford, Alison. â€Å"Prison Watchdog Probes Spike in Number of Black Inmates.† CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 15 Dec. 2011. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. . Greengrass, John. â€Å"A HISTORY OF RACISM IN CANADA’S IMMIGRATION POLICY.† Peoples Commission. Peoples Commission, 13 May 2010. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. . Hutchings, Claire. â€Å"Canada’s First Nations: The Legacy of Institutional Racism.† Canada’s First Nations: The Legacy of Institutional Racism. Tolerence, 04 Feb. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. . News, CBC. â€Å"‘Systemic’ Racism in Canadian Forces Needs Inquiry, Veterans Say – Nova Scotia – CBC News.† CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 13 Mar. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. . Oliver, Don. â€Å"What It Means to Be Black in Canada.† The Mark News. The Mark News, 14 July 2011. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. . Oreopoulos, Philip, and Diane Dechief. â€Å"Why Do Some Employers Prefer to Interview Matthew, but Not Samir? New Evidence from Toron to, Montreal, and Vancouver.† Metropolis British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Research OnWorking Paper Series N/A 11-13.N/A (2011): 1-68. Http://mbc.metropolis.net/assets/uploads/files/wp/2011/WP11-13.pdf. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. â€Å"A Part Of Our Heritage – Underground Railroad.† YouTube. YouTube, 09 May 2007. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. . Pfeifer, Jeffrey E., and James R. P. Ogloff. â€Å"Ambiguity and Guilt Determinations: A Modern Racism Perspective1.† Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21.21 (1991): 1713-725. Print. Tavlin, Noah. â€Å"Africville: Canada’s Secret Racist History | VICE Canada.† VICE. VICE, 04 Feb. 2013. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. . Teixeira, Carlos. â€Å"Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Volume 23, Issue 4 – Springer.† Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Volume 23, Issue 4 – Springer. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 12 Sept. 2008. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. . Young, Ian. â€Å"Chinese Numbe rs in Vancouver, Toronto to Double by 2031.† South China Morning Post. South China Morning Post, 06 Apr. 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. .

Presidential Bill Signing Statements - Purposes and Legality

A bill signing statement is an optional written directive issued by the President of the United States upon signing a bill into law. Signing statements are typically printed along with the text of the bill in the United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (USCCAN). Signing statements typically begin with the phrase â€Å"This bill, which I have signed today†¦Ã¢â‚¬  and continue with a synopsis of the bill and several paragraphs of often-political commentary on how the bill should be enforced. In his article Imperial Presidency 101-the Unitary Executive Theory, Civil Liberties Guide Tom Head refers to presidential signing statements as being documents in which the president signs a bill but also specifies which parts of a bill he or she actually intends to enforce. On the face of it, that sounds terrible. Why even have Congress go through the legislative process if presidents can unilaterally re-write the laws it enacts? Before flatly condemning them, there are some things you need to know about presidential signing statements. Source of the Power   The presidents legislative power to issue signing statements is based in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that the president shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed... Signing statements are considered to be one way in which the president faithfully executes the laws passed by Congress. This interpretation is supported by the U.S. Supreme Courts 1986 decision in the case of Bowsher v. Synar, which held that ... interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of execution of the law. Purposes and effect of signing statements In 1993, the Department of Justice attempted to define the four purposes for presidential signing statements and the constitutional legitimacy of each: To simply explain what the bill will do and how it will benefit the people: No controversy here.To instruct the responsible Executive Branch agencies on how the law should be administered: This use of signing statements, says the Justice Department, is constitutional and is upheld by the Supreme Court in Bowsher v. Synar. Executive Branch officials are legally bound by the interpretations contained in presidential signing statements.To define the presidents opinion of the laws constitutionality: More controversial than the first two, this use of the signing statement typically has one of at least three sub-purposes: to identify certain conditions under which the president thinks all or parts of the law could be ruled unconstitutional; to frame the law in a manner that would save it from being declared unconstitutional; to state that the entire law, in the presidents opinion, unconstitutionally usurps his authority and that he will refuse to enforce it.Through Republican and Democrati c administrations, the Department of Justice has consistently advised presidents that the Constitution gives them the authority to refuse to enforce laws they believed to be clearly unconstitutional, and that expressing their intent through a signing statement is a valid exercise of their constitutional authority.On the other hand, it has been argued that it is the president’s constitutional duty to veto and refuse to sign bills he or she believes to be unconstitutional. In 1791, Thomas Jefferson, as the nation’s first Secretary of State, advised President George Washington that the veto â€Å"is the shield provided by the constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature [of] 1. the rights of the Executive 2. of the Judiciary 3. of the states and state legislatures.† Indeed, past presidents including Jefferson and Madison have vetoed bills on constitutional grounds, even though they supported the bills’ underlying purposes.To create a type of legislative history intended to be used by the courts in future interpretations of the law: Criticized as an attempt by the president to actually invade Congress turf by taking an active part in the law-making process, this is clearly the most controversial of all the uses for signing statements. The president, they argue, attempts to amend legislation passed by Congress through this type of signing statement. According to the Justice Department, the legislative history signing statement originated in the Reagan Administration. In 1986, then-Attorney General Meese entered into an arrangement with the West Publishing Company to have presidential signing statements published for the first time in the U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, the standard collection of legislative history. Attorney General Meese explained the purpose of his actions as follows: To make sure that the Presidents own understanding of whats in a bill is the same . . . or is given consideration at the time of statutory construction later on by a court, we have now arranged with the West Publishing Company that the presidential statement on the signing of a bill will accompany the legislative history from Congress so that all can be available to the court for future construction of what that statute really means. The Department of Justice offers views both supporting and condemning presidential signing statements through which presidents seems to take an active role in the lawmaking process: In Support of Signing Statements  Ã‚   The president has a constitutional right and political duty to play a integral role in the legislative process. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires that the president shall from time to time recommend to [Congress] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. Further, Article I, Section 7 requires that to become and actual law, a bill requires the presidents signature. If he [the president] approve it he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated. In his widely acclaimed The American Presidency, 110 (2d ed. 1960), author Clinton Rossiter, suggests that over time, the president has become a sort of prime minister or third House of Congress. . . . [H]e is now expected to make detailed recommendations in the form of messages and proposed bills, to watch them closely in their tortuous progress on the floor and in committee in each house, and to use every honorable means within his power to persuade . . . Congress to give him what he wanted in the first place. Thus, suggests the Justice Department, it may be appropriate for the president, through signing statements, to explain what his (and Congress) intention was in making the law and how it will be implemented, particularly if the administration had originated the legislation or played a significant part in moving it through Congress. Opposing Signing Statements The argument against a president using signing statements to alter Congress intent as to meaning and enforcement of new laws is once again based in the constitution. Article I, Section 1 clearly states, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Not in a Senate and House and a president. Along the long road of committee consideration, floor debate, roll call votes, conference committees, more debate and more votes, the Congress alone creates the legislative history of a bill. It can also be argued that by attempting to reinterpret or even nullify parts of a bill which he has signed, the president is exercising a type of line-item veto, a power not currently bestowed on presidents. Tough the practice pre-dates his administration, some of the signing statements issued by President George W. Bush were criticized for including language that too extensively changing the meaning of the bill. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to â€Å"undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.† Summary The recent use of presidential signing statements to functionally amend legislation passed by Congress remains controversial and is arguably not within the scope of powers granted to the president by the Constitution. The other less controversial uses of signing statements are legitimate, can be defended under the Constitution and can be useful in the long-term administration of our laws. Like any other power, however, the power of presidential signing statements can be abused.