According to Neal (2007, p.46) “Potent social forces [capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism, home ownership] do exist and being homeless is to lose a stake in several of them” This paper will explore three different theoretical approaches to addressing the homeless problem that plagues our society from three different social theorists in the historical context of Classical, modernist and postmodern. Karl Marx, a social theorist from the classical era challenged the status quo by illustrating the effect the rich bourgeoisie had on the proletariat. According to Marx the bourgeoisie, represented the rich oppressors who exploited the working class.
Myrtle cheating on Mr. Wilson shows Fitzgerald characterizing her as a money hungry classist individual whose only care is gaining a large amount of wealth to achieve the American Dream, not caring about those who it hurts such as Mr. Wilson who represents the lower socioeconomic class in the book. In a similar way, the redevelopment of Willets Point is an example of how the American Dream and classism affects those who are not affluent enough to fight back. Urban redevelopment like this only usually helps those who are already wealthy while hurting those who do not have anything to gain from it. For example, in an article by Kenneth Jackson he writes “[destroying] working-class neighborhoods to luxury apartments, breathtaking medical and cultural centers” (Robert Moses and the Rise of New York). In this situation, the people in the working-class neighborhoods have their homes decimated to make more suitable living conditions for those who are above that working socioeconomic class and who can afford to spend the large amount of money required to live
With all these negative consequences in mind, deficit spending was very bad for the economy that caused lots of problems. This reason connects to the claim because it demonstrates the negatives of deficit spending along with the New Deal. After the government spends all their money on everything for the New Deal, it affects the economy by having them pay many taxes. This could cause citizens to move out and populate the area which
“....fearful the poor would plunder the rich… (they) admitted that the rich, unrestrained, would also plunder the poor (Hofstadter 57).” One class can not have too much power because it would lead to an anarchy. This document meant to hold up a democracy, not anarchy. The reason why the rich benefitted from the system was because if they had not, the social classes would have been
Britain however, expected compliance from the colonists since they believed that colonists led a wealthy and comfortable life. This was in fact false, “While fighting in America in the French and Indian War, British soldiers had been entertained by wealthy colonials. From this, the soldiers had gotten the impression that all Americans were wealthy.” Also, at the time, the many colonists were tortured by a smallpox epidemic. Consequently, colonists believed that the Crown, someone that is ignorant and lacked sympathy for its own people, is willing take advantage of the colonists at a time of great economic hardship and deadly epidemic, in order to benefit British soldiers and citizens.
The Dutch were based on the Hudson River, the Dutch and English were also hostile towards one another. Picture: This picture relates to the section by showing the area that was settled by the Dutch 3.12 Friction with English and Swedish Neighbors Three Facts: 1. Three of the four colonies in New England had chosen to abolish the expanding Dutch Colony 2. Swedish went and colonized on Dutch land and then got overtaken by the Dutch 3.
Where for example if a wealthy person gets into a fight usually they say “well oh boys will be boys”. If we were to see that happen with a poor person specifically from the hood he would then be seen as a “thug”. People in society tend to think that these type of things are okay and they become the norm. These types of things are not okay and makes one realize how important money really is and how much it can contribute to certain situations.
The feudalism system for England starts from peasant for the losts and merchants and tax collectors after that military people protecting high ranking people and then comes noble class people who are born into money or buy or gets deeds. It affected Democracy when people started to learned how to read and write and they wanted the same right and realized how unfair it was and fought for their right of a normal life and a thing was that getting tax from people was a thing and know it still is but sometimes it is use for good things but also bad things. Feudalisation was somewhat the bases of democracy big thing in difference and many in the same like how each one has a leader but one leader can control anything and one has the supreme court and the
In 1890, Jacob Riis' “How the Other Half Lives” was published. This shocked and informed viewers by showing them the living conditions among the urban poor. Reformers among many other people sympathized towards children, working families, and migrant families due to this. The reformers believed they understood the poor and they despised the rich from creating these problems. The rich is the upper 10% of the economic ladder.
Consequently, many rich Americans believed in this view, and used it as an explanation of why some are poor and some are rich. Additionally, a similar view is expressed in Progress & Poverty, written by J.M Dent. (Doc. 11). In Progress & Poverty, Dent explains that an uneven distribution of wealth will aid social progress, because it will drive people to work harder, which in almost all cases, never worked, and only caused social unrest and strikes. Conversely, some politicians fought for workers’ rights and developed legislation in response.
This war took substantial financial toll on England, which led to England’s “simple” idea that colonists should be the ones to help pay off the debt of the war. This led to a series of events in which the policies being passed in parliament were unfair to the colonies. This is what began
According to , progressives were “enamored by science and efficiency.” Opposite of social Darwinists, progressives believed that the greed of corporations and the corruption of political figures led to the destitution of many communities. Also, rather than applying the theory of evolution like social Darwinists, progressives studied the poverty-stricken communities and discovered that there were also higher concentrations of disease in poor communities. The progressives eventually came to the conclusion that the problem was the conditions in which the poor families lived and worked. The high costs of housing forced people into small unsanitary tenant houses.
In Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics” he explains that the world we live in is unequal and becoming increasingly poor. He tries to explain that if the poverty isn’t controlled, then the Earth will become completely poor and unrestrained. I believe that Hardin’s writing of “Lifeboat Ethics” is effective and persuasive, because with every solution to fix the poverty of our world he has a counterargument. Hardin uses numbers and percentages to show the population increases of poor countries versus rich ones, and he also paints pictures, using metaphors.
One reason this name fits better is because they often exploited their workers. Henry George demonstrated this in his book, Progress and Poverty, by talking about the ever growing wage gap between the lower and upper class workers (Doc A). In 1889, a cartoon titled The Robber Barons of Today gave a literal insight as to how awful the exploitation got, showing scrawny farmers surrendering their money to fat well-dressed men (Doc D). The populist presidential candidate of 1892, James B. Weaver, even went as far as saying “trusts had no conscience” (Doc E). Really, the only people who favored the robber barons were the government to expand the U.S. Coal mines would often only take a worker if he agreed to bring his son with him.