Religious Liberty in Public Schools Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Religious Liberty in Public Schools - Essay Example It goes a long way in eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion in public places. This is what informed the decision in Van Orden v Perry (2005), where the Supreme Court held that the Ten Commandment on the government monument at the Texas State Capitol violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  The issue of religious expression in public places, especially in schools, is an area that has attracted a series of serious debates. Many of these matters always find their way in court. In the case of Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the state of Pennsylvania required that ten verses should be read from the Holy Bible each morning in public schools each school day. The majority of Supreme Court judges found this to contravene the First Amendment.  Just as in the above-mentioned case, it would be wrong to display the student’s depiction of Jesus Christ in class as this would be going against the First Amendment as that would amount to leaning t owards Christianity as opposed to the required neutrality in the public schools towards religion (Ackerman, 2001).  Putting all these factors into consideration, it would therefore go against some student’s rights, as this is a captive audience, and can be easily swayed into believing something that is against their religious creed. It is therefore important not to display that kind of work in class to protect the constitutional rights of the other students and avoid violating the First Amendment, which could have in itself dire consequences.

Messy People Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Messy People - Essay Example Interestingly, I usually feel that I can normally do extraordinary things compared to my organized friends. Friends and classmates have always complained to me to slightly minimize my level of messiness but I still believe that I am in the right truck. I feel that messiness makes life very easy because it does not require seriousness in almost every element. Nevertheless, I have also had several praises from my other friends for being unique, hardworking and intelligent. Because I do not normally clear my table before I start working because I treat it as a waste of time, I normally do things and achieve my targets very fast. I do not normally pan for the clothes I wear or even rigidly plan for what to do the next day in the office since anything new or emergency may crop up. I have been criticized by a friend whom I think is extremely organized. Organized people tend to be more efficient and always act and think more logically compared to the messy people. Also, organized people kno w exactly what they are doing and what their next step should be. Organized people usually plan for everything they do and have very minimal chances of making mistakes. This really wastes a lot of time. It may be right that getting organized is a waste of time and therefore an individual who is naturally messy should not waste time in trying to get organized. Organizing especially data or any other important information in a particular place may be a bit risky as it covers an inner chaos and insecurity. Additionally, sorting and organizing things in an orderly way may greatly waste a lot of time. I may be able to do a lot of work by utilizing time that would have been wasted in doing organization. I do not have to take longer time trying to do filling or even finding a piece of information from a file. Nonetheless it should be noted that messiness does not mean being disorganized (Freedman Web). I tend to think that planning and scheduling events as it is done by my extremely organi zed friend is a sign of rigidity in the way he does his work. I think that it is still logical to schedule events by the hour as this creates room for surprises. Blending flexibility in organizing work gives a room to plan around every curve that may appear ahead. However, Messy people may easily make mistake and are increasingly inefficient. I believe that messiness should not be extreme as this may be dangerous in some instances. On the other hand, a very messy individual may not be as productive as moderately messy or organized individuals because they may not take things seriously (Freedman Web I have noted that messiness should have a limit especially when I consider state of another friend of mine. In most cases, the friend has to search for valuable materials from accumulated garbage which also occupies a very large space in his table. Not once has he ever complained about missing possessions which he later realizes that mixed with trash. Moreover, he normally looks out of co ntrol both personally and professionally. He seems lazy and ignorant or rather very forgetful. I suggested to him that he should organize himself and set reminders otherwise his messiness may turn up to be a serious and dangerous mess. Hanging around him especially in his room may be very boring and hazardous. There may be small pins on the floor that constantly injure him or even stepping on some crucial documents or gadgets (Freedman

Lord Palmerstons Achievements as Foreign Secretary

Lord Palmerstons Achievements as Foreign Secretary Assess the achievement of Palmerstons first period at the Foreign Office, between 1830 and 1841. Viscount Palmerston was, without doubt, one of the most famous foreign secretaries ever to have held the office- and he did so on two occasions- between 1830-41, and 1846-52. As with many famous figures he is also rather a controversial one, receiving a mixture of praise and criticism from historians. Anthony Wood generally sees him as a dextrous negotiator, who threatened to use force in a judicious and responsible manner[1]. Eric Evans, on the other hand, is more inclined to see Palmerston’s obvious sabre rattling and ‘Gun Boat diplomacy’ as an irresponsible and unprincipled pursuit of the National interest[2] that aggravated diplomatic wounds (especially with the French) – and left Lord Aberdeen (when he took over in 1841) to ‘pick up the pieces’[3]. The function of this essay will be to evaluate Palmerton’s achievements in the first (and perhaps more influential) period under the premierships of Earl Grey and Lord Melborne in light o f this historiographical debate. This essay will adopt a chronological structure to facilitate the clarity of discussion. It will cover the three most famous events in British Foreign affairs in this period- the Belgium Crisis of 1830-1, the creation of the Quadruple Alliance in 1834, the finally the Egyptian Crises concerning France and Russia from 1831-41. It will then assess if, on balance, Palemerston’s first period at the Foreign Office can generally be called a success, as argued by Wood, or in fact did more harm than good- as argued by Evans. Palmerston’s general attitude to foreign affairs was famously one of the pursuit of national self-interest above the maintenance of any kind of consistent, or ‘ethical’ position. He told the House of Commons: â€Å"We have no eternal allies, we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow† For Evans, this was attitude represented a carte blance form of pragmatism. Palmerston was able to wrap himself in the union jack- often mobilising British public opinion behind him- and effectively conduct himself as he pleased with little regard for the sovereignty or stability of other nations- and most importantly- without any regard for long term-worsening of diplomatic relations. This approach was first demonstrated in respect of the Crisis in Belgium in 1830-1. In the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Belgium had been placed under the United Provinces of the Dutch- ignoring the obvious differences in religion and national feeling[4]. Eventually, Belgium Patriots were able to gather enough support to drive out the Dutch garrison from Brussels. King Louis Phillipe, who had come to power in France in 1830, was known to favour a satellite Belgium state under a French protectorate- although it was unknown as the extent the French were prepared to use military force to get it. At a London conference in 1831, Palmerston found himself in a difficult position- but refused to hand over two fortresses on the Belgium border to the French- thus ensuring the creation of a neutral Belgium. Some months later, after the French posted troops inside Belgium, Palmerston let it be known that he would be prepared to use force against them if they did not withdraw[5]. The French could n ot take this risk, and retreated. A treaty was signed in December 1832, establishing an international guarantee of Belgium’s neutrality. On the face of it, this seemed like a triumph for Palmeston. It could be argued that he had played the game of diplomatic bluff to perfection, and by refusing to assent to French demands and sabre rattling, had achieved a settlement most inkeeping with his goal of maintaining British national interest- and one which ensured a potentially dangerous French power-base did not grow any more menacing. However, there was no doubt that ‘Lord Pumicestone’s’ abrasive qualities had soured Anglo-French relations and perhaps a more delicate and consensual stance might have yielded a more satisfactory outcome to all sides The diplomatic problems with France did not go away. In 1834, the Queens of Spain and Portugal (who were constitutional rulers) were threatened by absolutist regimes in their own countries- and Palmerston was suspicious that the French planned to take advantage. His idea to create a ‘Quadruple Alliance’ between all four countries seemed, on the face of it, another great success. France could not diplomatically refuse an alliance already agreed to by Britain, Spain, and Portugal[6], and was seemingly once again outmanoeuvred by what Palmerston called a ‘Capital Hit all of my own doing’ (He was not known for his modesty). Palmerston had always been unequivocal in his support for Constitutional rulers, and Britain’s self-interest was arguably sustained by the maintenance of moderate regimes in the Iberian Peninsula[7]. On this occasion, he had arguably used diplomatic guile rather than the implied threat of military force to achieve success- so it can pe rhaps be said that Palmerston was occasionally prepared to dock his gunboat for a spot of peaceful diplomacy. Once again, though, the price of safeguarding British Interests had worsened Anglo-French relations. In 1831, Mehemet Ali, a rebellious vassal of the Turkish Sultan Mahmud in Egypt, declared war and took possession of Palestine and Syria from the Turkish Empire. The Russians- in offering to help forced the beleaguered Sultan to sign a rough treaty which effectively passed control of the strategically vital Unkiar Skelessi Straits to them. Palmerston was worried about an escalation of Russian influence- as it heightened his fear of a potential alliance between Russia and France. In 1839, the Sultan made an ill-advised attack on Ali, and ended up suffering an ignominious defeat, and gave the vassal his excuse to carry the war deep into Turkish territory. It was Palmerston’s policy to support Turkey, mainly because it dispersed the power base of Europe, and also because of a recently signed commercial treaty between the two nations. The Turkish town of Aden (which had the added benefit of being a useful place for British steamships to replenish their coal stocks en route to Ind ia) was placed under a British protectorate. Rather predictably, the French sided with Mehemet Ali. Palmerston offered a deal to his enemies- that Ali could retain Egypt and Syria for his lifetime, but the French encouraged him to turn it down. Palmerston refused to climb down, and instructed Lord Granville (the British Ambassador in Paris) to: â€Å"Covey to him (King Louis Phillipe) in the most friendly and unoffensive manner possible†¦that if France begins a war, she will lose her ships, colonies and commerce before she sees the end of it; that her army of Algiers will cease to give her anxiety, and that Mehemet Ali will be chucked into the Nile†[8] This uncompromising stance once again was a gamble, made more intense when British Marines helped capture the cities of Acre and Beirut after Ali rejected Palmerston’s deal. France (also worried by threatening movements in Bavaria) was in no position to engage Britain in a war, and she ended up having to aid Britain and Russia to defeat Ali[9]. Eventually, Russia was even persuaded to relinquish control of the Straits, and all four powers agreed to return to the original settlement of 1809[10]. Disaster had seemingly been diverted again by Palmerston’s tough diplomatic line. For Wood, he had read France’s hand perfectly[11], and once again maintained peace, even if (for Evans) he had put several noses out of joint with more ‘Gun Boat Diplomacy’[12]. In Conclusion, this essay has shown that Palmerston’s abrasive approach to Foreign policy was generally a great success. In each of the three instances covered, his reluctance to compromise worked in Britain’s interests, and against those of France- her eternal foe. Undoubtedly, he did prioritise the national interest above all else, but it could be argued that- such was Britain’s dominance- that her interests and the goal of stability and peace in Europe were by no means unrelated. In fact, one could argue from this evidence that they were very closely linked, and that maybe Palmerston’s reputation as irresponsible is slightly unfounded. It can be said that Palmerston’s hands-on and confrontational approach was extremely risky, and that there was a large element of luck involved in achieving a successful outcome on each occasion. For example, had France not withdrawn from Belgium in 1831, a bloody war might have ensured. In 1839, it may only have been the sudden advent of threatening activity in Prussia that made the French swallow their pride, and abandon Mehemet Ali. Palmerston was also aided by his fleet of gunboats that backed up everything he said. Britain’s naval dominance at that time allowed him to adopt a far more hard-line and interventionist approach than many other Foreign Secretaries before or since. Overall, Palmerston’s guile- backed up by his luck and his powerbase made his period at the Foreign Office between 1830-41 extremely successful, but arguably it could have easily gone horribly wrong. Bibliography Wood, A, ‘Lord Palmerston at the Foreign Office 1830-41’ in Nineteenth Century Britain , 1960, Longman Droz, J, Europe between Revolutions 1815-48, 1967, Fontana/Collins Evans, E, ‘Influence without Entanglement: Foreign Affairs, 1815-46’ in The Forging of the Modern State 1783-1870, 1983, Longman Felling, K, A History of England, 1973, Book Club Associates Roberts, J, A History of Europe, 1996, Helicon Publishing Word-Count- 1620 1 Footnotes [1] See Wood, ‘Lord Palmerston at the Foreign Office 1830-41’ in Nineteenth Century Britain , 1960, pp.156-63 [2] See Evans, ‘Influence without Entanglement: Foreign Affairs, 1815-46’ in The Forging of the Modern State 1783-1870, 1983, pp.210-3 [3] ibid, p.211 [4] Wood, pp.157-8 [5] In a letter to Granville, he wrote â€Å"The French must go out of Belgium or we have a general War†. See Wood, p. 159 [6] Droz, Europe between Revolutions 1815-48, 1967, p.236 [7] Evans, p.211 [8] See Evans p. 211, also Wood, p.157 [9] Felling, A History of England, 1973, p. 856 [10] Wood, p.163 [11] ibid [12] Evans, p.211

The Future of Social Security :: Papers Politics Welfare Essays Papers

The Future of Social Security Social Security is a system that was set up in 1935 after the Great depression to help people get through tough times. "Social Security is now used by nearly 44 million Americans"(policy.com). Only people who payed into social security are eligible to collect when they retire. Many people think that they receive the money they pay in but that is not total true. The money that you pay in is used for the people that are receiving it now. "In 1950 there were 16 workers for every beneficiary; today there are only three workers per beneficiary"(policy.com). There is more money going into social security then coming out now. The extra money goes into a trust to be used when it is needed. By the year 2032 those numbers are going to drop. By this time most baby boomers will be retired and collecting social security. This will put a big strain on the funds. There will be more money going out then coming in. And it will not take long to use all the money that is in the trust. By th e year 2034 they will only be able to pay 75 percent of the beneficiaries. "The projected average monthly Social Security benefit in 2032 of about 1,100 (in 1998 dollars) would fall to about $800, and would drop further in later years. Average benefits for low-wage earners would drop from $670 to $480"(www.ssab). Theses cut would effect the people just starting to receive benefits and those who are already receiving benefits. And with each year these benefits will decrease. As these benefits continue to decrease "the percentage of aged people living in poverty would rise"(www.ssab).Most people believe this is happening because of the baby boomers generation. There will be more people taking from social security then giving in. By the time my generation is eliable to receive social security there may not be any money to give. Everyone is worried about the future of the social security system. They wonder how long it can last after the year 2030. There are many ways people are suggesting to deal with the problem. Some suggest to raise taxes on social security "In order to continue paying full benefits in 2032 and for about 40 therefore, the law would have to be changed to increase social security taxes by almost one-half, from the current 12.

Marine Protected Areas: Are They Generally Effective

Whether coral reef marine protected areas actually protect at risk species is an important issue to consider. Knowing the answer could lead to a better ability to answer other questions about marine environments. For example, a more defined correlation could be made between the increasing number of shark attacks in coastal areas and the overfishing of marine populations on which sharks subsist. The effectiveness of marine protected areas (MPAs) is of key importance in assessing whether certain efforts to protect at risk species actually work. Given that 70% of the planet is covered in ocean, species in terrestrial habitats are certainly affected by the biological status of marine environments. The growing degradation of biodiversity and biomass in earths’ marine ecosystem could be driving sharks to find more fulfilling meals in non-traditional feeding areas – coastal areas that humans use for recreation. The topic therefore deserves research because the very actions of terrestrial species, like humans, may generate harmful long-term effects. In essence, users of marine resources are demonstrably interested in the relative short-tem gains from marine ecosystems while ignoring long-term effects of over-usage. Yet, setting aside areas to protect after or from over-usage does not necessarily mean all marine species are protected. More important, the enforcement of marine protected areas (MPAs) conflicts with socio-economic issues in communities that currently fish them or did so in the past. The mainstream article â€Å"Marine-protected Areas: It Takes a Village, Study Says,† looks at just how much society may assume about the extent of protection at risk species receive. When told an area is protected it is logically assumed that no fishing takes place in an MPA. To that end and by way of explanation, this article posits that the issue of protection actually depends on the consideration of at least three factors. The factors are as follows: (1) how affective is the management of a MPA; (2) whether management takes into account socio-economic effects on local communities; and (3) whether the socio-economic effects will complicate enforcement of an MPA. In essence, the article attempts to tell the audience that MPAs are made more effective for the consideration given local socio-economic issues. The article implies that on average MPAs are not as effective as hoped and even hazards and explanation. For example, government controlled MPAs, invisible to a community; propose two immediate dangers to the MPA by reason of invisibility. The community is both unaware of the benefits of avoiding overfishing and equally ignorant of methods of MPA enforcement. The article ultimately surmises that on a large scale, consideration being given to all marine protected areas, the most effective means of preserving species diversity, number and size would involve applying both the methods of traditionally managed systems (MPAs for small areas) and permanent marine protected areas (usually large). In such a scenario permanent MPAs would benefit species with slow overfishing recovery times while rewarding small communities for their efforts at conservation and allowing them to see its direct benefits. The source for the mainstream article was a study published in Current Biology, entitled â€Å"A Comparison of Marine Protected Areas and Alternative Approaches to Coral-Reef Management.† This article naturally takes a more scientific approach in making its argument. Therefore, it is unsuitable for a mainstream audience reading at different levels of comfort with scientific and statistical terminology. It looks at four types of MPAs in addition to four reasons why the areas presumably offer ineffective protection for certain species. Its use of graphs and tables, largely meant to reify the study’s argument for a scientific audience, all support the argument that the success of MPA enforcement decides its effectiveness. The mainstream article apparently makes use of the summary and conclusion in the scientific article’s content but glosses over its conclusions. The scientific article never implicitly states, as does the mainstream, that a combination of traditionally managed systems and permanent MPAs are important to protecting biodiversity. Rather, the mainstream article calls for a more simplified approach to what the scientific article implies is quite complicated. The institution of effective MPAs are complicated by how enforcement will be carried out in the face of the social, economic, and cultural context of communities in the center of areas designated as important to the maintenance of coral reef biodiversity. To some extent the mainstream article captures the essential points of the scientific article. For example it accurately conveys to readers that enforcement of MPAs is more complicated than designating an MPA. The mainstream article, despite its brevity, also manages to inform readers that there are different kinds of MPAs and that they work differently to solve problems. Take permanent MPAs which protect species at risk from overfishing. However, the mainstream article is guilty of minor sensationalism. The research this article is based upon looks at solutions for small, isolated communities as well as the benefits of permanent MPAs. It does not, as the mainstream article erroneously extrapolates, propose a combination of methods of traditionally managed systems and permanent MPAs, toward achieving biodiversity. A possible improvement upon the essentially good summarization, provided by the mainstream article, would include a definition of an MPA at its beginning. A more satisfactory conclusion would include a reminder that the findings of the study it summarized, applied to small, economically isolated communities. The conclusion could also inform readers of the larger implications of the study by referencing the fact that California is enjoying moderate success in its establishment of MPAs along its entire coast (â€Å"Transforming Ocean Policy,† 2006). The above would then provide supporting evidence for the highly probable tendency of mainstream readers to assume findings in the study are applicable outside of the small communities it examines. With regard to California’s efforts to establish MPAs along its coast only time will indicate success, hence, the importance of routinely researching the effectiveness of any efforts in wildlife conservation. It is particularly important to assess the enforcement of MPAs in the effort to maintain coral reef biodiversity as terrestrial and marine species do not operate in mutual exclusivity of each other. To that end, enriching one’s understanding of the interdependence of terrestrial and marine ecosystems requires a measure of caution. Mainstream readers may get a fairly accurate but slightly sensationalized view of a scientific finding. In essence, readers are tempted to consider findings applicable beyond the parameters of the experiment for which they exist. In my experience, media representations of science deserve a measure of skepticism and any findings consideration only within the parameters of the study they relate to. References McClanahan, Timothy R., Marnane, Michael J., Cinner, Joshua E., & Kiene, William E. (2006). A comparison of marine-protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Current Biology, 16, 1408-1413. â€Å"Marine protected areas: it takes a village, study says.† (2006). Wildlife Conservation Society. Retrieved October 4, 2006 â€Å"Transforming ocean policy: doing for oceans what Teddy Roosevelt did for the land. (2006). The Ocean Conservancy. Retrieved October 4, 2006 from http://www.oceanconservancy .org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8731&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=issues_&JServSessionIdr007=hg383i2kx3.app7b.

Life of Immigrant Women in 19th Century America Essay

The United States of America is one of the most diverse countries in the entire world. It has gained diversity not merely through race, but through religion, ethnic background, and through the ever-dynamic shift of America. Some of the most dramatic and rapid changes occurred in the late nineteenth century following the Civil War. As the United States began to industrialize, wave upon wave of immigrants poured into the country’s borders in search of religious, political, or, more often than not, economic freedom. To the outside world, the United States began to be seen as our Pledge of Allegiance suggests is: a land of the free. â€Å"’America is a free country’ one Polish immigrant stated†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢you don’t have to be a serf to anyone†¦freedom and prosperity are enjoyed by the people of the United States.’†1 Despite these immigrant hopes of freedom and prosperity, America was only just beginning to leave behind its roots of slavery; racism and prejudice were still in the air. While African-American men were being given their permission to vote, white women still struggled for that freedom. Immigrants faced dilemmas from some radical white women. â€Å"Feminists argued that native-born white women deserved the vote more than non-whites and immigrants.† 2 The struggles of being an immigrant were difficult enough, but to be a woman as well during that era was unlike any other barrier to freedom and inequality at the time. The novel Bread Givers by Anzia Yezierska, an immigrant who lived during that era, discusses what life was like for her demographic during her time through the eyes of a Jewish immigrant girl. Immigrant women in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century faced a slew of harrowing challenges as they faced a changing America. One of the biggest challenges that immigrant women had to face was exceedingly poor living conditions. Aside from being confined to very tight knit, ethnically uniform neighborhoods and communities3, many areas had landlords or landlord-esque figures set up to enforce strict living requirements which often limited higher quality housing in the immigrant  community and female demographic.4 In Bread Givers, Yezeriska’s character, Sara, experiences this dilemma. She grows up in a tenet fit possibly for a single person or possibly even a couple, and yet she lives with her mother, father, and three other sisters. On top of cramped living conditions, they do not appear to live in an area where access to cheap, safe food is available all the time.5 Later in the novel, an adult Sara is searching for a place to live with a room to herself. She struggles to find any place other than single rooms to share with two to four other women. She often finds herself facing rejection to open rooms. â€Å"’No girls,’ snapped this one, too. ‘Why no girls?’ I dared ask the skinny tsarina. ‘I want to keep the house clean. No cooking, no washing. Less trouble, less dirt, with men.’†6 When Sara finally does find a room, it is described as being a room very common to poor immigrants during that time. â€Å"It was a dark hole on the ground floor. The only window†¦was thick with black dust. The bed see-sawed†¦the mattress full of lumps and the sheets were shreds.† 7 These living conditions often created complications in the health and well-being of these immigrant women, and access to quality health care was rare for immigrant women. Sara’s mother falls ill in the novel and has no access to such care, ultimately leading to her demise.8 These poor living conditions, however, were not the only conflict immigrant women faced. Even when these women left home for work, conditions only worsened. Job opportunities for the immigrant woman in the United States during that era were remarkably limited. As the job market expanded, skilled labor became more desired and unskilled labor was left to the immigrants and women. These types of jobs came with low wages (some as low as $3 per week) long hours, and dangerous working conditions. Immigrant women were largely confined to low-wage factory jobs, while the job-market for native born white women expanded enormously. 9 In Bread Givers, Sara searches desperately and finds a job in a clothing factory, much like the factories who hired immigrant girls in reality, for five dollars a week. She describes the factory as small, congested, smelly, and filled with fumes with nearly no source of fresh air flow.10 A similar textile factory, The Triangle Shirtwaist Company, burst out in flames on March 25, 1911. The factory was located on the top three floors of a ten-story building in Greenwich Village  of New York City. As the fire spread, the young Jewish and Italian immigrant girls, some as young as 14, began to realize the doors to the stairwells were locked, as per usual in these factors, in order for the owner to prevent theft, â€Å"unauthorized bathroom breaks,† â€Å"outside distractions† to his employees. In the end, approximately 150 immigrant girls died in the fire, and some of the remaining survivors were arrested for forming a Union against these factories. 11 These inequalities towards immigrant women were prevalent all over the country, but especially in New York City, where a large portion of the immigrant community lived due to its proximity to Ellis Island and its high-volume of unskilled factory jobs. There were also barriers to immigrant women, however, on a smaller, more individualized scale: specific cultural practices. Women of all cultures, but especially poorer immigrant families, often had high-priority obligations in the home that prevented them from excelling in the world. While many native-born white women were privileged enough to grow up in school and go to college, get educations, and find skilled-labor careers, immigrant girls often had obligations forcing them to stay at home rather than seek an education, find a respectable job, and start their own family at a reasonable age. Taking into account the poor living conditions found in immigrant communities, as well as the lack of high wage employment and access to health care, women often had responsibilities to their families before pursuing their own lives. In Bread Givers, the meaning of the term â€Å"bread givers† was that Sara and her three sisters were obligated to give their earnings to the family, especially the father.12 Although not all immigrant families had patriarchal father figures who demanded all earnings for selfish reasons as the father in Yezierska’s novel did, the structure of income was very common to find in immigrant households. One of Sara’s sisters, Bessie, was the most crucial â€Å"bread giver† early in the story, and later on a man takes interest in her for a wife. â€Å"I like a plain home girl that knows how to help save the dollar, cook a good meal, and help in the shop. I think Bessie is just fitting for me.†13 This man takes interest her the same way most men would during that time. He sees her as a woman to uphold household responsibilities and help to save money instead of earn it on her own. Most of the daughters, except for Sara, end up marrying  men for the sake of bringing money into the house in order to support their parents.14 Finally, at the end of the story, the father begins to grow old and sick and it becomes the responsibility of the daughters to take him in and take care of him without question or hesitation.15 These were some of the specific cultural barriers that imposed on the individual freedoms of immigrant women in the United States. Anzia Yezierska, through her book Bread Givers, provided a very specific, yet realistic depiction of the challenges presented to immigrant women in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century of America. The huge influx of immigrants, especially from southern and eastern Europe, between 1890 and 1914 created a drastically new dynamic in the changing United States. 16 This new dynamic presented countless challenges to immigrants and women alike including poor living conditions, limited job opportunities, and cultural barriers. As our country continues to progress, so will the challenges presented to each individual group, culture, and demographic; therefore, it is crucial to study these past experiences so we may learn to adapt and thrive in those conditions. Works Cited Foner, Eric . Give Me Liberty! – An American History, seagull 3e. 3rd. 2. New York, NY: W W Norton , 2012. 546-713. print. The Power and the People, episode 4 of New York: A Documentary Film, Steeplechase Films, 1999, PBS home video.  Yezierska, Anzia . Bread Givers, A Novel. New York, NY: Persea Books, INC, 2003. print.