Be sure to answer both questions:

300 word minimum for each question

150 word min for response.

1. What were the implications of slavery in America? How has race influenced politics? Social
policy today? Where in the US in race an issue? Give examples. Be specific.
One major implication of slavery in America is the farming industry and how it has
grown rapidly, needing more help out in the field to supply its demand. The only way that the
white man found to make their fields more productive is to buy slaves from auctions, and
eventually, force them to work on their fields, making huge profits for the white man with very
little pay. These slaves were given the worst of the worst handed to them, whether it is beatings
from their owners, horrible living conditions such as their home, and ultimately, their whole
life is dedicated to the owner who bought them for the sole purpose of making money off of
them.
Race has influence politics in such a way that many of the areas with a majority of one
race would essentially agree upon one political issue, and the politician who visits that area and
agrees with the citizens there would gain their votes. Many of the political issues such as
immigration and the Occupy cases are majorly impacted by race. Immigration, along the borderstates neighboring Mexico such as California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, has the entire
Hispanic community behind it whether it is for a city hall meeting or an outdoor parade. The
Occupy movement has the 1% of the United States population being a majority of Caucasian
people, reigning over every race below it. Although the U.S. said that all man are created equal,
this is only somewhat true in society; everyone has a voice. Whether that voice is loud or soft,
heard or ignored, everyone essentially, has a voice, but not everyone is heard. I think the main
reason whether the government takes it into consideration or not is based on race and class. If
that person is part of the low-class income, the government will ignore their voice, whereas if a
rich person in the upper-class of society were to speak out, everyone would be take notes, record
it, and air it on national television for everyone to see it. Race, to this day, still plays a huge role
in society and its value towards its citizens.
Word count: 358

2. If the Civil War was to be fought today, 2011, which two groups would be fighting? Why?
If the Civil War was fought today, we could say that any two opposing groups could fight
each other. There will always be two opposing sides on a political issue whether its abortion,
budget cuts, death penalty, or universal health care. Every issue listed will have two definite
sides, with probably a few not agreeing or disagreeing fully with the side.
Abortion is split up into pro-life or pro-abortion, both of which making their claims and
arguments. Pro-life is against abortion since they are saying that aborting a fetus is equivalent as
kill a child, and their opposing side, pro-abortion would say that aborting a fetus before x-months
is a choice of the mother. Both sides would have claims such as after three months, the fetus is
alive and can feel and every person has the right to life. For budget cuts, one side would argue
that the students in higher education need more classes opened not closed, but the opposing side

would just say that theres no money for classroom expansions. The same can be said for the
controversial death-penalty and universal health care arguments. Death penalty have people for it
wanting the bad people of America off the streets and six-feet under, whereas the opposing side
says that we cannot play Gods role of picking out who lives and who dies. The universal health
care policy also have two sides, the ones needing health-care for it, while the upper class who
already purchase health-care wanting to keep their tax dollars since the lower class cannot afford
to pay premiums. Every political policy will always split the nation into halves, and that is the
main problem. We are stuck here forcing ourselves to pick sides and sick with it, and essentially,
fight the other side off until your side wins.
Lets say theoretically for all of those issues listed above, there is a winning side. But the
war is not over for the losing side. They will continue to fight and fight until their opinion is
taken into consideration and ultimately, made into a law forbidding their opponents view on that
specific issue. With lots of issues forcing people to split up into different teams, there would be
numerous non-stop civil wars over numerous different topics; the wars are never ending just as
long as people have a voice and an opinion.
Word count: 393

Response
I would have to somewhat agree with you, but I would say that its the 99% versus the 1%,
instead of just the middle class versus the high class. Most of the 1% have ridiculously high
salaries, high enough to buy a Ferrari and trash it, and still be okay with it. They have had their
fair share of going to school, learning, and having an opportunity, and essentially, grasping it.
But we also have to consider the fact that most of these CEOs are entrepreneurs; they know how
to handle money and know how to run a company, a big one too. Without these companies, more
people would be out of jobs and raise the unemployment rate of this country. So I guess you can
say that we despise them, but we also need them; its a love-hate relationship. But if any
average-Joe were given the chance to be in their shoes, living the good life with a nice house, a
nice car, and a really nice bank account, we would take that life, no hesitation there. Most, if not,
all of the 99% need that 1%.
Word count: 188