buy custom Americanization essay

buy custom Americanization essay The phrase "Americanization" has a different meaning to various people. Some argue it is an invasion of American values, cultures and violence that in most cases is depicted and overestimated in Hollywood movies. Others argue it is the cultural, political economic and social domination of the United States which is the world superpower. According to Friedman Thomas, (1998) Americanization is a word used outside the United States to describe the impact and influence of the U.S on the culture, politics, business practices and technology of other countries. This expression has been used since the early 1900. Within the United States this phrase often refers to the procedure of acculturation by settlers to American customs. Columnists at times give the phrase Americanization" a negative implication since they see it as a negative broad American influence in several countries, and may fear the fear the trouncing of local traditions and customs (Ron 2001). America population has been increasing and it needed more land. American settlers started migrating past Appalachian Mountains and at this point they were getting close to river Mississippi (Zachary Pascal, 2000). People started immigrating to America and brought diverse cultures with them. These distinct cultures made a mix bowl of diverse cultures that eventually became American. This was evident in features such as language and communication. English language was what was initially brought by the initial colonists, but other people coming from Scotland, Ireland and other European countries. These distinct languages incorporated English along with other words from these new cultures. In general the term Americanization in most of the time no more than a supposition concerning the foundation ofcultural morals and values (language, clothing and food) that mostly comes from United States which may be wrong. It is applied arbitrarily within other countries media to tag collection of factors which are seen to be a threat to the national personality. This derogatory use of Americanization sees countries outside the United States to be adopting cultural values and social practices that are derived from the United States. Ron (2001) states that television has, without any uncertainty, gained more people awareness from Americanization critics on media globalization more than any other more than any sphere e.g. language and fashion. According to Zachary Pascal (2000) the early 1970s experienced the climax in the Americanization of popular culture which was calculated by the percentage of American stuff transmitted to the world. Most forecaster analysiss now are in agreement that most of the worlds television scheduled is taken upon with imports, with United States controlling most of the commercial channels and Britain programs having the huge mass of overseas material broadcast by ACB (Zachary Pascal 2000). In what is almost certainly the most methodical comparison of worldwide flows, for instance Tapio Varis in its analysis reported that Australia has declined from 57% of imported programmes from united states to 40% in 1993, however the fraction of imported programs at the key time was to some extent higher than 45. United States programs do certainly lead the world in supplying and even dominating in many of the world countries television programs; they are often the most common programs where watchers have a list of options of produced material from which to choose. Over the past decades, capitalism in America has quickly taken over the entire universe. Even in the main communists countries of Russia and china American culture has greatly invaded. In china today the youth prefer watching American Dream Park which has a lot of American culture attraction rather than watching Chinese films, Russia has also been having a share of the American culture in many of its day to day activities (Schlender Brent 2004). Canada is also having great problems with Americanization as many of United Nations companies are now in control of the Canadian industry; this has caused many of the people to wonder for how long United States will dominate Canada markets. This goes without the question of why Americanization is evident in todays society. Despite this recent course in American culture all over the world, a few nations such as Germany and France are making essentials strategies to slow down Americanization (Snyder Tim, 1999). By increasing tariffs and taxes on foreign investors and companies, these companies are making it difficult for American companies profit hugely abroad. Also in Israel, a cultural revolt is now taking place. For example Israeli government, in an effort to decrease Americanization, it has made it mandatory for the every radio station to have a schedule in which it can play Hebrew songs. These are only the exemptions to the regulation of American globalization, although Americanization is currently in a complete swing and sees no end in nearby future, mainly because many Americans identify it as a huge achievement. An appealing fact is that the America has its own cultural, it should also be renowned that the US has similarly absorbed different traditions and cultures and traditions. The idea of Americanization should not be overlooked but rather incorporated as an ingredient of the cultural assimilation of the globe leading towards globalization (Snyder Tim, 1999). Buy custom Americanization essay

US Immigration Act of 1917

US Immigration Act of 1917 The Immigration Act of 1917 drastically reduced US immigration by expanding the prohibitions of the Chinese exclusion laws of the late 1800s. The law created an â€Å"Asiatic barred zone† provision prohibiting immigration from British India, most of Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the Middle East. In addition, the law required a basic literacy test for all immigrants and barred homosexuals, â€Å"idiots,† the â€Å"insane,† alcoholics, â€Å"anarchists,† and several other categories from immigrating. Details and Effects of the Immigration Act of 1917 From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, no nation welcomed more immigrants into its borders than the United States. In 1907 alone, a record 1.3 million immigrants entered the U.S. through New York’s Ellis Island. However, the Immigration Act of 1917, a product of the pre-World War I isolationism movement, would drastically change that. Also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act, the Immigration Act of 1917, barred immigrants from a large part of the world loosely defined as â€Å"Any country not owned by the U.S. adjacent to the continent of Asia.† In practice, the barred zone provision excluded immigrants from Afghanistan, the Arabian Peninsula, Asiatic Russia, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, and the Polynesian Islands. However, both Japan and the Philippines were excluded from the barred zone. The law also allowed exceptions for students, certain professionals, such as teachers and doctors, and their wives and children. Other provisions of the law increase the â€Å"head tax† immigrants were required to pay on entry to $8.00 per person and eliminated a provision in an earlier law that had excused Mexican farm and railroad workers from paying the head tax. The law also barred all immigrants over the age of 16 who were illiterate or deemed to be â€Å"mentally defective† or physically handicapped. The term â€Å"mentally defective† was interpreted to effectively exclude homosexual immigrants who admitted their sexual orientation. U.S. immigration laws continued to ban homosexuals until the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, sponsored by Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy.   The law defined literacy as being able to read a simple 30 to 40-word passage written in the immigrant’s native language. Persons who claimed they were entering the U.S. to avoid religious persecution in their country of origin were not required to take the literacy test. Perhaps considered most politically incorrect by today’s standards, the law include specific language barring the immigration of â€Å"idiots, imbeciles, epileptics, alcoholics, poor, criminals, beggars, any person suffering attacks of insanity, those with tuberculosis, and those who have any form of dangerous contagious disease, aliens who have a physical disability that will restrict them from earning a living in the United States..., polygamists and anarchists,† as well as â€Å"those who were against the organized government or those who advocated the unlawful destruction of property and those who advocated the unlawful assault of killing of any officer.† Effect of the Immigration Act of 1917 To say the least, the Immigration Act of 1917 had the impact desired by its supporters. According to the Migration Policy Institute, only about 110,000 new immigrants were allowed to enter the United States in 1918, compared to more than 1.2 million in 1913. Further limiting immigration, Congress passed the National Origins Act of 1924, which for the first time established an immigration-limiting quota system and required all immigrants to be screened while still in their countries of origin. The law resulted in the virtual closure of Ellis Island as an immigrant processing center. After 1924, the only immigrants still being screened at Ellis Island were those who had problems with their paperwork, war refugees, and displaced persons. Isolationism Drove the Immigration Act of 1917 As an outgrowth of the American isolationism movement that dominated the 19th century, the Immigration Restriction League was founded in Boston in 1894. Seeking mainly to slow the entry of â€Å"lower-class† immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, the group lobbied Congress to pass legislation requiring immigrants to prove their literacy. In 1897, Congress passed an immigrant literacy bill sponsored by Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, but President Grover Cleveland vetoed the law.    Be early 1917, with America’s participation in World War I appearing inevitable, demands for isolationism hit an all-time high. In that growing atmosphere of xenophobia, Congress easily passed the Immigration Act of 1917 and then overrode President Woodrow Wilson’s veto of the law by a supermajority vote. Amendments Restore US Immigration The negative effects of drastically reduced immigration and the general inequity of laws like the Immigration Act of 1917 soon become apparent and Congress reacted. With World War I reducing the American workforce, Congress amended the Immigration Act of 1917 to reinstate a provision exempting Mexican farm and ranch workers from the entry tax requirement. The exemption was soon extended to Mexican mining and railroad industry workers. Shortly after the end of World War II, the Luce-Celler Act of 1946, sponsored by Republican Representative Clare Boothe Luce and Democrat Emanuel Celler eased immigration and naturalization restrictions against Asian Indian and Filipino immigrants. The law allowed the immigration of up to 100 Filipinos and 100 Indians per year and again allowed Filipino and Indian immigrants to become United States citizens. The law also allowed naturalized Indian Americans and FilipinoAmericans to own homes and farms and to petition for their family members to be allowed to immigrate to the United States. In the final year of the presidency of Harry S. Truman, Congress further amended the Immigration Act of 1917 with its passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, known as the McCarran-Walter Act. The law allowed Japanese, Korean and other Asian immigrants to seek naturalization and established an immigration system that placed emphasis on skill sets and reuniting families. Concerned by the fact that the law maintained a quota system drastically limiting immigration from Asian nations, President Wilson vetoed the McCarran-Walter Act, but Congress garnered the votes needed to override the veto. Between 1860 and 1920, the immigrant share of the total U.S. population varied between 13% and nearly 15%, peaking at 14.8% in 1890, mainly due to high levels of immigrants from Europe. As of the end of 1994, the U.S. immigrant population stood at more than 42.4 million, or 13.3%, of the total U.S. population, according to Census Bureau data. Between 2013 and 2014, the foreign-born population of the U.S. increased by 1 million, or 2.5 percent. Immigrants to the United States and their children born in the U.S. now number approximately 81 million people or 26% of the overall U.S. population. Fast Facts The Immigration Act of 1917 reduced the flood of immigrants entering the U.S. in 1913 to a trickle by banning all immigration from British India, most of Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the Middle East.The law also required all immigrants to pass a basic literacy test in their native language and barred certain â€Å"undesirable† individuals, such as â€Å"idiots,† the â€Å"insane,† alcoholics, â€Å"anarchists† from entering the United States.The impetus behind the Immigration Act of 1917 was the isolationist movement seeking to prevent the United States from becoming involved in World War I.Though President Woodrow Wilson initially vetoed the Immigration Act of 1917, Congress overwhelmingly overrode his veto, making the act a federal law on February 5, 1917.

The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy Essay

The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy - Essay Example We study and form our respective opinions around this article through this paper. The article begins with a short summary of the five factors described in one-liners, after which the main body of the article introduces the reader to the roles of a strategist and how it has become exceedingly narrowed down to checking competitor plans in recent years. While the author articulately puts forward his thesis of how the underlying forces of profitability remain the same in all business types, he also points out that strategy building is not a function of the competitor prices and strategy alone. In short, right from the introduction, he makes it very clear that for any business type, using the five factors for strategy building is highly important to its success (Porter, 1). We agree to this point that strategy building is a very important aspect of business development and that Porter’s observations are entirely important for strategy building. But we also cannot but consider the fact that not all these factors are important in cases of all businesses. And that the model proposed by Porter is not universally true as there are other factors that can be included in it too. Let us first take a quick round up of Porter’s five forces before we dwell on the other factors. All of the above mentioned points are directly relevant to businesses of any size. However, given the market scenario and the changes that we have seen in it over the past couple of decades, it is difficult to say whether the model is universally true or self-sufficient. Here are a few examples for us to note and learn from: This force was first expressed in the work of Barry Nalebuff and Adam Brandenburger, when they used the game theory to add the concept of complementors to the model as a force that can govern strategy development for a business. According to their predictions,