Quotes By Congesswoman Shirley Chisholm

Shirley Chisholm was the first black woman to serve in the United States Congress. An early education expert, Shirley Chisholm was elected to the New York Legislature in 1964 and to Congress in 1968, where she was a founding member of both the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Womens Political Caucus. She ran for president in 1972, winning 152 delegates in the Democratic primary but losing the partys nomination to George McGovern. Shirley Chisholm served in Congress until 1983. During her congressional career, Shirley Chisholm was noted for her support for womens rights, her advocacy of legislation to benefit those in poverty, and her opposition to the Vietnam war. Selected Shirley Chisholm Quotations †¢ I was the first American citizen to be elected to Congress in spite of the double drawbacks of being female and having skin darkened by melanin. When you put it that way, it sounds like a foolish reason for fame. In a just and free society it would be foolish. That I am a national figure because I was the first person in 192 years to be at once a congressman, black and a woman proves, I think, that our society is not yet either just or free. †¢ I want history to remember me not just as the first black woman to be elected to Congress, not as the first black woman to have made a bid for the presidency of the United States, but as a black woman who lived in the 20th century and dared to be herself. †¢ Of my two handicaps being female put more obstacles in my path than being black. †¢ Ive always met more discrimination being a woman than being black. †¢ My God, what do we want? What does any human being want? Take away an accident of pigmentation of a thin layer of our outer skin and there is no difference between me and anyone else. All we want is for that trivial difference to make no difference. †¢ Racism is so universal in this country, so widespread and deep-seated, that it is invisible because it is so normal. †¢ We Americans have a chance to become someday a nation in which all racial stocks and classes can exist in their own selfhoods, but meet on a basis of respect and equality and live together, socially, economically, and politically. †¢ In the end, anti-black, anti-female, and all forms of discrimination are equivalent to the same thing - anti-humanism. †¢ My greatest political asset, which professional politicians fear, is my mouth, out of which come all kinds of things one shouldnt always discuss for reasons of political expediency. †¢ The United States was said not to be ready to elect a Catholic to the Presidency when Al Smith ran in the 1920s. But Smiths nomination may have helped pave the way for the successful campaign John F. Kennedy waged in 1960. Who can tell? What I hope most is that now there will be others who will feel themselves as capable of running for high political office as any wealthy, good-looking white male. †¢ At present, our country needs womens idealism and determination, perhaps more in politics than anywhere else. †¢ I am, was, and always will be a catalyst for change. †¢ There is little place in the political scheme of things for an independent, creative personality, for a fighter. Anyone who takes that role must pay a price. †¢ One distressing thing is the way men react to women who assert their equality: their ultimate weapon is to call them unfeminine. They think she is anti-male; they even whisper that shes probably a lesbian. †¢ ... rhetoric never won a revolution yet. †¢ Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because, slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists. Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as for men only. (1969) †¢ Tremendous amounts of talent are being lost to our society just because that talent wears a skirt. †¢ Service is the rent we pay for the privilege of living on this earth. (attributed to Chisholm; some sources attributed to Marian Wright Edelman) †¢ I am not anti-white, because I understand that white people, like black ones, are victims of a racist society. They are products of their time and place. †¢ The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, Its a girl. †¢ When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom profit that loses. †¢ To label family planning and legal abortion programs genocide is male rhetoric, for male ears. †¢ Which is more like genocide, I have asked some of my black brothers -- this, the way things are, or the conditions I am fighting for in which the full range of family planning services is available to women of all classes and colors, starting with effective contraception and extending to safe, legal terminations of undesired pregnancies at a price they can afford? †¢ Women know, and so do many men, that two or three children who are wanted, prepared for, reared amid love and stability, and educated to the limit of their ability will mean more for the future of the black and brown races from which they come than any number of neglected, hungry, ill-housed and ill-clothed youngsters. Pride in ones race, as will simple humanity, supports this view. †¢ It is not heroin or cocaine that makes one an addict, it is the need to escape from a harsh reality. There are more television addicts, more baseball and football addicts, more movie addicts, and certainly more alcohol addicts in this country than there are narcotics addicts. Sources Chisholm, Shirley. The Good Fight. Harper Collins, 1973. Chisholm, Shirley. Unbought and Unbossed. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1970. Vaidyanathan, Rajini. Before Hillary Clinton, there was Shirley Chisholm. BBC, 26 January 2016, https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35057641. Winslow, Barbara. Shirley Chisholm: Catalyst for Change. Routledge, 2013.

Research On Age And L2a For Decades - 1287 Words

The critical period hypothesis has been the main focus of research on age and L2A for decades. This hypothesis originated with Lenneberg. In his 1967 study, he proposed that for language to develop fully, it must be acquired before the start of puberty. His hypothesis was solely regarding first language (L1) acquisition. Johnson and Newport (1989) were among the first to question if and how this hypothesis applies to second language acquisition. They conducted a test with a group of 46 Chinese and Korean immigrants who had come to the United States at a variety of ages, ranging from 3 to 39, and learned English as a second language. To measure their ultimate attainment in English grammar, the experiment asked each individual to decide†¦show more content†¦For example, some research yielded results in which native and non-native speakers achieved identical scores on a variety of language tasks if the non-native speakers’ AoA was 6 or below. It thus seems that the re is a sensitive period from birth to somewhere between age 4 and 7 for phonology and some lexical and collocational skills (Long, 2005). Based on a study by DeKeyser (2000) that replicated Johnson and Newport (1989), there might be a separate sensitive period for morphosyntax until sometime in the mid-teens, around the age of 16. DeKeyser attributes the differences in his results to the fact that Johnson and Newport only tested a small number of subjects between the ages of 12 and 16. DeKeyser used the findings from his study to reconceptualize the Critical Period Hypothesis. He found that learning ability does not decline immediately at puberty, as previously supposed, but that there is a gradual decline from age 6 or 7 to age 16 or 17. In a study of 57 Hungarian immigrants to the US (DeKeyser, 2000), he found that most of the subjects with an AoA over 16 did not score anywhere near the younger learners on a grammaticality judgment test. The few adult learners who did score highly all had strong verbal analytic ability. Instead of interpreting this evidence as a counterargument for the CPH,

Programming Language and Future Career Free Essays

Career-related discussions are something that my dad and I tend to have on the weekly basis, and have increased since changing my major to Management Information Systems last year. Our latest discussion was on the phone about word choice and the do’s and don’ts when writing/typing papers and other documents, moving forward in college as well as in my future career. What sparked up this conversation though was my dissatisfaction with a comment I got on a paper from a peer review. We will write a custom essay sample on Programming Language and Future Career or any similar topic only for you Order Now The comment stated that my choice of words were not â€Å"scholarly† or on the college level. It really got under my skin so I decided to call my father about it. I told him the situation, and I felt that my paper was scholarly and I wrote it in a way that my fellow classmates would understand. His response was, moving forward into my career, the choice of words I used really would play a big part. As more advice he told me that having a bigger vocabulary showed professionalism and knowledge. Throughout our discussion I became frustrated because I believed that as long as my audience understood what I was talking about it should not matter how â€Å"simple† the words were. Even though I knew what he saying was right I did not want to hear it, because I was frustrated about the comment. I wanted to tell him that I didn’t care what he had to say after a while, but I have a lot of respect for my father. I knew what he was saying was right from experience being a computer programmer, where he is constantly in meetings and speaking in front of his colleagues. After we finish talking I still felt a little frustration, because I kept thinking back to the comment. I really was surprised by the valid points my father made about the situation because I was so set on the way I felt and my stubbornness took over. The discussion was really needed though, initially I was not going to go back and reedit my paper but my father words really made sense. I guess he was right the choice of words you choose can really go a long way. The advice I took from our discussion to help me in my future career was to continue practicing and improving my writing skills. How to cite Programming Language and Future Career, Essays

The History of French Filmmaking free essay sample

A History of French Filmmaking begins its long journey through time in the 1800’s before cinema was invented. Williams explains that the three necessary aspects of film were to come, the â€Å"bricolage† meaning the analysis of movement, the optical synthesis of movement, and photography. There were many important people over the course of this book that had huge influences on putting together the bricolage as well as path that this most popular media traveled. Williams begins with men such as Niepce in his success of inventing the start of photography, then Daguerre who improved it, Plateau’s construction of an apparatus that showed the synthesis of motion called the Phenakistoscope, all the way to Thomas Edison’s final contribution to make film possible, the Kinetoscope. Williams continues through time to the Lumiere brother’s major influence until the film industry began. Film started off as a spectacle in France at fairs much likes freak shows and wax museums. Williams moves on explaining the development of turning cinema from a spectacle into what it is today. He goes over the beginning of genre’s or â€Å"series†, the dramas that ensued with money, monopolies, huge fires from the flammable theaters and eventually the wars that influenced a lot of change in this important industry. We learn about the transformation from silent to talkies and even the anti-Semitism that forced many Jewish filmmakers/actors to never trust France again. Williams takes the reader to France’s significant film noir and New Wave styles that show the aftermath of the war on its people and eventually ends with another important media that is quite influential today, television. Although this book is filled with many names and many details, it truly deserves the name ‘A History of French Filmmaking’. After reading this book, it is clear that without France, film might not be what it is today. Although when one thinks of cinema, they might right away think of Hollywood, but there are many people, movies, and studios that started in France that made Hollywood possible. To start, the Lumiere brothers, mostly Louis, were not only able to record film, but they were able to project it as a show for an audience. Although these films were not necessarily long feature length films, Louis showed great art in his films and even made many color slides in his films. The next person to take film to a different level was Melies who not only discovered â€Å"substitution splicing† but he made films about magic, he â€Å"†¦Anticipated Surrealism† (37), and was like the first â€Å"movie star† of his time. After the Lumiere business died down, the one to take over was Pathe. He hired Ferdinand Zecca, an important filmmaker, as well as created the first genres or at that time was called â€Å"series†. Examples of these are outdoor views, comic scenes, sports and acrobats, and dances and ballets. Pathe tried to monopolize the film industry but instead â€Å"†¦The second consequence of Pathe’s bid for monopoly was to encourage the competition† (53). Pathe’s competitor, Leon Gaumont was not only influential in his decisions to use real locations unlike Pathe’s films, but he hired one of the most important French film producers, Alice Guy. â€Å"Alice Guy is one of the most significant figures in the entire history of French Cinema. Despite her great influence, frustratingly little is known about her actual work at Gaumont† (55). Williams explains how Guy was great at saving money during productions, which was very important then and now in film production. Another important name mentioned was Max Linder, the first big comedic star who later influenced one of the biggest comedic names of all time, Charles Chaplin. Willaims goes on to explain many other studios in French Film’s beginning, one being Film d’Art. Although this eventually became less significant over time, it was interesting that this was directed towards the upper middle class instead of the population as a whole. There were many, many other names that Williams goes into great detail and background about, but there are certain names that must be mentioned. One in particular is Jean Epstein. â€Å"Epstein’s efforts to contribute meaningfully to the development of the film medium were often constrained by his producers’ notions of what would sell† (123). But Epstein would not succumb to money over art so he opened his own production company. He created historical dramas, documentaries, but most of all he was able to move from silent to talkie films successfully unlike many over silent filmmakers. Next is Rene Clair. Clair, being one of the filmmakers who experienced the war, brought that into his early work but he also made fantasy comedies and was not opposed to mainstream films. â€Å"Clair’s work demonstrates there was no hard and fast line of demarcation between mainstream commercial cinema and self-consciously artistic filmmaking during the silent film’s last decade. French cinema of the 1920’s was remarkably diverse† (135). Williams explained that unlike other filmmakers, Clair was willing to compromise by exploring different styles. Another very influential name who was not afraid to try many things nor stand up for what he believed in was Jean Renoir. Rene Clair and Jean Renoir were both successful in the silent and the talkie eras. â€Å"Sound film changed these men’s work bringing to it consistency, force, and a new means of storytelling that audiences and critics alike found compelling and satisfying† (186). Renoir had a love for actors, which many people later followed (especially in present day), but he was also against the anti-Semitism that plagued France during the second World War and even stood up to one of the most powerful Nazis, causing him to leave France for America. Williams explains in a large part of the book how both of the wars, in different ways, had a very big impact on film, both good and bad. Renoir was bold in his filmmaking, not afraid of violence as well as techniques in films such as ‘Rules of the Game’ with great long takes and deep focus. The way that Alan Williams created this text was very uniform all the way through. It was bold of him to write a book that should be an entire textbook of knowledge and fit it into merely 400 pages, but he did it well and the read was not hard to follow. Williams does a nice job of introducing almost every new important player in the book by giving a bit of background knowledge on each one. There is a huge advantage to doing this because the reader is able to get a feel for the people he is talking about. We learn about Louis Lumiere’s physical ailments as well as his father’s poor marketing skills. We learn that Rene Clair wanted to be a poet before he became a journalist, filmmaker, and critique. Williams also does a nice job of separating each person with more of the story of France during this time and how the changes of the film industry continued. The disadvantage of writing in this way is there is a lot of information that can get lost along the way. Not only is the reader bombarded with lots of information that can get confusing, especially if they are not familiar with French names or words along the way, but there are also ideas that can be missed when concentrating so much on the people who made the films, both significant and not. For example, the concept of Nation Cinema is explained in depth in Susan Hayward’s French National Cinema. She poses a very interesting uestion, â€Å"Since the history of cinema coincides with this hundred-year span, it invites the following questions: to what extent and how does cinema reflect the texture of a society on a national level? † (15). In Williams book, we learn all about the development of cinema, the important players in that development, and peripheral influences on cinema, but he never explains how the people of the nation of France were as a whole when film came about. What is national cinema? Don’t the viewers play an important role in national cinema? Williams is missing the other side to the story. We know how the wars, monopolies, and fires influenced the filmmakers, but what about the film watchers? This must be because the target audience for this book is not necessarily people looking for French history. The target audience must be only people looking to see how film developed in France, most likely film students. Being a film student myself as well as a cinema minor, this book was very enjoyable to read. There were many aspects of the book that both surprised me and stood out. First was Williams multiple explanations of Thomas Edison’s impact on cinema. I not only found out that he was a big player in the development of film, but I also discovered that for a genius, he made a lot of bad moves. He not only took complete credit that should have been shared with his assistant Dickson, but he misjudged the industry that he helped start. It seemed as though he was more interested in monopolizing the business instead of seeing its true potential, which hurt him in the end. Another discovery that I found interesting was Williams many mentions of hard work. He explained that the â€Å"†¦Gaumont company valued hard work and compensated it well† (68). He also mentioned that, â€Å"One secret of Linder’s success was that he put twice as much time, effort, and thought into each film as did his competitors† (60). He also mentioned on many occasions the success of different filmmakers by their attention to detail like Louis Lumiere, or their fearlessness like Clair, Renoir, and specifically Jean-Luc Godard’s Breathless. This was not a discovery to me but more of an interesting theme that I continued to spot as the book moved forward. I don’t know if this something that Williams is trying to preach, but it is obvious that he values hard work, bravery, and boldness in cinema. I think this was important for Williams to do. It not only gives credit to the people he clearly studies and cares much about, but it credits the industry as a whole. Not everyone can make a movie and make it well. Now knowing The History of French Filmmaking I can confidently say a lot went into the development of this media, and seeing what the film industry is today, it was well worth it.