The Federation of Australia free essay sample

The Federation Of Australia There are many reasons for and against the federation of Australia. We will write a custom essay sample on The Federation of Australia or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page These reasons will be conveyed in this essay. Before the federation Australia consisted of six colonies of Britain. Before 1872 the British colonies had nothing to do with each other, although a telegraph linked the colonies and the idea of being â€Å"Australian†. By the 1890’s songs and poems were being written to celebrated a nation and the idea of becoming a federation was becoming much more popular. There were many fears in Australia and that the colonies will be attacked by neighbouring countries. Other fear like the big colonies like New South Wales and Victoria will dominate the smaller colonies like South Australia, which had only been less than 50 years old. Mark Anderson and Paul Ashton (Historians) support this. There are many reasons for the federation, which will be looked at later on. These are some of the reasons against the federation of Australia. One the reasons, which delayed the federation, was the 90% of the people in the colonies were of British origin. Which of most of them saw themselves as British citizens who just lived in separate colonies. They were then not motivated to create a new nation. Also the New South Wales colony feared that if Australia were to federate the government would relax on immigration laws and allow more non-white people in. Many of them argued that they were better off remaining a white colony on their own. They were also jealous that the colony of Victoria would get the capital city (Melbourne). Another reason, which delayed the Federation of Australia was that, the economy will fall and many things will become more expensive and taxes will become higher. Also that it will be too expensive to set up a new government and that new government will become too expensive too run. A politician by the name Henry Parkes (Premier of New South Wales) was one of the people who really pushed for the Federation of Australia. He had organised many conventions such as Australasian Federation Convention 1890, which included representatives from New Zealand, was held in Melbourne. Another convention was the National Australasian Convention, which was held n Sydney 1891, included representatives from each colony. In this convention they work on the Australia Constitution. The committee in this convention drew the draft: Edmund Barton (New South Wales), Andrew Inglis Clark (Tasmania), Samuel Griffith (Queensland) and Charles Kingston (South Australia). Although when Henry Parkes lost office the push for the Federation had slowed for several years. A quote â€Å"Creating a Nation requires the will of the people†, this is saying that people have to want to become a nation in order to become one. The National Australasian Convention met again in 1897-98, which all the colonies elected representatives, except Queensland who didn’t support the federation due to the kanakas, who were slaves in Queensland. If Queensland were to join the federation they were to abolish slavery. They were not ready to do so. One reason for the federation of Australia was that if neighbouring countries were to attack Australia they were able to defend the country. The reason they were afraid that the neighbouring countries were going to invade was because Australia was such a vast country with so little population. The colonies wanted not to rely on British Naval Ships to save them. This was a first sign of independence for Australia from Britain. A quote to support this is that â€Å"In their eagerness they have betrayed Australians†. Another reason for the federation is that abolishing tariffs in the country. These were extra payments of imported goods. This would save time and money because the people would have to pay extra money to import another good in another colony. This would help them through the economic depression that Australia was going through. Supporters believed that a strong central government would be more effective and lift them out of the recent drought and economic depression. Furthermore the trade would be much better if the colonies were to federate then it would make trade much better. This is because then other countries would recognise the goods from a nation not an unknown colony. Also those different goods were in different colonies, which meant that if they were to federate than that meant they could export all different types of materials. E. g. oal, gold, wheat, wool etc†¦ When the compromise between the colonies ended it made the federation a lot easy. The rivalry between New south Wales and Victoria was ended when it was decided that neither state was going to have the capital and it would be exactly between the two of them. The conflict and fears that the larger states were going to dominate the smaller states was ended when they decided that the parliament was to have two parts the Senate and the H ouse of representatives, which all the states had equal number of representatives. To conclude this argument I think that the reasons to federate were much stronger than the reason against the federation. Also I think that the federation was a success and that we have accomplished many great things as a nation. By Peter Tsikas http://www. kidcyber. com. au/topics/federation. htm http://www. skwirk. com/p-c_s-1_u-97_t-238_c-797/for-and-against-federation-/nsw/hsie/australian-democracy/federation Australia in the 20th Century Mark Anderson and Paul Ashton http://www. teachers. ash. org. au/researchskills/Federation/notes. htm

Multicultural Education In America Essays - Educational Psychology

Multicultural Education In America Essays - Educational Psychology Multicultural Education in America America has long been called "The Melting Pot" due to the fact that it is made up of a varied mix of races, cultures, and ethnicities. As more and more immigrants come to America searching for a better life, the population naturally becomes more diverse. This has, in turn, spun a great debate over multiculturalism. Some of the issues under fire are who is benefiting from the education, and how to present the material in a way so as to offend the least amount of people. There are many variations on these themes as will be discussed later in this paper. In the 1930's several educators called for programs of cultural diversity that encouraged ethnic and minority students to study their respective heritages. This is not a simple feat due to the fact that there is much diversity within individual cultures. A look at a 1990 census shows that the American population has changed more noticeably in the last ten years than in any other time in the twentieth century, with one out of every four Americans identifying themselves as black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, or American Indian (Gould 198). The number of foreign born residents also reached an all time high of twenty million, easily passing the 1980 record of fourteen million. Most people, from educators to philosophers, agree that an important first step in successfully joining multiple cultures is to develop an underezding of each others background. However, the similarities stop there. One problem is in defining the term "multiculturalism". When it is looked at simply as meaning the existence of a culturally integrated society, many people have no problems. However, when you go beyond that and try to suggest a different way of arriving at that culturally integrated society, Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what will work. Since education is at the root of the problem, it might be appropriate to use an example in that context. Although the debate at Stanford University ran much deeper than I can hope to touch in this paper, the root of the problem was as follows: In 1980, Stanford University came up with a program - later known as the "Stanford-style multicultural curriculum" which aimed to familiarize students with traditions, philosophy, literature, and history of the West. The program consisted of 15 required books by writers such as Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aquinas, Marx, and Freud. By 1987, a group called the Rainbow Coalition argued the fact that the books were all written by DWEM's or Dead White European Males. They felt that this type of teaching denied students the knowledge of contributions by people of color, women, and other oppressed groups. In 1987, the faculty voted 39 to 4 to change the curriculum and do away with the fifteen book requirement and the term "Western" for the study of at least one non-European culture and proper attention to be given to the issues of race and gender (Gould 199). This debate was very important because its publicity provided the grounds for the argument that America is a pluralistic society and to study only one people would not accurately portray what really makes up this country. Proponents of multicultural education argue that it offers students a balanced appreciation and critique of other cultures as well as our own (Stotsky 64). While it is common sense that one could not have a true underezding of a subject by only possessing knowledge of one side of it, this brings up the fact that there would never be enough time in our current school year to equally cover the contributions of each individual nationality. This leaves teachers with two options. The first would be to lengthen the school year, which is highly unlikely because of the political aspects of the situation. The other choice is to modify the curriculum to only include what the instructor (or school) feels are the most important contributions, which again leaves them open to criticism from groups that feel they are not being equally treated. A national ezdard is out of the question because of the fact that different parts of the country contain certain concentrations of nationalities. An example of this is the high concentration of Cubans

Faith School in UK Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Faith School in UK - Essay Example There are many of these schools in the UK such as Muslim Faith School, Christian, Jewish and Hindu. A faith school is defined as a school  that is financially supported  by a particular religious group, usually for children  from that religion (Mackinnon, & Statham, Hales, 1999). Scholars argue that faith schools should be allowed in our society while others, who have a different point of view claim that the government should not allow faith schools in the UK. Despite the fact that state funded faith schools are mostly managed like other state schools in the UK and are subjected to the same curriculum other than religious studies, they have the freedom to teach their religion. This is an implication that these schools have are allowed by the government to incorporate religions teaching in their curriculums (Gibbons and Silva, 2006). Faith schools generally ‘give priority to the applicants who belong to the faith of the school and are allowed to do that by some of the specific exemptions found in the section 85 of the UK Equality Act 2010’ (Equality Act, 2010). However, the law requires state funded faith schools to admit other applicants in line with the school admissions code whenever they are unable to fill all their places with the applicants who belong to the faith of the school. In the recent past, unfair discriminatory admissions and employment policy of most faith schools has returned considerable argument due to its potential negative impacts on the social cohesion and ethnic integration. This essay will discuss whether the government should allow different faith schools in the UK or not, and how a faith school can have an effect on the society in the UK. The recent history of faith schools in the country was on the year 1944 following the passage of the 1944 Educational act that resulted from the negotiation between Archbishop William Temple and the then education Minister, R.A Butler. ‘The