Escape From Slavery ; Maya Angelou, Journey of the Heart essays

Escape From Slavery ; Maya Angelou, Journey of the Heart essays I read Escape from Slavery and Maya Angelou Journey of the Heart. I thought both stories had a lot in common but there were some differences. For instance, Escape from Slavery had a different setting, characters, and climax from Journey of the Heart. Escape from Slavery was setting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at a hotel, on a steamboat, and on a plantation. Journey of the Heart was setting in the Capitol Building of Washington D.C., Egypt, and Ghana. In Philadelphia, many slaves are trying to escape from their masters. In boxes, dressing up as a white person, and even hiding on trains or ships. At the hotel, one slave and her boys were told to stay put by their master. The slave would whisper help me to free blacks. Luckily, she was saved by a white. At the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. a famous woman speaks at a podium for black rights. The characters in Escape from Slavery were mainly slaves. Their names were Eliza, Dosha, Henry Brown, Passmore Williamson, Jane Johnson, and William Craft. In Journey of the Heart there was mainly one character, Maya Angelou. All the characters in Escape from Slavery were slaves except for Passmore Williamson. Passmore helped Jane Johnson with her escape from slavery. Maya Angelou was a poet, author, activist, entertainer, and a professor. She helped fight for blacks rights. Both stories had similar climaxes. Escape from Slavery ended with the slaves being free and everyone happy. In Journey of the Heart Maya was very happy that she accomplished all her deeds and spoke to people and made her purpose on this planet. These stories couldnt have been said better. The endings were great. In conclusion, Escape from Slavery and Maya Angelou Journey of the Heart had many compares and contras ...

Farming and Agriculture Post World-War II

Farming and Agriculture Post World-War II By the end of World War II, the farm economy once again faced the challenge of overproduction. Technological advances, such as the introduction of gasoline- and electric-powered machinery and the widespread use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, meant production per hectare was higher than ever. To help consume surplus crops, which were depressing prices and costing taxpayers money, Congress in 1954 created a Food for Peace program that exported U.S. farm goods to needy countries. Policy-makers reasoned that food shipments could promote the economic growth of developing countries. Humanitarians saw the program as a way for America to share its abundance. Launching the Food Stamp Program In the 1960s, the government decided to use surplus food to feed Americas own poor as well. During President Lyndon Johnsons War on Poverty, the government launched the federal Food Stamp program, giving low-income people coupons that could be accepted as payment for food by grocery stores. Other programs using surplus goods, such as for school meals for needy children, followed. These food programs helped sustain urban support for farm subsidies for many years, and the programs remain an important form of public welfare - for the poor and, in a sense, for farmers as well. But as farm production climbed higher and higher through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the cost of the government price support system rose dramatically. Politicians from non-farm states questioned the wisdom of encouraging farmers to produce more when there was already enough - especially when surpluses were depressing prices and thereby requiring greater government assistance. Federal Deficiency Payments The government tried a new tack. In 1973, U.S. farmers began receiving assistance in the form of federal deficiency payments, which were designed to work like the parity price system. To receive these payments, farmers had to remove some of their lands from production, thereby helping to keep market prices up. A new Payment-in-Kind program, begun in the early 1980s with the goal of reducing costly government stocks of grains, rice, and cotton, and strengthening market prices, idled about 25 percent of cropland. Price supports and deficiency payments applied only to certain basic commodities such as grains, rice, and cotton. Many other producers were not subsidized. A few crops, such as lemons and oranges, were subject to overt marketing restrictions. Under so-called marketing orders, the amount of a crop that a grower could market as fresh was limited week by week. By restricting sales, such orders were intended to increase the prices that farmers received. This article is adapted from the book Outline of the U.S. Economy by Conte and Carr and has been adapted with permission from the U.S. Department of State.