[LeSacMagique]

How is everyone planning on doing turning points questions? We've been taught to structure them by turning point, ie, come up with a list of 5 and have a paragraph on each one in order of importance. But the examiners' reports say that while that approach can work they prefer it if you do it by theme, ie, have a paragraph on 'social' progress, 'economic' progress, etc in each of which you compare all of your turning points together. I think it's a bit late to so drastically change my exam technique, but is this the norm?

(Original post by Pn94)
Native Americans was the one that didn't show up in January (I sat the exam), so it's logical to expect it to come up this time around. Hence, I'm only revising for Native Americans and Afro-Americans

You'll be pretty screwed if Native Americans don't come up...

[22DubDub]

(Original post by LeSacMagique)
How is everyone planning on doing turning points questions? We've been taught to structure them by turning point, ie, come up with a list of 5 and have a paragraph on each one in order of importance. But the examiners' reports say that while that approach can work they prefer it if you do it by theme, ie, have a paragraph on 'social' progress, 'economic' progress, etc in each of which you compare all of your turning points together. I think it's a bit late to so drastically change my exam technique, but is this the norm?

Thats certainly how we've been taught to do it; split the turning point into themes (i.e polictical rights gained, economic, social impact, educational impact, long term impact) and then compare the turning point they suggest against this factor, and then compare other turning points against this factor, and decide which was the greatest turning point for each. I wouldn't say it was too late; spent the afternoon planning turning points, it will be worth it in the end

[sophie99]

(Original post by LeSacMagique)
How is everyone planning on doing turning points questions? We've been taught to structure them by turning point, ie, come up with a list of 5 and have a paragraph on each one in order of importance. But the examiners' reports say that while that approach can work they prefer it if you do it by theme, ie, have a paragraph on 'social' progress, 'economic' progress, etc in each of which you compare all of your turning points together. I think it's a bit late to so drastically change my exam technique, but is this the norm?



You'll be pretty screwed if Native Americans don't come up...

we have been told to define a turning point in our opening paragraph as something which is a break from the past and has a long lasting impact, then compare potential turning points to this criteria at the same time as comparing a potential turning point to the one in the question

[ollie1994]

So NA, AA and Trade Unions for almost certain?

Also themes or turning points for trade unions?

[Pn94]

(Original post by LeSacMagique)
How is everyone planning on doing turning points questions? We've been taught to structure them by turning point, ie, come up with a list of 5 and have a paragraph on each one in order of importance. But the examiners' reports say that while that approach can work they prefer it if you do it by theme, ie, have a paragraph on 'social' progress, 'economic' progress, etc in each of which you compare all of your turning points together. I think it's a bit late to so drastically change my exam technique, but is this the norm?



You'll be pretty screwed if Native Americans don't come up...

We've been told to follow the thematic approach.

And I know, but I haven't got the time to revise the others. It's pretty likely NAs will come up anyway *fingers crossed*

[popsoda]

(Original post by LeSacMagique)
How is everyone planning on doing turning points questions? We've been taught to structure them by turning point, ie, come up with a list of 5 and have a paragraph on each one in order of importance. But the examiners' reports say that while that approach can work they prefer it if you do it by theme, ie, have a paragraph on 'social' progress, 'economic' progress, etc in each of which you compare all of your turning points together. I think it's a bit late to so drastically change my exam technique, but is this the norm?



You'll be pretty screwed if Native Americans don't come up...

Social Economic Cultural etc is one example of themes but not the only one and not always the best one.

Someone like to inform me how they plan to sort out a workers rights question by this method? When there one is almost completely socio-economic.

The way you've been taught is fine and thematic just make sure you don't make it overly general - e.g. the period from 1900-1940 was a turning point.... as that's obviously not picking out a theme but - the increasing level of sympathy within the presidential branch of the federal government in the 60s - is, for example.

And ensure you constantly compare throughout.

[popsoda]

If womens right comes up again I will get up out of my chair and slap the nearest woman

[popsoda]

(Original post by ollie1994)
So NA, AA and Trade Unions for almost certain?

Also themes or turning points for trade unions?

Unlikely to get a turning point q on trade unions as they had one in january.

But they are
FDR - New Deal

JFK and LBJ new frontier and great society

Late 19th Century Goverment Hostility

WW2

Reagonomics

[chelseeaxo]

I have this exam tomorrow and have only done African Americans ahhhhhhh


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[beth60]

iyah would anyone be able to help me with a trade union question?
if it asked about the obstacles to trade union and workers rights, for unskilled and skilled workers I can't find them being any sort of abstacle after 1914 so would I just put that they after then can be seen as a small obstacle? Or can anyone let me know what information I can put for that.

Also what were the questions that came up on the January exams, I'm not going to do the African American question so I'm only interested in knowing what the other two were

[22DubDub]

(Original post by beth60)
iyah would anyone be able to help me with a trade union question?
if it asked about the obstacles to trade union and workers rights, for unskilled and skilled workers I can't find them being any sort of abstacle after 1914 so would I just put that they after then can be seen as a small obstacle? Or can anyone let me know what information I can put for that.

- Flint strike of 1936... turned fire hoses on police, could be seen as throw back to militant style of pullman/ homestead. injunctions used against them. however... generally positive outcome, with employers giving in... so its similar to previous tactics, but works!
- Still divided, as shown by new deal legislation; wagner act aimed to help skilled workers, and CIO attempted to help unskilled + minorities, but it did little, making a greater poverty/ representative divison.
- CIO split from AFL, due to AFL not representing AA, showing divisions within the movement, lack of unity blahblahblah
- Air traffic controlllers strike

[beth60]

(Original post by heera)
the question is : to what extent were internal divisions within the trade union movemnts the most important obstacle to the development of labour rights in usa from 1865 -1992?

could someone please explain to me what to include in my paragraph for internal division within the trade unions??

my structure for this essay is going to be :
intro
first para: division in movement
second para: federal govt
third para: 1886-1992 strikes

help pleassse

Heyy, I'm struggling with this type of question as well. What I've found best to do is when an obstacle question comes up, I have six types of obstacles to talk about, obviously around four including the one in the question would be enough and talk about how important they were at being an obstacle over the entire period and if their importance has changed.
So when it says divisions, I would talk about the divisions of skilled and unskilled workers and how race and immigration affected union rights. If the leadership of the unions were an obstacle; if the actions of the federal government were an obstacle; the actions of employers and the militancy of unions.
For Internal divisions to start with I would talk about the divisions of unkilled and skilled workers. Before 1914 this was probably the least important obstacle as it did cause the unions to not be unionised but the majority of workers were skilled workers so unions were mainly focused on benifiting them so progress was not really affected by this division. However after 1914 as unskilled workers had significantly increased it began to cause serious tensions in unions as the AFL were only focused on rights for skilled workers and they still limited unskilled workers joining their unions. This then caused the CIO to split from the AFL and focus more on unskilled workers rights, this then caused a huge division and limitation to the progress of union rights but this was only temporary as in the 1940s the Taft-Hartely Act led to the banning of communist leaders which led to the CIO having to return back to the AFL so no real harm was done. So then the divisions of skilled and unskilled can be seen as not that important as an obstactle.
You then would go on to talk about the divsions in the unions concerning race. I've revised this less but it would be something like in the early periods it was a very important obstacle as it seriously divided the unions as white members didn't want to join a union with black members so as a result they were excluded. This then led to employers sacking white employees and replacing them with black workers because they weren't involved in a union which led to tension increase within unions. Unions then saw immigrants and blacks as a threat to their membership because they were seen as causing low wages. Then in the 1920s blacks set up their own trade unions and in some cases were successful so after the 1920s race was no longer seen as an important obstacle to the progress of trade unions and workers rights. However before 1914 it was a more important obstacle than the divisions of skilled and unskilled
Then go on to say why...

[ehirst]

Hi guys,
Can anyone please help on some examples of how federal government / supreme court were a hindrance to AA rights in terms of political and economic themes?

Thanks in advance

[ollie1994]

So worth just revisiong NAs and AAs i've covered NAs AAs well and TUs not as much so want to know if people are doing the same and if it is a worthwhile risk?

[tsveta]

(Original post by ollie1994)
So worth just revisiong NAs and AAs i've covered NAs AAs well and TUs not as much so want to know if people are doing the same and if it is a worthwhile risk?

I've revised AAs and NAs quite thoroughly too. I have revised TUs but not as much. I haven't revised women.

[tsveta]

(Original post by ehirst)
Hi guys,
Can anyone please help on some examples of how federal government / supreme court were a hindrance to AA rights in terms of political and economic themes?

Thanks in advance

I wrote this essay the other day but I said they helped for political so can't help you there. As for economically, these are extracts from my essay (I did do this paragraph joint with social, so apologies if there are social hindrances in there too):

1968 Fair Housing Act. This is an example of de jure desegregation, but de facto segregation was still extremely prominent as African Americans lacked previous educational opportunities in order to acquire a similar economical income to that of many whites, thus creating a divide as whites could afford to live in wealthier, and generally speaking, safer areas, whereas blacks were often submitted to Ghettos.

1981-89 under Reagan’s presidency, who notoriously opposed Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s; resisted affirmative action and appointed fewer African Americans in the government than any president since Eisenhower in 1951-63. With a slumped economy, and many African Americans caught in the poverty cycle, Reagan did little to help – he cut benefits and in 1988 tried to veto the Civil Rights Restoration Act.

1865-69 under Andrew Johnson’s presidency, who attempted to veto many bills concerning Civil Rights, such as the 1866 Civil Rights Bill, leading to attempted impeachment. He also allowed the Black Codes 1865/66 to develop, which massively hindered Civil Rights in terms of social issues, as it included rules such as forbidden inter-racial marriage. This is highlighted again in 1913-21 during the Wilson Era, who believed strongly in self-determination, thus hindering many blacks who were in economical deficit and made interracial marriage illegal in the District of Colombia.

By 1900, 90% of African Americans lived in the south – Mississippi largely populated with black people, even though it was one of the most racist states in the USA – to seek employment.

Roosevelt’s New Deal in 1933 was segregated, but it did help blacks in terms of economical problems and the GI Bill of Rights 1944 decreased employment by 34%. However, despite these advancements, 1984-94 was negative for blacks economically, as Bush was strongly opposed to affirmative action and vetoed a Civil Rights Bill because of this. Although the Federal Government did make some economical improvements for African Americans, it mainly seemed reluctant, thus suggesting the Federal Government hindered rather than helped the Movement, from this perspective.

Hope that helps X

[LeSacMagique]

(Original post by ehirst)
Hi guys,
Can anyone please help on some examples of how federal government / supreme court were a hindrance to AA rights in terms of political and economic themes?

Thanks in advance

After the 1877 Compromise that got Hayes in power federal government withdrew troops from the South and presidents did nothing to stop the Southern states from entering the Jim Crow era of heavy legal discrimination against blacks until, really, Truman; Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the civil service; Roosevelt's New Deal policies did benefit some blacks economically, but many of the 'alphabet agencies' discriminated against blacks, for example by not guaranteeing them loans on newly-built houses. Nixon campaigned against 'bussing' which attempted to desegregate schools, and Reagan tried to reverse affirmative action and appointed far fewer blacks to federal positions than any of his immediate predecessors had--this was the policy of his "colour-blind" administration.

In terms of supreme court cases--there's obviously Plessy v Ferguson 1896 that set a precedent for the policy of 'separate but equal' but there're also later cases like Regents of University of California v Baake, 1978 that hampered affirmative action by ruling it unconstitutional to have a specific number of places on their medical course reserved only for blacks.

[barbaracampi]

(Original post by ollie1994)
So worth just revisiong NAs and AAs i've covered NAs AAs well and TUs not as much so want to know if people are doing the same and if it is a worthwhile risk?

I have done the same but with women instead of trade unions, and by revised it no so well i mean i know the date for 2 turning points ...

[LeSacMagique]

(Original post by ollie1994)
So worth just revisiong NAs and AAs i've covered NAs AAs well and TUs not as much so want to know if people are doing the same and if it is a worthwhile risk?

I revised all of them--it's definitely too big a risk to just revise 2 because one of them might not come up (even if it is unlikely) or if they do both come up you might get a really tough question in one of them. I also think it's too risk to revise only 3: you might get a horrible question, especially in this exam since they seem to like to ask questions that don't fit into the usual formats (like the one about aims staying the same) so again you might get a horrible question and be screwed. That's why I revised all 4--it's just way more flexible.

(That said, I'm definitely better on AA NA and TU than women)

[beth60]

what were the questions that were on the January exam for trade unions and women?