Jim Crow Laws

The origins of the term "Jim Crow" are offensive in a number of ways. Among them are:

• The widespread use of the term was originated by a white man.
• The term can be seen as a condescending and offensive reference to skin color and to the idea that African Americans were in some way less than human.
• Most importantly, the use of the term comes out of the tradition of "minstrel shows." These were shows that were inherently racist in that they were based around making fun of the supposed stupidity of African Americans.

Of course, the origin of the term is in no way as offensive as the laws that were referred to as "Jim Crow laws." Offensiveness is bad, but actual legal segregation and discrimination is worse.

The first answer below is a great one for pro, but a con is: change in culture. We once were Americans but eventually, America might become an almost complete population of Mexican. Now, i have nothing against immigration i just read that in my history book at school. I have no problem with mexicans. JUST AN EXAMPLE.

• People can be happier living an easier life here.

• There are the 2 main points of immigration, the US government likes illegal immigrants for cheap labor, but they don't like the immigration itself.

• Some of the main pros of immigration in the US is the amount of foreigners who come to our country with new technology and new ideas for the future, their technology could be beneficial to us. Some of the main cons of immigration in the US are the increase in population, illiterate and poor immigrants lowering the GDP (gross domestic product) of our country. immigration is also lowering the standard of living in the US.

I don't think that culture should be added to the CONS since the United States has millions of people from all over the world including: Asia, South America, Mexico etc. in other words there is no true culture since there's many people coming from different places who practice different religions and so on.

Well, to my opinion, immigration is good. The pros of immigration is a better society such as, technology, new ideas for the future. Foreigners everywhere should be able to come to America when they want. There are Mexicans, Asians, Hispanics etc living in America. Why can't there be more. It was said that America is the "land of the free, home of the brave" so every one in other countries should be able to come and live a "new" life. Also, immigration can be bad. Alot of people in America can overcrowd it and there would be to many people and not enough resources. Also, some people are terrorist and it can harm the society and the people in it. Those are the pros and cons of immigrations. I hope this answered your question.

It's a nineteenth century idea about the segregation of the two spheres of life: the public and the private. The husband (or men in general) was in charge of the public side of life while the wife (or women in general) was in charge of the private side of life. This meant that the man went to work, voted, participated in civics while the women cooked, raised the children, and took care of other domestic duties.

This dualism is idealized, as no one really lived completely in the private or public. Upper class women were far more public than private, and low class women were far more public than private too. But both in different ways.

Gender historians have picked up on this idea to explain male power over women.

Hope this helps.

--------For more info ------------

If you need more than what that guy ^ said then you might wanna search for "Cult of Domesticity"

I have to disagree with this answer. The ideology of separate spheres came about in the 18th century. It occured due to the formation of the 'middling sort' (the predecessor of the middle classes, which appeared in the 19th century). This new middling sort came about due to an increase in Englands wealth (they were the nouveau riche). Thus, the male and female roles of the middling sorts and elites became defined due to more leisure time and social expectations. Women became part of the private sphere and men part of the public sphere. However, this was not truly the case, the two separate spheres would often overlap to create a Venn diagram effect.

It is important to note that gender/separate spheres were linked to the middling sorts and elites. Historians have managed to miss a whole demographic (lower classes) because of this. However, this seems to be changing and the use of this term does not sit so favourably with modern historians. Arguably, this comes down to the interest in women's and gender history, which has re-interpreted the written history which has gone before.