# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Piktochart | Piktochart Visual Editor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
Esperanza had a dream for her and her family and she wanted nothing more than to live in a nice home and live a good life. Although she is only a child Esperanza has already been exposed to her families financial status. "They always told us that one day we would move into a house, a real house that would be ours for always so we wouldn't have to move each year. Our house would be white with trees around it, a great big yard and grass growing without a fence. This was the house Papa talked about when he held a lottery ticket and this was the house Mama dreamed up in the stories she told us before we went to bed." (Cisneros 4).

# data[].attributes.body
Fighting for ones country truely shows your loyalty. In the early 1900's African American men and women still faced severe inequlaity and they were often treated unfairly in the workforce. World War I was an opportunity for black men to join the army and prove themselves. When you volunteer to serve it shows that you are dedicated to the concept of making your country better off as a whole even if that means you have to risk your life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Unknown Soldiers

The Unwept

Fighting for Respect: African-American Soldiers in WWI - by Jami Bryan

by Jami Bryan, Managing Editor, Fighting for Respect: African-American Soldiers in WWI
On Point
Article originally appeared in On Point, an Army Historical Foundation publication
As the people of the United States watched World War I ignite across Europe, African American citizens saw an opportunity to win the respect of their white neighbors. America was a segregated society and African Americans were considered, at best, second class citizens. Yet despite that, there were many African American men willing to serve in the nation's military, but even as it became apparent that the United States would enter the war in Europe, blacks were still being turned away from military service.

When the United States declared war against Germany in April of 1917, War Department planners quickly realized that the standing Army of 126,000 men would not be enough to ensure victory overseas. The standard volunteer system proved to be inadequate in raising an Army, so on 18 May 1917 Congress passed the Selective Service Act requiring all male citizens between the ages of 21 and 31 to register for the draft. Even before the act was passed, African American males from all over the country eagerly joined the war effort. They viewed the conflict as an opportunity to prove their loyalty, patriotism, and worthiness for equal treatment in the United States.

Following the Civil War, the Army disbanded volunteer "colored" regiments, and established six Regular Army regiments of black troops with white officers. In 1869, the infantry regiments were reorganized into the 24th and 25th Infantry. The two cavalry regiments, the 9th and 10th, were retained. These regiments were posted in the West and Southwest where they were heavily engaged in the Indian War. During the Spanish-American War, all four regiments saw service.

When World War I broke out, there were four all-black regiments: the 9th and 10th Cavalry and the 24th and 25th Infantry. The men in these units were considered heroes in their communities. Within one week of Wilson's declaration of war, the War Department had to stop accepting black volunteers because the quotas for African Americans were filled.

When it came to the draft, however, there was a reversal in usual discriminatory policy. Draft boards were comprised entirely of white men. Although there were no specific segregation provisions outlined in the draft legislation, blacks were told to tear off one corner of their registration cards so they could easily be identified and inducted separately. Now instead of turning blacks away, the draft boards were doing all they could to bring them into service, southern draft boards in particular. One Georgia county exemption board discharged forty-four percent of white registrants on physical grounds and exempted only three percent of black registrants based on the same requirements. It was fairly common for southern postal workers to deliberately withhold the registration cards of eligible black men and have them arrested for being draft dodgers. African American men who owned their own farms and had families were often drafted before single white employees of large planters. Although comprising just ten percent of the entire United States population, blacks supplied thirteen percent of inductees.

While still discriminatory, the Army was far more progressive in race relations than the other branches of the military. Blacks could not serve in the Marines, and could only serve limited and menial positions in the Navy and the Coast Guard. By the end of World War I, African Americans served in cavalry, infantry, signal, medical, engineer, and artillery units, as well as serving as chaplains, surveyors, truck drivers, chemists, and intelligence officers.

Although technically eligible for many positions in the Army, very few blacks got the opportunity to serve in combat units. Most were limited to labor battalions. The combat elements of the U.S. Army were kept completely segregated. The four established all-black Regular Army regiments were not used in overseas combat roles but instead were diffused throughout American held territory. There was such a backlash from the African American community, however, that the War Department finally created the 92d and 93d Divisions, both primarily black combat units, in 1917.

With the creation of African American units also came the demand for African-American officers. The War Department thought the soldiers would be more likely to follow men of their own color, thereby reducing the risk of any sort of uprising. Most leaders of the African American community agreed, and it was decided that the Army would create a segregated, but supposedly equal, officer training camp. In May 1917, Fort Des Moines opened its doors to black officer-trainees. Approximately 1,250 men attended the camp in Des Moines, Iowa.

Two hundred fifty of those men were already noncommissioned officers, and the rest were civilians. The average man attending the camp only had to have a high school education, and only twelve percent scored above average in the classification tests given by the Army.

Run by then LTC Charles C. Ballou, the fort's staff of twelve West Point graduates, and a few noncommissioned officers from the four original all-black regiments put the candidates through a rigorous training routine. They practiced drilling with and without arms, signaling, physical training, memorizing the organization of the regiment, reading maps, and training on the rifle and bayonet. However, as Ballou noted after the war, the men doing the training did not take the job very seriously, and seemed to consider the school, and the candidates, a waste of time. Consequently, the War Department determined that the instruction at Fort Des Moines was poor and inadequate. Also adding to the poor training was the fact that no one knew exactly what to expect in France, so it was difficult to train as precisely as was needed.

On 15 October 1917, 639 African-American men received their commissions as either captain or first or second lieutenant, and were assigned to infantry, artillery, and engineer units with the 92d Division. This was to be the first and only class to graduate from Fort Des Moines; the War Department shut it down soon after their departure. Future black candidates attended either special traning camps in Puerto Rico (from which 433 officers graduated), the Philippines, Hawaii, and Panama, or regular officer training facilities in the United States .

The Army had no written policy on what to do if an officer training camp became integrated, so each camp was allowed to decide for itself the manner in which the integration was executed. Some were completely segregated and others allowed for blacks and whites to train together. Over 700 additional black officers graduated from these camps, bringing the total number to 1,353.

Although African Americans were earning higher positions in the Army, that did not necessarily mean they were getting equal treatment. Black draftees were treated with extreme hostility when they arrived for training. White men refused to salute black officers and black officers were often barred from the officer's clubs and quarters. The War Department rarely interceded, and discrimination was usually overlooked or sometimes condoned. Because many Southern civilians protested having blacks from other states inhabit nearby training camps, the War Department stipulated that no more than one-fourth of the trainees in any Army camp in the U.S. could be African American.

Even when integrated into fairly progressive camps, black soldiers were often treated badly and sometimes went for long periods without proper clothing. There were also reports of blacks receiving old Civil War uniforms and being forced to sleep outside in pitched tents instead of warmer, sturdier barracks. Some were forced to eat outside in the winter months, while others went without a change of clothes for months at a time. Not all black soldiers suffered treatment like this, however, as those who were lucky enough to train at newly erected National Army cantonments lived in comfortable barracks and had sanitary latrines, hot food, and plenty of clothes.

The first black troops sent overseas belonged to service units. Because the work that these units did was absolutely invaluable to the war effort, commanders promised special privileges in return for high-yield results. With such motivation, the soldiers would often work for twenty-four hours straight unloading ships and transporting men and materiel to and from various bases, ports, and railroad depots. As the war continued and soldiers took to the battlefields, black labor units became responsible for digging trenches, removing unexploded shells from fields, clearing disabled equipment and barbed wire, and burying soldiers killed in action. Despite all the hard and essential work they provided, African American stevedores received the worst treatment of all black troops serving in World War I.

Although not nearly as respected as any of the white soldiers involved in the war effort, African American combat troops, in many respects, were much better off than the laborers. The two combat divisions--the 92d and 93d Divisions--had two completely different experiences while fighting the Great War.

The 92d Division was created in October 1917 and put under the command of BG Charles C. Ballou, who had organized the first African American officer candidate school. Organized in a manner similar to the other American divisions, the 92d was made up of four infantry regiments, three field artillery regiments, a trench mortar battery, three machine gun battalions, a signal battalion, an engineer regiment, an engineer train, and various support units.

Although in no case did a black officer command a white officer, most of the officers (up to the rank of first lieutenant) in the unit were African American. Unlike just about every other American unit training to go into battle, soldiers from the 92d were forced to train separately while in the United States. The War Department, fearing racial uprisings, was willing to sacrifice the unit's ability to develop cohesion and pride. The lack of a strong bond between the men was one of the factors that led to the unit's poor performance in the Meuse-Argonne campaign.

The personal animosity between LTG Robert Bullard, commander of the American Second Army, and BG Ballou was another problem. Bullard was not only a staunch racist, but he also had a rivalry going with BG Ballou. In order to make both Ballou and the black soldiers appear completely incompetent, Bullard spread misinformation about the successes and failures of the 92d.

Even COL Allen J. Greer, Ballou's chief of staff, was in on the plan to sabotage the reputation of his African American unit, and helped put a negative twist on stories from the front lines. Regardless of how well the 92d Division actually did on the battlefield, it was virtually impossible to overcome the slander from prejudiced officers.

Following some initial successes in Lorraine in mid-August, on 20 September 1918, the 92d was ordered to proceed to the Argonne Forest in preparation for the Meuse-Argonne offensive. The division reached the front lines just before the first assault. The 368th Infantry Regiment immediately received orders to fill a gap between the American 77th Division and the French 37th Division. However, due to their lack of training with the French, shortages of equipment, and unfamiliarity with the terrain, the regiment did not successfully complete this important assignment. The failure to accomplish this crucial mission blemished the 92d's combat record, and it was often used by military authorities for more than thirty years to prove the inadequacy of African American soldiers in combat.

After the disaster in the Argonne, the entire division was sent to a relatively quiet area of the front in the Marbache sector. Their primary mission was nevertheless a dangerous one: harass the enemy with frequent patrols. The danger of the assignment was reflected in the 462 casualties sustained in just the first month of patrolling. Although American commanders were dissatisfied with the unit's performance, the French obviously had a different opinion--they decorated members of the 365th Infantry and 350th Machine Gun Battalion for their aggressiveness and bravery.

By late 1918, the German Army was in full retreat, the Allied Commander in Chief, Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch, wanted to apply heavy pressure for a decisive breakthrough and defeat. The 92d was ordered to take the heights east of Champney, France, on 10 November 1918. Although only lasting one day, the attack was fierce and bloody, costing the division over 500 casualties.

As the 92d Division struggled to clear its reputation, the 93d Division had a much more successful experience. Commanded by BG Roy Hoffman, the 93d Division was also organized in December 1917. Unlike other American infantry divisions, the 93d was limited to four infantry regiments, three of which were comprised of National Guard units from New York, Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and Tennessee. Being made up of mostly draftees and National Guardsmen, the 93d lacked any sort of consistency in its experience or composition. The unit also lacked its full number of combat units and support elements, and as a result never attained full divisional strength. Seeming to have odds stacked against it, the 93d fared remarkably well when faced with battle.

The situation was desperate in France, and with exhausted and dwindling armies, the French begged the United States for men. GEN John Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, promised them four American regiments. He decided to give them the regiments of the 93d Division since the French, who had used French colonial troops from Senegal, had experience in employing black soldiers in combat. The first African American combat troops to set foot on French soil belonged to the 93d Division. Armed, organized, and equipped as a French unit, the 93d quickly adjusted to their new assignment. Although experiencing some difficulties like language problems, the black soldiers were treated as equals.

The 369th Infantry was the first regiment of the 93d Division to reach France. They arrived in the port city of Brest in December 1917. On 10 March, after three months of duty with the Services of Supply, the 369th received orders to join the French 16th Division in Givry en Argonne for additional training. After three weeks the regiment was sent to the front lines in a region just west of the Argonne Forest. For nearly a month they held their position against German assaults, and after only a brief break from the front, the 369th was placed once again in the middle of the German offensive, this time at Minacourt, France. From 18 July to 6 August 1918, the 369th Infantry, now proudly nicknamed the "Harlem Hellfighters," proved their tenacity once again by helping the French 161st Division drive the Germans from their trenches during the Aisne-Marne counter-offensive.

In this three-week period, the Germans were making many small night raids into Allied territory. During one of these raids, a member of the 369th Infantry, CPL Henry Johnson, fought off an entire German raiding party using only a pistol and a knife. Killing four of the Germans and wounding many more, his actions allowed an wounded comrade to escape capture and led to the seizure of a stockpile of German arms. Johnson and his comrade were wounded and both received the French Croix de Guerre for their gallantry. Johnson was also promoted to sergeant.

From 26 September to 5 October, the 369th participated in the Meuse-Argonne offensive, and continued to fight well throughout the remainder of the war. The regiment fought in the front lines for a total of 191 days, five days longer than any other regiment in the AEF. France awarded the entire unit the Croix de Guerre, along with presenting 171 individual awards for exceptional gallantry in action.

Although the 369th won much of the glory for the 93d Division, the 370th, 371st, and 372d Regiments, eached assigned to different French divisions, also proved themselves worthy of acclaim at the front. The 370th fought hard in both the Meuse-Argonne and Oise-Aisne campaigns. Seventy-one members of the regiment received the French Croix de Guerre, and another twenty-one soldiers received the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC). Company C, 371st Infantry, earned the Croix de Guerre with Palm. The 371st Regiment spent more than three months on the front lines in the Verdun area, and for its extraordinary service in the Champagne offensive, the entire regiment was awarded the Croix de Guerre with Palm. In addition, three of the 371st's officers were awarded the French Legion of Honor, 123 men won the Croix de Guerre, and twenty-six earned the DSC.

The 372d Infantry also performed admirably during the American assault in Champagne, and afterwards assisted in the capture of Monthois. It was there the regiment faced strong resistance and numerous counterattacks, resulting in many instances of hand-to-hand combat. In less than two weeks of front line service, the 372d suffered 600 casualties. The regiment earned a unit Croix de Guerre with Palm, and in addition, forty-three officers, fourteen noncommissioned officers, and 116 privates received either the Croix de Guerre or the DSC.

On 11 November 1918 at 1100, the armistice between the Allies and Central Powers went into effect. Like all other American soldiers, the African American troops reveled in celebration and took justifiable pride the great victory they helped achieve. It was not without great cost: the 92d Division suffered 1,647 battle causualties and the 93d Division suffered 3,534. Expecting to come home heroes, black soldiers received a rude awakening upon their return. Back home, many whites feared that African Americans would return demanding equality and would try to attain it by employing their military training. As the troops returned, there was an increase of racial tension. During the summer and fall of 1919, anti-black race riots erupted in twenty-six cities across America. The lynching of blacks also increased from fifty-eight in 1918 to seventy-seven in 1919. At least ten of those victims were war veterans, and some were lynched while in uniform.

Despite this treatment, African American men continued to enlist in the military, including veterans of World War I that came home to such violence and ingratitude. They served their county in the brief period of peace after the World War I, and many went on to fight in World War II. It was not until the 1948 that President Harry S Truman issued an executive order to desegregate the military, although it took the Korean War to fully integrate the Army. African Americans finally began to receive the equal treatment their predecessors had earned in combat in France during World War I, and as far back as the American Revolution.

For more reading on African American soldiers in WWI, please see: The Unknown Soldiers: African-American Troops in WWI, by Arthur E. Barbeau & Florette Henri,The Right to Fight: A History of African-Americans in the Military, by Gerald Astor, and Soldiers of Freedom, by Kai Wri.
Written by Jami Bryan (Managing Editor of On Point)
Copyright © 2003 Jami Bryan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
- Fighting for Respect: African-American Soldiers in WWI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Unknown Soldiers The Unwept Fighting for Respect: African-American Soldiers in WWI - by Jami Bryan by Jami Bryan, Managing Editor, Fighting for Respect: African-American Soldiers in WWI On Point Article originally appeared in On Point, an Army Historical Foundation publication As the people of the United States watched World War I ignite across Europe, African American citizens saw an opportunity to win the respect of their white neighbors.

# data[].attributes.body
By definition myamerica states that American Identity is "American Identity: Ideas, Not Ethnicity. Since the United States was founded in the 18th century, Americans have defined themselves not by their racial, religious, and ethnic identity but by their common values and belief in individual freedom." I agree with this because we do not identify with a certain trait or appearance but we identitify with what were known for which is working toward complete equality and freedom.

# data[].attributes.body
The melting pot analogy resembles that America is a blend of all kinds of people who come together to identify differently but all together as Americans. What brings us all together is the loyalty and patriotism for the country.

# data[].attributes.body
This poem is about the segregation in America and how it will soon come to an end. The first line states "I too, sing America" this shows that he is American despite the color of his skin. Throughout the poem he demonstrates his confidence that segregation will end and he will be given a better life as an American.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I dreamed that you were a bee
That one day gaily flew along,
You came across the hedge to me,
And sang a soft, love-burdened song.
You brushed my petals with a kiss,
I woke to gladness with a start,
And yielded up to you in bliss
The treasured fragrance of my heart;
And then I knew
That I had waited there for you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I dreamed that you were a beeThat one day gaily flew along, You came across the hedge to me, And sang a soft, love-burdened song. You brushed my petals with a kiss, I woke to gladness with a start, And yielded up to you in bliss The treasured fragrance of my heart; And then I knew That I had waited there for you.

# data[].attributes.headline
Interview: What does being an American mean to you?

# data[].attributes.subject
Interview: What does being an American mean to you?

# data[].attributes.body
Person 1- Unlike other countries it means you have the freedom to pursuit whatever you desire despite the differences you may have
Person 2- it means having the capabilities and and privilige to puruit whatever your "dream" might be
Person 3- We have rights given to every person and welcome others

# data[].attributes.body
In John Lennon's song “Imagine”, the lyrics explain the idea of a seamless society in which we do not have segregation against people with difference race, religion or other differences. This idea ties into the concept of what it means to be an American. Many men and women come here because they seek the equality and opportunity that the United States provides.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Imagine - John Lennon & The Plastic Ono Band (w The Flux Fiddlers) (Ultimate Mix 2018) - 4K REMASTER

# data[].attributes.body
Despite our countries pride in equal opportunity for every race and gender it is clear to see that that is not always the case. It is said that 90% of Americans believe that we should do everything we can to prevent inequality,if this statement is true then why does it not show as prominently in todays society? For those who are born into the bottom fifth of income it is said that only 58% will move out of that state and more than half of those Americans are Hispanic or African American. It is achievable to lead a successful lifestyle as an American but by no means does it come with equal opportunity for everyone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Obama's second Inaugural Address used soaring language to reaffirm America's commitment to the dream of equality of opportunity: "We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own."

The gap between aspiration and reality could hardly be wider. Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country. Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity. This is especially tragic: While Americans may differ on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible. The Pew Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of opportunity.

Perhaps a hundred years ago, America might have rightly claimed to have been the land of opportunity, or at least a land where there was more opportunity than elsewhere. But not for at least a quarter of a century. Horatio Alger-style rags-to-riches stories were not a deliberate hoax, but given how they've lulled us into a sense of complacency, they might as well have been.

It's not that social mobility is impossible, but that the upwardly mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity. According to research from the Brookings Institution, only 58 percent of Americans born into the bottom fifth of income earners move out of that category, and just 6 percent born into the bottom fifth move into the top. Economic mobility in the United States is lower than in most of Europe and lower than in all of Scandinavia.

Another way of looking at equality of opportunity is to ask to what extent the life chances of a child are dependent on the education and income of his parents. Is it just as likely that a child of poor or poorly educated parents gets a good education and rises to the middle class as someone born to middle-class parents with college degrees? Even in a more egalitarian society, the answer would be no. But the life prospects of an American are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in almost any other advanced country for which there is data.

How do we explain this? Some of it has to do with persistent discrimination. Latinos and African-Americans still get paid less than whites, and women still get paid less than men, even though they recently surpassed men in the number of advanced degrees they obtain. Though gender disparities in the workplace are less than they once were, there is still a glass ceiling: women are sorely underrepresented in top corporate positions and constitute a minuscule fraction of C.E.O.'s.

Discrimination, however, is only a small part of the picture. Probably the most important reason for lack of equality of opportunity is education: both its quantity and quality. After World War II, Europe made a major effort to democratize its education systems. We did, too, with the G.I. Bill, which extended higher education to Americans across the economic spectrum.

But then we changed, in several ways. While racial segregation decreased, economic segregation increased. After 1980, the poor grew poorer, the middle stagnated, and the top did better and better. Disparities widened between those living in poor localities and those living in rich suburbs - or rich enough to send their kids to private schools. A result was a widening gap in educational performance - the achievement gap between rich and poor kids born in 2001 was 30 to 40 percent larger than it was for those born 25 years earlier, the Stanford sociologist Sean F. Reardon found.

Of course, there are other forces at play, some of which start even before birth. Children in affluent families get more exposure to reading and less exposure to environmental hazards. Their families can afford enriching experiences like music lessons and summer camp. They get better nutrition and health care, which enhance their learning, directly and indirectly.

Unless current trends in education are reversed, the situation is likely to get even worse. In some cases it seems as if policy has actually been designed to reduce opportunity: government support for many state schools has been steadily gutted over the last few decades - and especially in the last few years. Meanwhile, students are crushed by giant student loan debts that are almost impossible to discharge, even in bankruptcy. This is happening at the same time that a college education is more important than ever for getting a good job.

Young people from families of modest means face a Catch-22: without a college education, they are condemned to a life of poor prospects; with a college education, they may be condemned to a lifetime of living at the brink. And increasingly even a college degree isn't enough; one needs either a graduate degree or a series of (often unpaid) internships. Those at the top have the connections and social capital to get those opportunities. Those in the middle and bottom don't. The point is that no one makes it on his or her own. And those at the top get more help from their families than do those lower down on the ladder. Government should help to level the playing field.

Americans are coming to realize that their cherished narrative of social and economic mobility is a myth. Grand deceptions of this magnitude are hard to maintain for long - and the country has already been through a couple of decades of self-deception.

Without substantial policy changes, our self-image, and the image we project to the world, will diminish - and so will our economic standing and stability. Inequality of outcomes and inequality of opportunity reinforce each other - and contribute to economic weakness, as Alan B. Krueger, a Princeton economist and the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, has emphasized. We have an economic, and not only moral, interest in saving the American dream.

Policies that promote equality of opportunity must target the youngest Americans. First, we have to make sure that mothers are not exposed to environmental hazards and get adequate prenatal health care. Then, we have to reverse the damaging cutbacks to preschool education, a theme Mr. Obama emphasized on Tuesday. We have to make sure that all children have adequate nutrition and health care - not only do we have to provide the resources, but if necessary, we have to incentivize parents, by coaching or training them or even rewarding them for being good caregivers. The right says that money isn't the solution. They've chased reforms like charter schools and private-school vouchers, but most of these efforts have shown ambiguous results at best. Giving more money to poor schools would help. So would summer and extracurricular programs that enrich low-income students' skills.

Finally, it is unconscionable that a rich country like the United States has made access to higher education so difficult for those at the bottom and middle. There are many alternative ways of providing universal access to higher education, from Australia's income-contingent loan program to the near-free system of universities in Europe. A more educated population yields greater innovation, a robust economy and higher incomes - which mean a higher tax base. Those benefits are, of course, why we've long been committed to free public education through 12th grade. But while a 12th-grade education might have sufficed a century ago, it doesn't today. Yet we haven't adjusted our system to contemporary realities.

The steps I've outlined are not just affordable but imperative. Even more important, though, is that we cannot afford to let our country drift farther from ideals that the vast majority of Americans share. We will never fully succeed in achieving Mr. Obama's vision of a poor girl's having exactly the same opportunities as a wealthy girl. But we could do much, much better, and must not rest until we do.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at Columbia and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and chief economist for the World Bank, is the author of "The Price of Inequality."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Obama's second Inaugural Address used soaring language to reaffirm America's commitment to the dream of equality of opportunity: "We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own."

# data[].attributes.body
In almost every public school, students recite The Pledge of Alleigance and since its become something we have grown up with many children don't think twice to question it or even ask what exactly they're reciting. America is actually one of the only countries who have a pledge to their flag. The pledge is something that shows loyalty to your country however you're not forced to say it.

# data[].attributes.body
As we know, Rihanna is a more modern artist who is well known for her music. In early 2015 Rihanna came out with a new song called American Oxygen with a very meaningful music video and truthful lyrics. This is especially important because as one of the major influencers of todays era she came out with new music with a deeper meaning. In the video there are clips of some of our greatest accomplishments such as the moon landing as well as our greatest tragedies like 9/11. The video also addresses illegal immigrants and inequality for African Americans. As a whole it addresses a lot of our current issues and still ties in our accomplishments. It demonstrates that despite our rough past we are still working together to fix modern society and make it the best place we can. At the end of the song the lyrics "This is the new America, we are the new America." repeat which is saying that as the new generations come through we are the ones that will inevidibly shape our country and how people are treated.