The Development Of Dominant-Minority Group Relations In .
03-Healey.qxd11/7/20069:46 PMPage 53CHAPTER3The Development ofDominant-Minority Group Relationsin Preindustrial AmericaThe Origins of SlaveryFrom the first settlements in the 1600s until the 19th century, most people living inwhat was to become the United States relied directly on farming for food, shelter,and other necessities of life. In an agricultural society, land and labor are central concerns, and the struggle to control these resources led directly to the creation of minoritygroup status for three groups: African Americans, Native Americans, and MexicanAmericans. Why did the colonists create slavery? Whywere Africans enslaved but not Native Americans orEuropeans? Why did Native Americans lose theirland and most of their population by the 1890s? Howdid the Mexican population in the Southwest become“Mexican Americans”? How did the experience ofbecoming a subordinated minority group vary bygender?In this chapter, the concepts introduced in Part Iwill be used to answer these questions. Some newideas and theories will also be introduced, and bythe end of the chapter, we will have developed atheoretical model of the process that leads to thecreation of a minority group. The creation of blackslavery in colonial America, arguably the singlemost significant event in the early years of thisnation, will be used to illustrate the process ofminority group creation. We will also consider thesubordination of Native Americans and MexicanAmericans—two more historical events of greatsignificance—as additional case studies. We will follow the experiences of AfricanAmericans through the days of segregation in Chapter 4 and into the contemporary era in Chapter 5. The story of the development of minority group status for53
03-Healey.qxd5411/7/20069:46 PMPage 54EVOLUTION OF DOMINANT-MINORITY RELATIONS IN THE U.S.Native Americans and Mexican Americanswill be picked up again in Chapters 6 and 7,respectively.Two broad themes underlie this chapterand, indeed, the remainder of the text:1. The nature of dominant-minoritygroup relations at any point in time is largelya function of the characteristics of the societyas a whole. The situation of a minority groupwill reflect the realities of everyday social lifeand particularly the subsistence technology(the means by which the society satisfiesbasic needs such as food and shelter). Asexplained by Gerhard Lenski (see Chapter 1),the subsistence technology of a society acts asa foundation, shaping and affecting everyother aspect of the social structure, includingminority group relations.2. The contact situation—the conditionsunder which groups first come together—isthe single most significant factor in the creation of minority group status. The nature ofthe contact situation has long-lasting consequences for the minority group and the extentof racial or ethnic stratification, the levelsof racism and prejudice, the possibilities forassimilation and pluralism, and virtuallyevery other aspect of the dominant-minorityrelationship.THE ORIGINS OFSLAVERY IN AMERICABy the beginning of the 1600s, Spanishexplorers had conquered much of Centraland South America, and the influx of gold,silver, and other riches from the New Worldhad made Spain a powerful nation. FollowingSpain’s lead, England proceeded to establishits presence in the Western Hemisphere, butits efforts at colonization were more modestthan those of Spain. By the early 1600s, onlytwo small colonies had been established:Plymouth, settled by pious Protestantfamilies, and Jamestown, populated primarilyby males seeking their fortunes.By 1619, the British colony at Jamestown,Virginia, had survived for more than adecade. The residents of the settlement hadfought with the local Native Americans andstruggled continuously to eke out a livingfrom the land. Starvation, disease, and deathwere frequent visitors, and the future of theenterprise continued to be in doubt.In August of that year, a Dutch shiparrived in colonial Virginia. The master ofthe ship needed provisions and offered totrade his only cargo: about 20 blackAfricans. Many of the details of this transaction have been lost, and probably we willnever know exactly how these people cameto be chained in the hold of a ship.Regardless, this brief episode was a landmark event in the formation of what wouldbecome the United States. In combinationwith the strained relations between theEnglish settlers and Native Americans, thepresence of these first few Africans raised anissue that has never been fully resolved:How should different groups in this societyrelate to each other?The colonists at Jamestown had no readyanswer. In 1619, England and its coloniesdid not practice slavery, so these firstAfricans were probably incorporated intocolonial society as indentured servants, contract laborers who are obligated to serve amaster for a specific number of years. At theend of the indenture, or contract, the servant became a free citizen. The coloniesdepended heavily on indentured servantsfrom the British Isles for labor, and thisstatus apparently provided a convenientway of defining the newcomers from Africa,who were, after all, treated as commoditiesand exchanged for food and water.The position of African indentured servants in the colonies remained ambiguous forseveral decades. American slavery evolvedgradually and in small steps; in fact, therewas little demand for African labor duringthe years following 1619. By 1625, there stillwere only 23 blacks in Virginia, and thatnumber had increased to perhaps 300 bymid-century (Franklin & Moss, 1994, p. 57).In the decades before the dawn of slavery, weknow that some African indentured servantsdid become free citizens. Some became successful farmers and landowners and, like
03-Healey.qxd11/7/20069:46 PMPage 55Development of Dominant-Minority Group Relations in Preindustrial U.S.their white neighbors, purchased Africanand white indentured servants themselves(Smedley, 1999, p. 97). By the 1650s, however, many African Americans (and their offspring) were being treated as the property ofothers, or in other words, as slaves (Morgan,1975, p. 154).It was not until the 1660s that the firstlaws defining slavery were enacted. In thecentury that followed, hundreds of additional laws were passed to clarify and formalize the status of Africans in colonialAmerica. By the 1750s, slavery had beenclearly defined in law and in custom, andthe idea that a person could own anotherperson—not just the labor or the energy orthe work of a person, but the actual person—had been thoroughly institutionalized.What caused slavery? The gradual evolution and low demand for indentured servants from Africa suggest that slavery wasnot somehow inevitable or preordained.Why did the colonists deliberately createthis repressive system? Why did they reachout all the way to Africa for their slaves? Ifthey wanted to create a slave system, whydidn’t they enslave the Native Americansnearby or the white indentured servantsalready present in the colonies?The Labor Supply ProblemAmerican colonists of the 1600s saw slavery as a solution to several problems theyfaced. The business of the colonies was agriculture, and farm work at this time was laborintensive, or performed almost entirely byhand. The industrial revolution was twocenturies in the future, and there were fewmachines or labor-saving devices available toease the everyday burden of work. A successful harvest depended largely on human effort.As colonial society grew and developed,a specific form of agricultural productionbegan to emerge. The plantation system wasbased on cultivating and exporting cropssuch as sugar, tobacco, and rice on largetracts of land with a large, cheap laborforce. Profit margins tended to be small, soplanters sought to stabilize their incomes byfarming in volume and keeping the costs ofproduction as low as possible. Profits in thelabor-intensive plantation system could bemaximized if a large, disciplined, and cheapworkforce could be maintained by thelandowners (Curtin, 1990; Morgan, 1975).At about the same time the plantationsystem began to emerge, the supply of whiteindentured servants from the British Islesbegan to dwindle. Furthermore, the whiteindentured servants who did come to thecolonies had to be released from theirindenture every few years. Land was available, and these newly freed citizens tendedto strike out on their own. Thus, landowners who relied on white indentured servantshad to deal with high turnover rates in theirworkforces and faced a continually uncertain supply of labor.Attempts to solve the labor supply problem by using Native Americans failed. Thetribes closest to the colonies were sometimes exploited for manpower. However,by the time the plantation system hadevolved, the local tribes had dwindled innumbers as a result of warfare and disease. Other Indian Nations across the continent retained enough power to resistenslavement, and it was relatively easy forNative Americans to escape back to theirkinfolk.This left black Africans as a potentialsource of manpower. The slave trade fromAfrica to the Spanish and Portuguesecolonies of South America was firmly established by the mid-1600s and could beexpanded to fill the needs of the Britishcolonies as well. The colonists came to seeslaves imported from Africa as the most logical, cost-effective way to solve their vexingshortage of labor. The colonists createdslavery to cultivate their lands and generateprofits, status, and success. The paradoxat the core of U.S. society had been established: The construction of a social systemdevoted to freedom and individual liberty“in the New World was made possible onlyby the revival of an institution of nakedtyranny foresworn for centuries in the Old”(Lacy, 1972, p. 22).55
03-Healey.qxd5611/7/20069:46 PMPage 56EVOLUTION OF DOMINANT-MINORITY RELATIONS IN THE U.S.The Contact SituationThe conditions under which groups firstcome into contact determine the immediatefate of the minority group and shapeintergroup relations for years to come.Two theories serve as analytical guides inunderstanding this crucial phase of grouprelationships.The Noel HypothesisSociologist Donald Noel identifies threefeatures of the contact situation that, in combination, lead to some form of inequalitybetween groups. The Noel hypothesis states:If two or more groups come together in acontact situation characterized by ethnocentrism, competition, and a differential inpower, then some form of racial or ethnicstratification will result (Noel, 1968, p. 163).If the contact situation has all three characteristics, some dominant-minority groupstructure will be created.Noel’s first characteristic, ethnocentrism,is the tendency to judge other groups,societies, or lifestyles by the standards ofone’s own culture. Ethnocentrism is probably a universal component of human society,and some degree of ethnocentrism is essential to the maintenance of social solidarityand cohesion. Without some minimal levelof pride in and loyalty to one’s own societyand cultural traditions, there would be noparticular reason to observe the norms andlaws, honor the sacred symbols, or cooperate with others in doing the daily work ofsociety.Regardless of its importance, ethnocentrism can have negative consequences. Atits worst, it can lead to the view that othercultures and peoples are not just differentbut inferior. At the very least, ethnocentrism creates a social boundary line thatmembers of the groups will recognize andobserve. When ethnocentrism exists inany degree, people will tend to sort themselves out along group lines and identifycharacteristics that differentiate “us” from“them.”Competition is any struggle over ascarce commodity. As we saw in theRobber’s Cave experiment in Chapter 1,competition between groups often leads toharsh negative feelings (prejudice) andhostile actions (discrimination). In competitive contact situations, the victoriousgroup becomes the dominant group, andthe losers become the minority group. Thecompetition may center on land, labor,jobs, housing, educational opportunities,political office, or anything else that ismutually desired by both groups or thatone group has and the other group wants.Competition provides the eventual dominant group with the motivation to establish superiority. The dominant groupserves its own interests by ending thecompetition and exploiting, controlling,eliminating, or otherwise dominating theminority group.The third feature of the contact situationis a differential in power between thegroups. Power, as you recall from Chapter1, is the ability of a group to achieve itsgoals even in the face of opposition fromother groups. The amount of power commanded by a group is a function of threefactors. First, the size of the group can makea difference, and all other things beingequal, larger groups are more powerful.Second, in addition to raw numbers, thedegree of organization and discipline, aswell as the quality of group leadership, canmake a difference in the ability of a groupto pursue its goals. A third component ofpower is resources: anything that can beused to help the group achieve its goals.Depending on the context, resources mightinclude anything from land to informationto money. The greater the number and variety of resources at the disposal of a group,the greater its potential ability to dominateother groups. So, a larger, better organizedgroup with more resources at its disposalgenerally will be able to impose its will onsmaller, less well-organized groups withfewer resources. The Noel hypothesis is diagrammed in Exhibit 3.1.
03-Healey.qxd11/7/20069:46 PMPage 57Development of Dominant-Minority Group Relations in Preindustrial U.S.Exhibit 3.1The Noel Hypothesis Applied to the Origins of SlaveryCharacteristics ofContact SituationResultEthnocentrismGroup boundaries established(who to dominate)CompetitionMotivation to establishsuperiority (why dominate)Differential inpowerDominant group imposes itswill on minority group (howto dominate)Note the respective functions of each ofthe three factors in shaping the contact situation and the emergence of inequality. Ifethnocentrism is present, the groups willrecognize their differences and maintaintheir boundaries. If competition is also present, the eventual dominant group willattempt to maximize its share of scarcecommodities by controlling or subordinating the eventual minority group. The differential in power allows the dominant groupto succeed in establishing a superior position. Ethnocentrism tells the dominantgroup who to dominate, competition tellsthe dominant group why it should establisha structure of dominance, and power is howthe dominant group’s will is imposed on theminority group.The Noel hypothesis can be applied tothe creation of minority groups in a varietyof situations. We will also use the modelto analyze changes in dominant-minoritystructures over time.The Blauner HypothesisThe contact situation has also been analyzed by sociologist Robert Blauner in hisbook Racial Oppression in America (1972).Blauner identifies two different initial relationships—colonization and immigration—and hypothesizes that minority groupscreated by colonization will experience moreintense prejudice, racism, and discriminationEthnic orracialstratificationthan those created by immigration. Furthermore, the disadvantaged status of colonizedgroups will persist longer and be moredifficult to overcome than the disadvantaged status faced by groups created byimmigration.Colonized minority groups, such asAfrican Americans, are forced into minoritystatus by the superior military and politicalpower of the dominant group. At the timeof contact with the dominant group, colonized groups are subjected to massiveinequalities and attacks on their cultures.They are assigned to positions, such as slavestatus, from which any form of assimilationis extremely difficult and perhaps even forbidden by the dominant group. Frequently,members of the minority group are identified by highly visible racial or physical characteristics that maintain and reinforce theoppressive system. Thus, minority groupscreated by colonization experience harsherand more persistent rejection and oppression than groups created by immigration.Immigrant minority groups are at leastin part voluntary participants in the hostsociety. That is, although the decision toimmigrate may be motivated by extremepressures, such as famine or political persecution, immigrant groups have at least somecontrol over their destination and theirposition in the host society. As a result, theydo not occupy such markedly inferior positions as colonized groups do. They retain57
03-Healey.qxd5811/7/20069:46 PMPage 58EVOLUTION OF DOMINANT-MINORITY RELATIONS IN THE U.S.enough internal organization and resourcesto pursue their own self-interests, and theycommonly experience more rapid acceptance and easier movement to equality. Theboundaries between groups are not sorigidly maintained, especially when thegroups are racially similar. In discussingEuropean immigrant groups, for example,Blauner (1972) states that entering intoAmerican societyinvolved a degree of choice and selfdirection that was for the most part deniedto people of color. Voluntary immigrationmade it more likely that . . . European . . .ethnic groups would identify with Americaand see the host culture as a positive opportunity. (p. 56)Acculturation and, particularly, integrationwere significantly more possible for Europeanimmigrant groups than for the groups formedunder conquest or colonization.Blauner stresses that these initial differences have consequences that persist longafter the original contact. For example,based on measures of equality or integration into the secondary sector (see Chapter2), such as average income, years of education, and unemployment rate, the descendants of the European immigrants are equalwith national norms today (see Chapter 10for specific data). In contrast, the descendants of colonized and conquered groups(e.g., African Americans) are, on the average, below the national norms on virtuallyall measures of equality and integration (seeChapters 5–7 for specific data).Blauner’s two types of minority groupslie at opposite ends of a continuum, butthere are intermediate positions between theextremes. Enclave and middleman minorities (see Chapter 2) often originate as immigrant groups who bring some resources andthus have more opportunities than colonized minority groups to carve out placesfor themselves in the host society. UnlikeEuropean groups, however, many of theseminorities are also racially distinguishable,and certain kinds of opportunities may beclosed to them. For instance, citizenshipwas expressly forbidden to immigrantsfrom China until the 1940s. Federal lawsrestricted the entrance of Chinese immigrants, and state and local laws deniedopportunities for education, jobs, and housing to Chinese Americans. For this andother reasons, the Asian immigrant experience cannot be equated with Europeanimmigrant patterns (Blauner, 1972, p. 55).Because enclave and middleman minoritygroups combine characteristics of both acolonized and an immigrant experience, wecan predict that, in terms of equality, theywill occupy an intermediate status betweenthe more assimilated white ethnic groupsand the colonized racial minorities.Blauner’s typology has proven to bean extremely useful conceptual tool for theanalysis of U.S. dominant-minority relations and is used extensively throughoutthis text. In fact, the case studies that comprise Part III of this text are arranged inapproximate order from groups created bycolonization to those created by immigration. Of course, it is difficult to measuresuch things as the extent of colonizationobjectively or precisely, and the exact orderof the groups is somewhat arbitrary.The Creation of American SlaveryThe Noel hypothesis helps explain whycolonists enslaved black Africans insteadof white indentured servants or NativeAmericans. First, all three groups were theobjects of ethnocentric feelings on the partof the elite groups that dominated colonial society. Black Africans and NativeAmericans were perceived as being different on religious as well as racial grounds.Many white indentured servants were IrishCatholics, criminals, or paupers. They notonly occupied a lowly status in society, theywere perceived as different from the BritishProtestants who dominated colonial society.Second, competition of some sort existedbetween the colonists and all three groups.The competition with Native Americans was
03-Healey.qxd11/7/20069:46 PMPage 59Development of Dominant-Minority Group Relations in Preindustrial U.S.direct and focused on control of land.Competition with indentured servants, whiteand black, was more indirect; these groupswere the labor force that the landownersneeded to work their plantations and becomesuccessful in the New World.Noel’s third variable, differential inpower, is the key variable that explains whyAfricans were enslaved instead of the othergroups. During the first several decadesof colonial history, the balance of powerbetween the colonists and Native Americanswas relatively even, and in fact, oftenfavored Native Americans (Lurie, 1982,pp. 131–133). The colonists were outnumbered, and their muskets and cannons wereonly marginally more effective than bowsand spears. The Native American tribeswere well-organized social units capableof sustaining resistance to and mountingreprisals against the colonists, and it tookcenturies for the nascent United States tofinally defeat Native Americans militarily.White indentured servants, on the onehand, had the advantage of being preferredover black indentured servants (Noel, 1968,p. 168). Their greater desirability gave thembargaining power and the ability to negotiate better treatment and more lenient termsthan black indentured servants. If theplanters had attempted to enslave whiteindentured servants, this source of laborwould have dwindled even more rapidly.Africans, on the other hand, had becomeindentured servants by force and coercion.In Blauner’s terms, they were a colonizedgroup that did not freely choose to enter theExhibit 3.2British colonies. Thus, they had no bargaining power. As opposed to Native Americans,they had no nearby relatives, no knowledgeof the countryside, and no safe havens towhich to escape. Exhibit 3.2 summarizes theimpact of these three factors on the threepotential sources of labor in colonialAmerica.Paternalistic RelationsRecall the first theme stated at the beginning of this chapter: The nature of intergrouprelationships will reflect the characteristics ofthe larger society. The most important andprofitable unit of economic production inthe colonial South was the plantation, andthe region was dominated by a small groupof wealthy landowners. A society with asmall elite class and a plantation-based economy will often develop a form of minorityrelations called paternalism (van den Berghe,1967; Wilson, 1973). The key features ofpaternalism are vast power differentialsand huge inequalities between dominantand minority groups, elaborate and repressive systems of control over the minoritygroup, castelike barriers between groups,elaborate and highly stylized codes ofbehavior and communication betweengroups, and low rates of overt conflict.Each of these characteristics will be considered in turn.As slavery evolved in the colonies, thedominant group shaped the system to fit itsneeds. To solidify control of the labor oftheir slaves, the plantation elite designedThe Noel Hypothesis Applied to the Origins of SlaveryThree Causal FactorsPotential Sources of LaborEthnocentrismCompetitionDifferential in PowerWhite Indentured ServantsYesYesNoNative AmericansYesYesNoBlack Indentured ServantsYesYesYesSOURCE: From Noel, Donald (1968). A Theory of the Origin of Ethnic Stratification, in Social Problems, 16.Copyright 1968. Reprinted by permission of The University of California Press, via the Copyright Clearance Center.59
03-Healey.qxd6011/7/20069:46 PMPage 60EVOLUTION OF DOMINANT-MINORITY RELATIONS IN THE U.S.and enacted an elaborate system of lawsand customs that gave masters nearly totallegal power over slaves. In these laws, slaveswere defined as chattel, or personal property, rather than as persons, and they wereaccorded no civil or political rights. Slavescould not own property, sign contracts,bring lawsuits, or even testify in court(except against another slave). The masterswere given the legal authority to determinealmost every aspect of a slave’s life, including work schedules, living arrangements,diets, and even names (Elkins, 1959;Franklin & Moss, 1994; Genovese, 1974;Jordan, 1968; Stampp, 1956).The law permitted the master to determine the type and severity of punishmentfor misbehavior. Slaves were forbidden bylaw to read or write, and marriages betweenslaves were not legally recognized. Masterscould separate husbands from wives andparents from children if it suited them.Slaves had little formal decision-makingability or control over their lives or the livesof their loved ones.Slavery was a caste system, or a closedstratification system. In a caste system, thereis no mobility between social positions, andthe social class into which you are born (yourascribed status) is permanent. Slave statuswas for life and was passed on to any children a slave might have. Whites, no matterwhat they did, could not become slaves. Incolonial America, slavery became synonymous with race and was deeply intertwinedwith powerlessness and racism, to the extentthat the legacy of those days still affects howblack and white Americans think about oneanother (e.g., see Hacker, 1992).Interaction between members of thedominant and minority groups in a paternalistic system is governed by a rigid,strictly enforced code of etiquette. Slaveswere expected to show deference andhumility and visibly display their lowerstatus when interacting with whites. Theserigid behavioral codes made it possible forblacks and whites to work together, sometimes intimately, sometimes for their entirelives, without threatening the power andstatus differentials inherent in the system.Plantation and farm work required closeand frequent contact between blacks andwhites, and status differentials were maintained socially rather than physically.The frequent but unequal interactionsallowed the elites to maintain a pseudotolerance, or an attitude of benevolentdespotism, toward their slaves. Their prejudice and racism were often expressed aspositive emotions of affection for theirblack slaves. The attitude of the planterstoward their slaves was often paternalisticand even genteel (Wilson, 1973, pp. 52–55).For their part, black slaves often couldnot hate their owners as much as they hatedthe system that constrained them. Thesystem defined slaves as pieces of propertyowned by their masters, yet they were,undeniably, human beings as well. Thus,slavery was based on a contradiction.The master learned to treat his slaves bothas property and as men and women, theslaves learned to express and affirm theirhumanity even while they were constrainedin much of their lives to accept their statusas chattel. (Parish, 1989, p. 1)The powerlessness of slaves made it difficult for them to openly reject or resist the system. Slaves had few ways in which they coulddirectly challenge the institution of slavery ortheir position in it. Open defiance was ineffective and could result in punishment or evendeath. In general, masters would not be prosecuted for physically abusing their slaves.One of the few slave revolts that occurredin the United States illustrates both the futility of overt challenge and the degree ofrepression built into the system. In 1831, inSouthhampton County, Virginia, a slavenamed Nat Turner led an uprising duringwhich 57 whites were killed. The revolt wasstarting to spread when the state militia metand routed the growing slave army. Morethan a hundred slaves died in the armedencounter, and Nat Turner and 13 otherswere later executed. Slave owners and whitesoutherners in general were greatly alarmedby the uprising and consequently tightenedthe system of control over slaves, making it
03-Healey.qxd11/7/20069:46 PMPage 61Development of Dominant-Minority Group Relations in Preindustrial U.S.even more repressive (Franklin & Moss,1994, p. 147). Ironically, the result of NatTurner’s attempt to lead slaves to freedomwas greater oppression and control by thedominant group.Others were more successful in resistingthe system. Runaway slaves were a constantproblem for slave owners, especially in thestates bordering the free states of the North.The difficulty of escape and the low likelihood of successfully reaching the Northdid not deter thousands from attemptingthe feat, some of them repeatedly. Manyrunaway slaves received help from theUnderground Railroad, an informal network of safe houses supported by AfricanAmericans and whites involved in abolitionism, the movement to abolish slavery. Theseescapes created colorful legends and heroicfigures, including Frederick Douglass,Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman.Besides running away and open rebellion, slaves used the forms of resistancemost readily available to them: sabotage,intentional carelessness, dragging their feet,and work slowdowns. As historian PeterParish (1989) points out, it is difficult toseparate “a natural desire to avoid hardwork [from a] conscious decision to protestor resist” (p. 73), and much of this behaviormay fall more into the category of noncooperation than deliberate political rebellion.Nonetheless, these behaviors were widespread and document the rejection of thesystem by its victims.On an everyday basis, the slaves managed their lives and families as best theycould. Most slaves were neither docile victims nor unyielding rebels. As the institution of slavery developed, a distinct AfricanAmerican experience accumulated and traditions of resistance and accommodationdevel
minority group relations. 2. The contact situation—the conditions under which groups first come together—is the single most significant factor in the cre-ation of minority group status. The nature of the contact situation has long-lasting conse-quences for the minority group and the extent of racial or ethnic stratification, the levels
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
