Dred Scott v. Sanford :: American History, Slavery, Freedom

Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court. Is he a slave or a free man? Being born into slavery meant that Dred Scott had been exchanged from owners to owners (Knappman 16-17). His first owner, the Blows, died, and before their death, they sold Scott to Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson soon gave Scott away to his wife’s brother, Sanford (Knappman 16-17). Scott tried to buy his freedom away from Dr. Emerson’s wife but she just wouldn’t accept (Dred Scott Decision 1). Since Scott moved from place to place as a slave, he was able to go to Illinois, which was a free state (Richie 40). Because of the Constitution, Scott used his rights to sue Sanford claiming that he was a free man (Richie 40). With this in mind, it lead to arguments about both parties, the prosecuted and the defendant. With the help of the antislavery lawyers, they were able to assist the prosecution, Dred Scott, with his court case (Dred Scott Decision 1). Unfortunately, in the first trial, Scott lost due to the reason of not having enough evidence (Dred Scott Decision 1). Scott, determined to get his freedom, was given the chance for a second trial (â€Å"Dred Scott Case Collection†). Their main argument, about Sanford violating his Fifth Amendment rights, made them win their case in their second trial (Justia 1). The Fifth Amendment mentions that a person’s life, liberty, or property cannot be taken away without due process of law. They were taking away Scott’s liberty, but he deserved to be free because he was taken to a free state (Dred Scott Decision 1). Does this whole controversy end there? With Sanford losing in the second trial, it did not just end there. Sanford’s sister, Mrs. Emerson, appealed and because of that, it went to the Missouri Supreme Court (â€Å"Dred Scott Case Collection†).

Core Curriculum Is there a Need :: Teaching Education

Core Curriculum Is there a Need In high school, most students went through four years where they got a general knowledge of most basic subjects. You were forced to take three to four years of math, science, English, and some form of history. In addition, most students were required to take two years of a foreign language and Physical Education. All these things are mandatory for most high school students to do, just to pass high school. Many students don’t want to stop there. They want to go on to higher education. Most students want to go to college. All of those years of math, science, history, English, foreign language, and physical education are all required to get into college. So most students think that when they get to college, they will pick a major, and they will extensively learn about that major. The student thinks that they were done with learning general knowledge about all subjects. They believe that they will get into college and hop right into their major. But the way that most colleg es are set up, you don’t really get into your major until the second semester of your sophomore year or the first semester of your junior year. When you first get to college, you are taking many of the same classes that you took in high school. This is a very unnecessary policy. The first two years of college, you are completing your core curriculum. These are mostly the same classes that you took throughout high school. These are the same classes that you took to get into college. Yet you must spend two years and thousands of dollars to take those same classes all over again. Regardless of your major and job field that you want to go into, you must retake math, science, history, English, foreign language, and physical education. Not only must you spend your valuable time taking these classes again, you must also spend your money. Depending on your major and job field, many of these things you learn in these classes, you will not use ever again. In college, you should be learning about what you want to do for a living. Your degree should symbolize your learning and mastery of the skills that your job field requires. Instead, it says that you know a little about every subject, and know a little bit more about your major than someone without a degree in that field.

Physician And Managed Care Contracts Essay

A contract is a legal binding agreement between two parties that is aimed to execute a certain objective. It is a kind of arrangement wherein a certain action is pledged in exchange for a specific proposition or offer. In order for a contract to be valid, four essential elements must be present in a contract. Firstly, two parties should exist in the contract. One party is presenting an offer while the other party is accepting the offer as a form of return for whatever specifications are requested in the contract. Secondly, the contract should indicate that both parties give their consent or are willing to enter into such an arrangement. Such intention should show that the person giving the offer is capable of providing the offer, while the party accepting the offer should be able to clearly show his/her acceptance of the offer. In addition, both parties must be willing to enter an agreement without any other hidden conditions. Thirdly, a purpose or objective should be indicated in a contract. The purpose should be detailed enough to clearly show what is requested or expected in exchange for the specific offer. And lastly, adequate consideration or an adequate value must be indicated as offer in the contract, in the form of money or in kind. The consideration or compensation can not be given to the accepting party prior to the acceptance of the offer. The act of accepting an offer constitutes a deal. Certain offers have a limited time of availability, wherein an expiration date is indicated and the offer can not be accepted after the said date, unless the offer is renewed or stands indefinitely. In addition, the party presenting the offer has the right to withdraw its offer, but only before an acceptance is received. Once an offer is accepted, the contract may not be modified or revised. Changes in the offer may only be incorporated during the negotiation stage of the agreement, which then makes a contract some kind of a bargain. Similarly, physicians enter contracts with managed care organizations (MCOs) or health management organizations (HMOs) in order to promote their services. The four essential elements of a contract should be carefully studied before accepting any offer or signing any contract. For example, as for the element of willingness and capability to enter a contract, a physician should initially must find out the MCO/HMO’s length of operation and financial stability, because this will give the physician an idea whether the company is capable to pay him at a regular schedule. In addition, it would be good to contact some colleagues who have signed contracts with the same company, in order to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the organization and to unearth any unwritten conditions or policies. The physician should also investigate the identity of the MCO/HMO, and any other parties in the contract, should there be more than two parties indicated in the contract. The most overlooked element of a contract between a physician and an MCO/HMO is the purpose or objective of the contract, which describes a several definitions of services and people that will be covered by the health plan, both during emergency and out-patient consultation events. A comprehensive study of the contract may possibly prevent misunderstandings between the two parties and therefore provide a clear-cut description of the services that the physician is expected to deliver. Another important element of a physician-MCO/HMO contract is the obligations of each party. It is usually indicated in the contract that the physician will actively maintain his/her medical practice documents such as licenses, certifications, registrations and permits in order to provide his/her services to patients. The physician should also inform the MCO/HMO of any modifications on his/her status as a practicing physician. In turn, the MCO/HMO presents its rules and regulations to the potential physician or health care provider working under their company. All policies, guidelines, reviews and appeals should be revealed in order to have its physicians working at the standardized efficiency and competency. The physician’s compensation should be indicated in a physician-MCO/HMO contract. Details including the amount and schedule of payment should be clearly stated in the contract. Payment modes may be in form of per diem, per case, per service or a certain percentage of the premiums. The physician, in turn, should understand the protocol for filing claims and any other arrangements or coordination with the MCO/HMO, including the limited time when these documents may be filed. The MCO/HMO should also indicate in the contract that the physician will receive his/her salary on a regular basis. A physician-MCO/HMO contract may be terminated by either mutual agreement of both parties, or with sufficient cause or reason from the physician, or without cause or reason from the physician. However, a 30-day notice is usually required before any termination takes effect, to provide ample time for the physician to finalize any current patients, cases, services and/or referrals. Contracts are legally binding documents which must be carefully studied and considered before pursuing an agreement and letting the contract take full effect. Every contract has its specific details and all sections of the contract should be well understood and explained.

Shi Huang Di

He built new palaces to keep them content. Each of the new palaces were an exact copy of the ones they had to leave behind. He also divided the conquered land into 36 commentaries (areas), and commanded 3 officials to run each commandeer. They received orders from the emperor, and might be sacked if they did not obey. He also ordered citizens to give up all weapons to prevent rebellion. He then melted down these weapons and crafted them into giant statues to â€Å"scare away twelve giants†, which were set up outside his palace.In addition to all these changes, he also ordered the walls around towns and cities to be knocked down. Before Shih Hung Did unified China, each f the states used different kinds of measurements, language etc. So, to make things simpler, he set common standards. Everybody now had to use Gin weights and measures. They also had to use round one-ounce gold coins and half-ounce copper coins with holes in the middle, which were standard Gin money. However, th ese changes paled in comparison to the changes made to the written language.The prime minister at the time, Lie Is, was given the role to standardize all the characters of the language, as Chinese is written with characters that represent pictures and ideas, instead of the alphabet. Once he job was completed, the language was modernized and simplified into 3000 characters. He also set rules for handwriting so everybody that needed to write, such as scholars and government officials could communicate easily with each other. During the period of warring states, there weren't many roads.Even those roads were hard to go across since heavier carts created uneven ground on the soft earth. Many carts were damaged and got stuck in the roads. Shih Hung Did created a law so that all wheels and carts must be the same distance apart. He also built 5 major roads, which he named â€Å"speedways†. These speedways connected the capital with the northern, eastern and southern parts of the emp ire. During his 1 1 years of reign, Shih Hung Did built 6800 km of road. Meanwhile, in the eastern empire, the Romans only built 5984 km of road.When Shih Hung Did became the emperor of China (in 221 BC), all the rules of Gin became the rules of the entire empire. According to Gin law, everybody was responsible for each other's good behavior. And so, Shih Hung Did organized everybody into groups Of 10, and if anybody committed a crime in that family, they had to report it to the authorities, or they would get punished along with the wrongdoer. Not only that, but their father, mother, families, wife/husband and their family would also receive the same punishment.Therefore, lots of people would be punished just because one person committed a crime. Many Mongolia's, named Signing, lived to the north of the empire. They often attacked parts of the empire, so Shih Hung Did ordered many slaves to build the Great Wall. Although this original structure has not been kept in condition until t oday, a renovated version now stands in Beijing. This version follows much of the same route as Shih Hung Id's. Shih Hung Id's Great Wall was made of tightly sacked earth, which was reinforced by bamboo matting. Behind the wall stood watch towers-?3 every kilometer.An artist's impression of Shih Hung Did. None of the paintings of him at the time have survived, so this painting is based on written descriptions. Hero or Villain? Gave himself the new title of Shih Hung Did-?supreme ruler of China. He only ruled for dictator. L, Georgian Lounge will discuss both sides of the Story. Villain On the other hand, many people believe that Shih Hung Did was cruel and merciless. For one, he forced many citizens to become slaves to work on his major projects such as the Great Wall. Thousands died from hunger, exposure or ill-treatment.If they tried to rebel against him, or not follow his orders, he would kill captives publicly without a second thought. Shih Hung Did also increased taxes to pay f or materials that were used in his many projects (for example, his grave, or the Great Wall). These taxes were 20 times of their previous taxes. If the taxes were not paid, the family would all have to endure slave labor. He also took half of all the food that farmers grew as tax. This resulted in extreme poverty and hunger. As a result, many citizens turned to cannibalism, and millions died. Shih Hung Did also set many draconian laws.If these strict laws were not followed, depending on the severity of the crime, wrongdoers were set harsh punishments such as hard labor, mutilation of a person's body, being boiled alive, cut into two at the waist, torn apart by 4 horses, strangled or beheaded. In 213 BC, at a banquet hosted by Shih Hung Did, a scholar openly criticized Shih Hung Did. Shih Hung Did immediately ordered that all scholars could not criticize anything in the present or praise anything in the past. He also ordered all the scholars to hand their books to government official s. These were burned in a huge bonfire.However, some scholars still continued their ways. These scholars were found by the emperor and were executed. 460 scholars were presumably buried alive. According to an extract from SIAM Quinn's â€Å"Records of the Historian†, Shih Hung Did discouraged jobs such as scholars, thinkers and philosophers, because many of these people were against the king, and they could easily influence others to go against the king. In conclusion, Shih Hung Did could be considered a hero because he was the first man to have ever united China. However, his road to success can be perceived as a cruel and violent one, which is why some people think he is a villain.

“Bisy Backson” representing Western Society Essay

In the novel, The Tao of Pooh we are introduced to â€Å"Bisy Backson† who represents the most misguided of Western Society, as well, we are shown that Western societal thinkers/philosophers/writers represent, in their own way, the Tao. â€Å"Bisy Backson† confuses exercise with work and activity with creativity. â€Å"The Bisy Backson is almost desperately active,† (p. 93) says Benjamin Hoff. He adds, â€Å"Let’s put it this way: if you want to be healthy, relaxed, and contented, just watch what a Bisy Backson does and then do the opposite.† Often, in Western Society, we focus on the final product before we have begun the journey. When Pooh considers what he likes best in the world, he decides the â€Å"†¦moment just before you begin to eat [honey]† was what he enjoys most. In effect, it is the journey, or the process, that we most enjoy. This, of course, goes against the typical person’s attitude toward a task, in Western Society. The goal is to get the task done (much like this journal assignment). The process is often seen as punitive. Pooh would say to enjoy the process – to see it as an opportunity to create, to develop, and, above all, to understand the central role of change and growth in life. Western societal thinkers/philosophers/writers represent, in their own way, the Tao, because†¦ actually, I do not think they represent Taoism, at all. Taoism, I think, is basically just to enjoy life in its simplest form, and not to worry too much – take life as a gift and just enjoy it. Again, I think. After reading this book, (I still have two or three more chapters to go†¦), I still cannot manage to understand a simple meaning of Taoism. I have looked on the internet, and it is nothing like P’u, because everything I have come across is all so complex. Anyway, if Taoism is that, Western societal thinkers/philosophers/writers do not represent it, at all! They question everything, want to know answers, and usually they question their own existence. Would someone who is†¦ someone like, Pooh, question their existence? I don’t think so. In addition, Western societal thinkers/philosophers/writers do not learn how they should question, they do not learn these theories, they do not learn about Taoism, they just merrily think and their answers of their questions may just so happen to fall under Taoism. They do not study Taoism to think like a Taoist. They do not read The Tao of Pooh, to learn about how they should think†¦ though many  philosophy courses, such as Theory of Knowledge, may be text based, which I find, is ironic. For direct reference to the text, â€Å"What does Christopher Robin do in the mornings? He learns. He becomes educated. He integrates†¦knowledge† Of course, all this said with some words capitalized for no reason, and other random words to get to the point. Philosophers do not learn, they teach themselves.

Creon and Aristotle Essay

This paper will primarily concern itself with the comparison of the two approaches to politics from Creon in Sophocles’ play Antigone and Aristotle in his Politics. The basic argument here is that Creon and Aristotle have very little in common in terms of basic political ideas, especially in terms of the role and power of the state in the moral lives of the population. In terms of political ideas, the Antigone concerns itself primarily with the distinction between the state and the unwritten law of custom. The argument of the play itself is that Antigone has every right to bury her slain brother in that it is an ancient custom to please the gods by burying the dead and showing them respect. The central concept here is the rule of tradition and religion, represented by Antigone herself. On the other hand, Creon, who has just emerged victorious in a civil war where Polynices, the true heir, and Eteocles killed each other, leaving Creon as sole ruler of Thebes. Hence, without a real claim to power, Creon stresses the power and interests of the state over all. The written law is central. For Aristotle, the nature of politics is far more complex than the simple state-centered ideas of Creon. For Aristotle, property, classes and the relations between the sexes all have a law and custom of their own, which, when followed, lead to virtue and the good life. Ultimately for Aristotle, to flourish in the intellectual arts is the key to happiness, while for Creon, obedience to a well-ordered state, based solely on written codes, is the key to order and hence, to social peace. In Antigone, there are two ways of looking at the dead Polynices. The first is Creon’s view, that of a dead traitor that deserves nothing but humiliation in order to justify Creon’s own claim to power as well as prevent any further warfare (Sophocles, 585). Second, which is Antigone’s view, that Polynices is a dead Thebian, regardless of the politics involved. Ultimately, the chorus at (Sophocles, 673) holds that Creon is making a major mistake since he is basing his policy on a passing political struggle, while Zeus is immortal and hence, transcends all this politics. Creon, in other words, is letting the specifics of political power interfere with his duty as monarch of Thebes. The smaller picture of the civil war has blurred the more general vision of the nature of political power, that is, the reverence of custom as the ultimate in democracy: Thebians have â€Å"voted† for generations to maintain the old traditions, not to worship the state (Sophocles, 745-750). On the other hand Aristotle writes: â€Å"When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life† (Aristotle, bk I, pt 1) Several things are important here. First, that the smaller villages predate the state, and as a consequence, have a certain precedence over the state itself. Putting this differently, the state is the product of already existing villages and other communal organizations, and hence, is dependent upon them. Therefore, Aristotle, early on in the Politics, is arguing for a decentralized political regime where the building blocks of the polity, the villages (or a group of â€Å"households†), maintain their autonomy under the general guidance of the state. Second, Aristotle is clear that the state exists not for itself, but for a further end, that of the good life, the life devoted to the intellectual virtues. The state, in other words, exists in order to maintain the customs of the villages–the traditions of the people–so long as they lead to virtue, the good life itself, the end of all political activity, the end that exists in and for itself. The state is merely an instrument, contra Creon, that sees it as an end in itself, ore more accurately, that his own power exists as an end in and for itself. The very act of deliberation in Greek thought is itself an end, in that it assists in the mental development and contemplative abilities of the individuals involved. The good life, it can be argued, is manifest in political life in that it is essentially an intellectual form of work, the highest that a man can consider. Hence, deliberation is central to the good life and therefore, is beyond the purview of the state. If Aristotle is going to argue that the state is â€Å"according to nature,† then he must also hold that the villages, the ancient customs of the people that go into creating the state, also exist by nature. While Aristotle holds in Part II that the state is â€Å"prior to† the family and individual on the logical basis of self-sufficiency, this is hardly holding to a monolithic state in the sense that Creon holds. The state has no control over such customs, represented by Antigone and the blind prophet in the play. The basic argument then, is that the state comes into existence in order to create a certain level of self-sufficiency, not to destroy the customs of the more ancient forms of village life. Aristotle, in short, would have sided with Antigone. Even more, the question of precedence of the villages vis-a-vis the state shows that the state, though logically prior, must take into consideration the ideas and history of its component parts. Hence, Aristotle has deliberation at the center of his state’s idea. It should be noted that the main source of friction here is the concept of political deliberation. The Antigone sees a number of intelligent and well meaning people, such as Creon’s son, Haemon and his wife, all seeking to reason with Creon over the question of the fate of Antigone and the nature of the civil war in general. But since Creon holds that the monarch is the state, and the state is the monarch, deliberation would be a sign of weakness. Aristotle holds clearly that the citizens of the Greek state, regardless of its location, must be engaged in deliberation and discussion. This is the more practical sense of his state, in that it is an aggregate of pre-existing parts. These pre-existing parts, such as families or individuals, do not disappear when the state is formed, but take their rightful place as parts of the state, and hence, need to be involved in political discussion. The blind prophet Tiresias is, like Antigone, the voice of the â€Å"villages,† the ancient tradition of a people upon which the authority of the state rests. Among other things, Tiresias holds that Creon is â€Å"living in a tomb. † What he means is that Creon has become so obsessed with political power that he has forgotten the purpose of this power. Even more, this power has become radically personalized, centering on Creon himself, rejecting the testimony of his own son, and now, the prophet, the voice of the gods, who has never been wrong. He holds that Creon has placed himself in grave danger in his behavior. Worst of all, none of this will assist Creon in holding on to power or convincing the population that he deserves this power. His approach to politics is contradictory and self defeating (Sophocles, 1185-1205). It is contradictory because he refuses to see the state, as Aristotle did, as a series of component parts united for the good life under the ruler. Creon sees the state in purely personal, and hence, non-deliberative, terms. By the time the blind prophet has left Creon’s presence, politics has ceased to be institutional and now has become personal and autocratic in the literal sense of the word. Creon is the state, and is the power of Thebes, Creon says â€Å"What? The city is the king’s–that’s the law† (Sophocles, 825). This is precisely what Tiresias warned him of. For Creon to listen to the prophet, a man who he clearly respects, would be a sign of weakness. In his confusion, Creon decides to set Antigone free, yet, by the time this is done, she is already dead, as well as his own son Haemon. Creon has listened to nothing but his own insecurity, and now he is paying the price. When Creon says â€Å"the city is the king’s,† he is rejecting the concept of deliberation and democratic discussion. He is placing his interests and possible illegitimacy at the center of law, revealing its weaknesses. What are the major issues, therefore, of contrast? This is a struggle precisely with the question of precedence as Aristotle has stated it: tradition and custom over the â€Å"prior nature† of the state. Aristotle leaves the exact nature of this precedence vague. The state is the first by nature, but this is not a chronological movement, but a logical one. The whole must be prior to its parts, but Aristotle is not thereby claiming that the state existed prior to the family or individual. He is just holding that the only way families can reach true happiness is in a well-ordered state aiming at self-sufficiency. Therefore, Aristotle leaves the exact power of the state rather vague. For Aristotle, the scientist, he is not going to impose a blueprint for happiness for every society, but will show the bare outlines of the nature of the good life. The key passage can be found here: For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society (Aristotle, bk 1, pt 2). The fact is that the state exists to promote virtue and hence, must give way to it. Virtue is not abstract, but can be found in the customs of the Hellenes, as Antigone herself holds. Justice comes into existence when the various parts of the society come together in harmonious relations, not when the state stamps its demands upon all. What Sophocles might be holding is that the polis only has its legitimacy insofar as it protects the customs and moral foundation of the Greek people. Without this, there can be no virtue and hence, no good life. But where Sophocles and Aristotle differ is in the nature of the state in terms of security. It seems that Sophocles holds that the traditional life of the Greek family is true and right. It brings security in the ancient customs of an elite people. It is the state that provides insecurity, especially when severed from its moral foundations. There is not a moment where Antigone doubts the correctness of her actions, yet Creon exists in a storm of confusion. State power is parasitic on the traditions of a people according to Sophocles. Aristotle might agree with this with strong reservations, but still concede that the state must have a moral foundation on the one hand, and a purpose beyond itself, on the other (Davis, 1996, 27-28, an excellent discussion on the relation between the household and the state). Creon cannot see either. Even more, Sophocles is making the more general point between the two different kinds of order, the cosmic and the human. He holds that it is the former where truth and happiness are to be found. The human order is insecure and based on chance, the outcomes of wars, political factions, etc. (this is the whole thesis of Book 5 in The Politics, cf. Davis, 1996, 102). The cosmic order is permanent, even superior to the gods, the gods themselves are subject to it. The human order is what Creon demands, namely, his order over and above the divine one. Sophocles is holding to an early version of natural law. The customs of the Greeks are not arbitrary, but they are part of a cosmic order. Creon is arbitrary in his decisions, and even the very basis of his power is based on chance. The human order can never be the basis of society, and certainly the state as the supreme (but not only) power in society. The law, to conclude, as it is promulgated by human beings at any time, is a highly limited instrument. It does not change the order of nature, or even the traditions of the Greek mind, which are based on nature, the law of the cosmos, held by all Greek peoples. The citizens must be engaged in deliberating not what the natural law is, but how it can be best manifested under present conditions. Antigone holds to the eternal, while Creon holds to the temporary. Politics is an inferior state of mind than that of the eternal law of the cosmos. Death and the order of the gods will always trump the merely human law, and hence, the human law must partake of the divine order or it is an arbitrary decree, the very essence of Creon’s world. Bibliography: Aristotle (250 BC). The Politics. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Internet Classics Archive (http://classics. mit. edu/Aristotle/politics. html) Davis, Michael. (1996) The Politics of Philosophy. Rowman and Littlefield Sophocles (442 BC). Antigone. Trans. Robert Fagles. Penguin Classics

The Significance of the Vietnamese Boat People in Canadian Immigration Research Paper

The Significance of the Vietnamese Boat People in Canadian Immigration History - Research Paper Example These people have impacted Canadian culture and its economy greatly. This paper will focus on the migration of Vietnamese people to Canada during the Vietnam War. The paper will discuss the importance of the event and the role of government in the immigration of Vietnamese people. Vietnam War started in 1955 between the communist North Vietnam and the non-communist South Vietnam. The United States of America was also supporting South Vietnam. Vietnam’s People army (Northern Vietnam military) was getting help from communist countries like the Soviet Union. The war was actually a cold war battle between the then two superpowers of the world. They were fighting; the difference was that the battle was not fought directly. The war ended after 20 years of bloodshed and many lives were lost in the process. It is very important to understand the plight of the Vietnamese people in order to understand their reasons for migration to other countries. They were left with no option but to find shelter in foreign countries due to the conflict. They were desperate to leave their homeland. It was not for a better future only that these people were migrating to other countries. They were migrating to save their lives! Canada was not militarily involved in the conflict but its role was very important. It was always with the western capitalist countries but it was not directly aiding the United States in war. But Canada was heavily affected by the influx of thousands of Vietnamese settlers from the war region.