Enterprise Systems Assessment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Enterprise Systems Assessment - Essay Example 89). In order to understand the correlation between Argos as a company and how it functions as an enterprise system, we will have to define some few terms and concepts. It is important to point out that SAP is constantly changing the SRM framework. More often than not it is introducing innovative concepts that are useful in arranging the components of SRM. Basically, there are three core concepts that we have to understand. They include, supply process, business scenarios within each key process, and fundamental technology constituents that are useful in enabling the business processes. It is worth noting that Argos have implemented each business scenario, with one or two SAP elements and there third party applications as they maybe required. An example is the Supplier Enablement scenario is through empowering it with a number of underlying technological components. These components include, Supplier Self Service (SUS), Biller Direct, Enterprise Portal, and inventory Collaboration Hu b (ICH). Argos stores all over the UK have achieved in implementing this business scenario (SAP.COM, 2013, p.1). Production Process at Argos SAP has defined three key supply processes that are involved in purchasing. These processes will jointly constitute the SAP SRM solutions. They include; operational procurement, strategic sourcing, and supplier enablement. Operational Procurement In this section, we will be looking at the various business scenarios that Argos has been successful in implementing. We start with the self service procurement. When it comes to indirect procurement, it allows ones employees to create and manage their own obligation requests. This has been key in relieving it’s purchasing department the huge administrative burden while ensuring at the same time that the procurement processing are faster and responsive. The next scenario is the plan driven procurement also known as the direct procurement. This has been great at automating and streamlining the or dering processes for regularly needed important materials (SAP.COM, 2013, p.1). It is a known fact that SAP SRM has been integrated with planning, designing and the order processing systems. This has made it possible for Argos to link its procurement process with their plan driven strategy. This ensures that they get the materials they need for their key business while at the same time processing and delivering their clients request. Direct procurement does integrate flawlessly with most back end systems like enterprise planning and production. This scenario has given Argos procurement division a chance to integrate operational procurement with their existing supply chain management solution. The last scenario is the service procurement or as it is commonly known as the E-procurement. It has created many opportunities for Argos to save cots in their purchasing process. They have gone the extra mile of extending their cost saving measures like services given that this account for ove r 50 percent of their annual purchasing volumes. This scenario has provided services that have led to a reduction in labor costs, consulting, and maintenance and facility management. Strategic Sourcing After the 2008 world economic crisis, it is estimated that sourcing makes up for 75 percent of one saving on

Women and feminism raised in The Handmaids Tale Essay Example for Free

Women and feminism raised in The Handmaids Tale Essay Margaret Atwoods novel The Handmaids Tale was written in 1986 when the feminist movement was happening, the word feminism is hard to really define into one term but it is usually recognised as meaning equal rights for women. The first wave of feminism happened in the 19th century and this was about sexual division in the workplace then the second wave of feminism started in 1960s and this was known as the Womens Liberation Movement this aimed to create a women centred world by making their voices heard through the demonstrations such as burning pornography (which Offreds mother was a part of. ) In this essay I will be concentrating on the women and the issues of feminism in the handmaids tale. In the society of Gilead the women are grouped into categories concerning their age, fertility and their marital status. Although these women do have their own separate roles in the regime they all share the same theme which involves staying within the household. Such as the Marthas who are responsible for the domestic side who keep the house clean and tend to the cooking where as the handmaids have only one specific role and that is to reproduce they are known as only womb on legs to give birth to children for the commanders wives who are unable to have children and their role is to raise these children after they are born. We can see that handmaids are like shadows amongst the house quiet and replaceable as Rita claims about the last handmaid She didnt work out showing that they are treated as products that can be easily replaced if they dont work out for the purchaser the handmaids are just like property and this is shown in their names such as OF-FRED they belong to the commander of the household although their role is one of the most important in this patriarchal system they are however not treated this way, they are treated as one of the lowest class. Even the roles of the commanders wives have little importance they are given trivial meaningless tasks such as tending to the gardens as this is their domain which they can control and care for maybe a replacement for the children, they also knit scarves for the Angels upfront however Offred claims that Maybe its something to keep the wives busy, to give them a sense of purpose. There is also the role of the aunts which could also be seen as very important as well because it is these older women who brainwash these teachings into the handmaids to let them fulfil their duties. The womens roles are also represented in the colour of the clothes they wear for the Marthas it is green for the commanders wife it is blue and lastly the handmaids wear a red nun-like uniform where the red represents their function suggesting the blood of the menstrual cycle and giving birth to a child, the colour can also represent their imprisonment in the Gilead society the colour of blood, which defines us. The roles of the women are very dependent on their relationship with the men in the regime and their ability to have children which effectively steals the womens individual identity being categorised gives the society much more control over them. The colour of their clothing makes the women easy to recognise which group they belong to, dehumanising them completely treating them more like machines than human beings. It could be seen as some kind of sisterhood with the different roles that the women play and how they co-operate with each other because this could be seen as a feminist world with women appreciating their roles and helping the other women however the use of the roles of women just creates more power for the regime as having a hierarchy of women just creates conflict amongst them so they dont really see the true enemy which are the men. Womens status before Gilead was completely different, women were allowed to have education Psychology, English, Economics. We studied things like that, then. Giving them a chance to have a career of their own, which earn them their own money allowing them to have choice of what they wanted to buy. Women had much more independence allowing them to think for themselves and make the choices they wanted which I will elaborate on later. There were women who were feminists in the time before, fighting for their rights and having a voice to rebel against the treating of women because in them days they were seen as sex objects but in a different light through pornography magazines or by seeing them in certain outfits which screamed out sexuality, Offred remembers this because when she walks away from the guard at his post she purposely sways her hips knowing that the guards are staring after her in a sexual sense. However now the status of women in Gilead is defined by their ability to reproduce, they are treated as objects, all their rights have been stripped away from them they are denied an education, not allowed to have a job, they cannot vote and they are banished from writing or reading. What I put into them: my own clothes, my own soap, my own money, money I had earned myself. They have no family or possessions they dont even have their own identity as they are mentioned only with their male owner even the wives are only known through their title as the commanders wife. Rebellion and independence is not in the question, the women should never undermine the men or act against the system of the society the only thing that a woman is worth is for the use of her reproductive system and their only job they have is the function they must perform. The body that women once used to express their sexuality, the body they used to feel comfortable in which defined who they were as a person has now become the thing they are now afraid and ashamed of My nakedness is strange to me already. My body seems outdated. They are ashamed of their body because it is now what defines them and keeps them trapped in this wretched society. Although it is the Aunts that have achieved high status as it is up to them to show the handmaids their new way of life and the rules they must abide by, it could be seen that these women have some power of the handmaids but they are not permitted guns like the men do which shows that although the Aunts do have a powerful role with authority it is still men that obtain the ultimate power because women cannot be trusted with guns.

Unique Cultures in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things and Chinua A

Unique Cultures in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things and Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart       There are a variety of cultures in this world and each culture is unique. Usually when one was born and raised in a certain culture, that person may adapt to that culture for a period of time. It is sometimes difficult to look into someone else’s culture, and understand their culture. Sometimes one must keep an open mind, study the culture, or live in another culture to understand the culture. When reading â€Å"The God of Small Things† by Arundhati Roy, and â€Å"Things Fall Apartâ€Å", by Chinua Achebe one must look beyond their culture to understand how others live in a different culture. When I read Roy’s novel, I did not get a great understanding of the novel, because it was difficult to follow. I did not know a lot about the culture before I read novel. Both text discusses a particular cultural group, and as the narrator tells the story the narrator intertwines the cultural elements with the actual story being told. The differences between the text were the way the text was structured, and how the stories were told. Also, both texts contained different religions practiced by the particular cultural group. In â€Å"The God of Small Thingsâ€Å", and â€Å"Things Fall Apart† both consist a particular cultural groups. In â€Å"The God of Small Thingsâ€Å", the people in the story were Pakistan Indian. The way Roy described the setting in the story, and how the people looked gave an idea of where the story took place. Plus she also mentioned some cities that are in India. Roy described the rivers as being unclean, but people would cleanse themselves in the river. The women wore saris. The immediate families and extended families seemed to live together also. I... ...me language in the text also. The African clan and Pakistan Indians had different religions. The African clan believed in spirits, and the Pakistan Indians believed in the Muslim faith. Both novels were great novels to read, if one wants to learn more about a particular culture. â€Å"The God of Small Things† is a little difficult to understand. There were so many different meanings in the novel. I believe that people should get a better understanding of one’s culture before one reads a novel of a different culture. If one does not understand the culture, one can misinterpret the meanings in the story.    Work Cited Achebe, Chinua. â€Å"Things Fall Apart†. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Ed. M.H. Abrams. 7th ed. vol. 2c. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2000. pp.2617-2703. Roy, Arundhati. The God of Small Things. New York: Random House, Inc., 1997.

An Analysis of Obesity in America

LIB 111 9 October 2012 Our Responsibility: An Analysis of Obesity in America America is becoming obese. As a community we are becoming more accepting of being overweight. Americans must make choices about where they eat, and how much they eat, for themselves, as well as their families. It is a person’s own responsibility to choose what they consume, not their government’s. Fast food is the new tobacco. Only society, not the government will be able to change the way Americans view their food choices.Many people, such as First Lady Michelle Obama, in â€Å"Remarks to the NAACP National Convention† believe that it is the government’s job to help control America’s obesity rates (432). Obama states that the government is proposing, â€Å"a $400 million a year fund†(427), to promote health. America prides itself on the liberties of its citizens, and the government is supposed to ensure that American’s have rights, not take them away. Forcing Americans to change their way of eating is not the solution to obesity. In â€Å"What You Eat Is Your Business† written by Radley Balko, Balko talks about how America is â€Å"migrating toward socialism†(396).We are migrating toward socialism by not allowing the people to think for themselves and make their own decisions. Balko believes that we should not bring â€Å"government between you and your waistline†(396). He argues, â€Å"[w] e’re becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else’s†(396). Balko makes the most valid of points by asking himself, â€Å"if the government is paying for my anti-cholesterol medication, what incentive is there for me to put down the cheeseburger? †(397). If the government is just going to take care of you once you have the negative affects of fast food, you don’t need to prevent it.David Zinczenko, chief editor of Men’s Health wrote, â€Å"Donâ€⠄¢t Blame the Eater† in 2002. In his essay, Zinczenko voices that the public should know better than to eat several meals a day at a fast food restaurant, however he does hold fast food restaurants accountable for not telling the public how many calories a meal contains (397). It is the government’s duty to have fast food restaurants make nutritional facts available to the public. American’s find it easiest to blame others for their faults, instead of dealing with them.In society, many people are often careless when looking out for themselves, and always claim to need the government’s assistance when in need. Our government should help, but only as a last resort. Americans need to promote their own healthy lifestyle. If there is no inner desire for a healthy lifestyle, the government should not be able to change your chosen way of living. Food is related to emotions. All American’s can relate to the sweet smell of their mother baking cookies on a co ld day, and the melt in your mouth taste of the warm cookies after playing outside in the cold.Judith Warner claims, â€Å"the Obama nanny state is, essentially, snatching cookies-I. e. , the pursuit of happiness- from the mouths of babes†(401). By regulating what children are allowed to eat, it is an â€Å"assault on the American way of life†(401). It is a parents job to control what their children eat, not the governments. Many find that their inspiration is from ads, other people, TV, and Internet. It is society that evolves and changes into a new mindset together. Tobacco sales, as argued by Judith Warner in â€Å"Junking Junk Food† did not decline due to the government’s involvement, but because of society’s modern outlook on smokers.Warner says â€Å"it was a shift in cultural attitudes, not laws or regulations, that led Americans to quit smoking†(404). If the harmful ingredients in tobacco can be outlawed by society, and influence Ame ricans to live a healthier lifestyle, then society, not our government can and will be responsible for their healthy diet. One will not change their outlook on healthy living or healthy diets, based on what a government demands, it must be one’s own choice to change the way they and their families eat and exercise.When society begins to evolve, without the government demanding it, people will be confident with their healthy lifestyle choices. Warner believes that â€Å"social norms could change: that huge portions, or eating processed foods loaded with sugar, salt and fat for example could become socially unacceptable†(404). There is hope for American citizens to make their own decisions. It is up to American parents to control what their children eat, as well as what they are consuming. The government does not have the right to regulate one’s personal food intake.American’s must see their current faults, and allow for change in their lives. We must be re sponsible for ourselves, and not allow the government to constantly take care for their citizens as children. Works cited Balko, Radley. â€Å"What You Eat Is Your Business†. â€Å"They Say/I Say† with readings: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. 2nd ed. New York. W. W. Norton, 2012. 395-397. Print. Obama, Michelle â€Å"Remarks to the NAACP National Convention†. â€Å"They Say/I Say† with readings: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing.Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. 2nd ed. New York. W. W. Norton, 2012. 417-433 Print. Warner, Judith. â€Å"Junking Junk Food†. â€Å"They Say/I Say† with readings: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. 2nd ed. New York. W. W. Norton, 2012. 400-404. Print. Zinczenko, David. â€Å"Don’t Blame the Eater†. â€Å"They Say/I Say† with readings: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. 2nd ed. New York. W. W. Norton, 2012. 391-392 Print.

Consumer Culture Is Central to Understanding Contemporary Identities Essay

As the title suggests, this essay is going to discuss, to what extent does consumer culture affect contemporary identities. In today’s society consumer culture is everywhere and we would probably not be able to survive without it. It became such an important part of our lives that some people even build their carrier around it. Most businesses in modern societies, all around the world work as successfully as they do, simply because people became consumers and they buy their products. This essay is first going to look at why this change of attitude occurred and how exactly it brought about consumer culture. This will lead us onto how exactly consumer culture works and how it affects consumers. To answer the question fully, we will also look at the two view points on this matter. First we are going to discuss arguments which support the view that consumer culture creates modern identities. Secondly, arguments supporting the view that consumer culture is far less important than in the development of one’s identity. Before the question itself is addressed, some background needs to be drawn about this issue. To be objective about this matter, it should be pointed out straight away that consumer culture is not the key aspect affecting contemporary identities. There is one very simple explanation to why this is true. Humans have been around for a much longer period of time than consumer culture and were successfully developing their identities even before consumer culture came about. Therefore it is definitely true that in the past, there were other things creating our identities sufficiently enough. The definition of identity which Jodi Davis finds the most fitting is â€Å"My identity is determined by a complex mix of thingsâ€Å". The question however concentrates on contemporary identities. So is it possible that consumer culture managed to take over the power of all the other aspects of the creation of identity in the past 200 years? Some believe that the answer to that question is yes. In fact, Bauman argues that â€Å"The roads to self-identity, to a place in society, to a life in a form recognisable as that of meaningful living, all require daily visits to the market place†. Similarly, Featherstone states that â€Å"criteria for the good life revolve around the desire to enlarge one’s self, the quests for new tastes, and sensations, to explore more and more possibilities†. (Featherstone, pg 67) Therefore many people would be happy to say that in today’s society, consumer culture has an enormous effect on our identities. To some extent, this is true. Jagger even believes that â€Å"we become what we consume†. (Jagger, pg 45) To explain why this is true, the term â€Å"floating signifiers† needs to be explained. It refers to the fact that these days, all products and brands have a certain meaning/story behind them. People buy them because of these images they carry with them, rather than the actual use of the product. This leads us to the use vs. exchange value question. It could be argued that this was one of the main changes which caused consumerism to expand so much. Basically Use vs. Exchange conflict refers to the fact that at a certain point, people stopped buying goods for their use value and started buying them for their exchange value. Material goods are used as communicators, not utilities. (Featherstone, pg 84) Today, consumerism has reached such level of success, that people no longer buy things because they need them, but because they like this image that products give them. â€Å"Consumption, then, must not be understood as the consumption of use-values, a material utility but primarily as consumption of signs. †(Featherstone, pg 85) This way, the things we buy, create our identity, because people judge us based on what the products we use say about us. In today’s society of strangers, it is the only way to judge a person at the first sight. So for example if someone was to drive a Ferrari, people would think of him as a successful individual. This assumption would be based on the fact that to be able to afford this kind of car, the individual must be very rich. Also the brand itself gives him the image of a young successful man. This shows that automatically, without even speaking to people or getting to know them, they already judge us based on our appearance. Obviously we all want to be liked and accepted by others so we try to fulfil their expectations of us. We attempt to â€Å"live up to (but not above) the standards attached to the ‘social category’ into which we were born†. (Bauman, pg 27) These standards are also however determined by the media. Beauty ideals are set by TV, commercials and celebrities. They determine what’s â€Å"cool† and what isn’t. For example celebrities often act as beauty idols, so many women strive to look like them. This inner need to ulfil society’s expectation forces them to buy products which promise to make them look like a celebrity. Whoever does not at least attempt to fit in within these standards, or even worse, tries to do the opposite, might be stigmatised for it. For example over the past 80 years, it became very popular for women to shave their legs. It became so popular that nowadays, women who don’t do it are usually highly stigmatised. This all roots in consumerism, because the initial reason why it became popular was to force people to spend money on razors- which were until then unnecessary. Trying to fulfil these expectations creates our identity in a way. In most cases consumption of goods only affects our external identity but in some extreme cases it may even start to affect one’s internal identity. For example certain brands portray certain groups of people. So if one was to shop at Gucci or Chanel, one is expected to act a certain way. These brands carry the image of a very traditional, well behaved and upper class individual. So anyone wearing Gucci or Chanel strives to live up to the standards of these brands. That way one is already is changing his behaviour as well as his appearance, which is affecting not only his/hers external, but also internal identity. So really, when we think about it, the identity other people think we have, judging by our appearance, is very artificial and fake. This is because it is only created by the products we use, not by us ourselves. But then again, we choose which products to buy and it is us who decides how to look for other people so whatever we wear or look like, it is a bit personalized by our taste and other choices we make. Campbell brings up an interesting point in his book. He says that consumer culture develops our identity because since there is now such an enormous choice of products, it gives consumers opportunity to define their taste. They are able to decide what they like and what not. Also, since shopping malls are so anonymous, customers can try on anything they like, just to see how that â€Å"role† would fit them. This also helps them to find the image of themselves which they want to portray to other people. (Campbell, pg 159) However others believe that consumer culture is far less important than other factors in the development of one’s identity. Jodi Davis divides identity into external and internal. External is â€Å"cultural classifications (nationality, race, religion and gender) as well as societal characterizations (family, career, and position or title)†. Whereas internal is â€Å"natural gifts, strengths, capabilities; the intellectual, emotional, physical and spiritual characteristics that comprise our uniqueness and innate talents and abilities; our basic orientation toward the world around us, our learning styles, how we process and organize information, and other predisposed tendencies and characteristicsâ€Å". Davis, pg 7) As we can see, there are a lot of things which define a person’s identity. And we were to look at them individually; we would notice that we were actually already born with most of the crucial aspects of our identity and therefore are not able to change them. Our appearance is one of the very few aspects of our identity, which one can alternate. Therefore if a person is not happy with his overall identity, one of the few ways in which he can change it is through consumerism. In fact consumerism and advertising often aim to make the customer feel like this. As the ads intimidated that anything natural about the customer was worthless or deplorable, and tried to make him schizophrenically self conscious of that notion, they offered weapons by which people could eclipse themselves†. (Ewen, pg 48) If a person dresses a certain way and uses certain products, he may be able to convince some people that he fits the standards set by media. As mentioned before, this is thanks to the fact that every product we buy tells people something about us. The image the product portrays might not be true, but just the fact that a person uses that product makes people believe it. Even though the second part of this essay attempts to support the idea that there are other factors affecting contemporary identities more than consumer culture, we should not forget its importance. The fact that consumer culture helps us to change the only changeable part of our identity makes it, in my opinion, even more crucial. Consumer culture is actually very significant when it comes to understanding contemporary identities. It is its products, which create the image we try to portray to other people and that way fit into society.

The hatchet essays

The hatchet essays This book is about a young teenage boy named Brian Robeson. He was on a plan by himself with a pilot, but he didnt know his name is was Jake or Jim. He was on the plane going north to visit his dad because his mom and dad got a divorce and during the winter he would live with his dad and summer with his mom but this summer he was going to see his dad. But then he looked at the pilot and he didnt look so well he was rubbing his chest and then suddenly the pilot fell and was having a heart attack and was dieing and being a thirteen year old boy he got scared and then he tried to solve the problem and tried to radio for some help but was not sure how to work the radio and then he started to talk to some one but he didnt remember how to fly the plan or anything so he was in trouble and then the next thing he knows the plan crashes and it hits some kind of lake or ocean. The boy got out of the plan and went for land and there is were he decided to stay and wait for help to get there but he was not sure if they would come, because they might not know where he is, also how long would it take for them to go and find him and to save him. He knows that his dad will come for him or some thing so he stayed there. He built a shelter and made a fire and made a good boy that he might find a rabbit or something and he did find many rabbits and some other big animals but his little boy could not take one of them on they would kill him. So then as it got colder he made a better shelter and made a little pond out side of his little shelter and in side of this new shelter he built a fire that kept him very warm. He did have many problems, he had his little shelter attacked by a big bear and the bear took all of the food and damaged his shelter very bad and it also hurt Brian badly too. He didnt know what to do so he just lay there and he lived. After this he needed to find a way to get some kind of defense and he had to do it fas...

The 1932 March of the Veterans Bonus Army

The 1932 March of the Veterans Bonus Army The Bonus Army was the name applied a group over 17,000 U.S. World War I veterans who marched on Washington, D.C. during the summer of 1932 demanding immediate cash payment of the service bonuses promised to them by Congress eight years earlier. Dubbed the â€Å"Bonus Army† and â€Å"Bonus Marchers† by the press, the group officially called itself the â€Å"Bonus Expeditionary Force† to mimic the name of World War Is American Expeditionary Forces. Fast Facts: March of the Veterans Bonus Army Short Description: 17,000 World War I veterans occupy Washington, D.C., and march on the U.S. Capitol to demand payment of promised military service bonuses.Key Participants:- President of the United States Herbert Hoover- U.S. Army General Douglas MacArthur- U.S. Army Major George S. Patton- U.S. Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley- District of Columbia Police Department- At least 17,000 U.S, WWI veterans and 45,000 supporting protestersLocation: In and around Washington, D.C., and the United States Capitol groundsStart Date: May 1932End Date: July 29, 1932Other Significant Dates:- June 17, 1932: U.S. Senate defeated a bill that would have advanced the date of payment of bonuses to the veterans. Two veterans and two D.C. police officers die in the ensuing protest.- July 29, 1932:   On the order of President Hoover, through Sec. of War Hurley, U.S. Army troops commanded by Maj. George S. Patton attack the veterans forcing them from their encampments and effectively ending the crisis . A total of 55 veterans were injured and another 135 were arrested.Fallout:- President Hoover was defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1932 presidential election.- Roosevelt immediately reserved jobs for 25,000 WWI veterans in his New Deal program.- In January 1936, WWI veterans were paid over $2 billion in promised combat bonuses. Why the Bonus Army Marched Most of the veterans who marched on the Capitol in 1932 had been out of work since the Great Depression began in 1929. They needed money, and the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had promised to give them some, but not until 1945 a full 27 years after the end of the war they had fought in. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act, passed by Congress as sort of a 20-year insurance policy, awarded all qualified veterans a redeemable â€Å"Adjusted Service Certificate† worth an amount equal to 125% of his wartime service credit. Each veteran was to be paid $1.25 for each day they had served overseas and $1.00 for each day they served in the United States during the war. The catch was that the veterans were not allowed to redeem the certificates until their individual birthdays in 1945. On May 15, 1924, President Calvin Coolidge had, in fact, vetoed the bill providing for the bonuses stating, â€Å"Patriotism, bought and paid for, is not patriotism.† Congress, however, overrode his veto a few days later. While the veterans might have been happy to wait for their bonuses when the Adjusted Compensation Act passed in 1924, the Great Depression came along five years later and by 1932 they had immediate needs for the money, like feeding themselves and their families. The Bonus Army Veterans Occupy D.C. The Bonus March actually began in May 1932 as some 15,000 veterans assembled in makeshift camps scattered around Washington, D.C. where they planned to demand and wait for the immediate payment of their bonuses.   The first and largest of the veterans’ camps, dubbed â€Å"Hooverville,† in as a backhanded tribute to President Herbert Hoover, was located on Anacostia Flats, a swampy bog directly across the Anacostia River from the Capitol Building and the White House. Hooverville housed about 10,000 veterans and their families in ramshackle shelters built from old lumber, packing boxes, and scrapped tin  from a nearby junk pile. Including the veterans, their families, and other supporters, the crowd of protesters eventually grew to nearly 45,000 people. Veterans, along with the assistance of the D.C. Police, maintained order in the camps, built military-style sanitation facilities, and held orderly daily protest parades. The D.C. Police Attack the Veterans On June 15, 1932, the US House of Representatives passed the Wright Patman Bonus Bill to move up the payment date of the veterans’ bonuses. However, the Senate defeated the bill on June 17. In protest to the Senate’s action, the Bonus Army veterans marched down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol Building. The D.C. police reacted violently, resulting in the deaths of two veterans and two police officers. The U.S. Army Attacks the Veterans On the morning of July 28, 1932, President Hoover, in his capacity as Commander in Chief of the military, ordered his Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley to clear the Bonus Army camps and disperse the protesters. At 4:45 p.m., U.S. Army infantry and cavalry regiments under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, supported by six M1917 light tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, assembled on Pennsylvania Avenue to carry out President Hoover’s orders.   With sabers, fixed bayonets, tear gas, and a mounted machine gun, the infantry and the cavalry charged the veterans, forcibly evicting them and their families from the smaller camps on the Capitol Building side of the Anacostia River. When the veterans retreated back across the river to the Hooverville camp, President Hoover ordered the troops to stand down until the next day. MacArthur, however, claiming the Bonus Marchers were attempting to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored Hoover’s order and immediately launched a second charge. By the end of the day, 55 veterans had been injured and 135 arrested. The Aftermath of the Bonus Army Protest In the 1932 presidential election, Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated Hoover by a landslide vote. While Hoover’s militaristic treatment of the Bonus Army veterans may have contributed to his defeat, Roosevelt had also opposed the veterans’ demands during the 1932 campaign. However, when the veterans held a similar protest in May 1933, he provided them with meals and a secure campsite. To address the veterans’ need for jobs, Roosevelt issued an executive order allowing 25,000 veterans to work in the New Deal program’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) without meeting the CCC’s age and marital status requirements. On January 22, 1936, both houses of Congress passed the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act in 1936, appropriating $2 billion for the immediate payment of all World War I veterans’ bonuses. On January 27, President Roosevelt vetoed the bill, but Congress immediately voted to override the veto. Almost four years after they had been driven from Washington by Gen. MacArthur, the Bonus Army veterans finally prevailed. Ultimately, the events of the Bonus Army veterans’ march on Washington contributed to the enactment in 1944 of the GI Bill, which has since assisted thousands of veterans make the often difficult transition to civilian life and in some small way pay back the debt owed to those who risk their lives for their country.