document_title: Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir

question_text: which force was raised in 1990 in kashmir for insurgency

text: Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir

text: History of the insurgency

text: After independence from colonial rule India and Pakistan fought a war over the princely state of Kashmir. At the end of the war India controlled the most valuable parts of Kashmir.[38] While there were sporadic periods of violence there was no organised insurgency movement.[39]

text: During this period legislative elections in Jammu and Kashmir were first held in 1951 and Sheikh Abdullah’s secular party stood unopposed. He was an instrumental member in the accession of the state to India.[40][41]

text: However Sheikh Abdullah would fall in and out of favour with the central government and would often be dismissed only to be re-appointed later on.[42] This was a time of political instability & power struggle in Jammu and Kashmir and it went through several periods of President's rule by the Federal Government.[28]

text: After Sheikh Abdullah’s death, his son Farooq Abdullah took over as Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. Farooq Abdullah eventually fell out of favour with the Central Government and the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi had him dismissed.[citation needed] A year later, Abdullah announced an alliance with the ruling Congress party for the elections of 1987. The elections were allegedly rigged in favour of Abdullah.[28][26]

text: This led to the rise of an armed insurgency movement composed, in part, of those who unfairly lost elections. Pakistan supplied these groups with logistical support, arms, recruits and training.[28][26][44][23][45]

text: In the second half of 1989 the alleged assassinations of the Indian spies and political collaborators by JKLF (Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front) was intensified. Over six months more than a hundred officials were killed to paralyse government’s administrative and intelligence apparatus. The daughter of then interior affairs minister, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed was kidnapped in December and four terrorists had to be released for her release. This event led to mass celebrations all over the valley. Farooq Abdullah resigned in January after the appointment of Jagmohan Malhotra as the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequently, J&K was placed under governor rule under Article 356, Disturbed Areas Act of Indian constitution. [46]

text: Under JKLF’s leadership on January 21-23 large scale protests were organised in valley. As a response to this largely explosive situation paramilitary units of BSF and CRPF were called. These units were used by the government to combat Maoist insurgency and the North-Eastern insurgency. The challenge to them in this situation was not posed by armed insurgents but by the stone pelters. Their inexperience caused atleast 50 casualties in Gawkadal massacre. In this incident the underground militant movement was transformed into a mass struggle. To curb the situation AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) was imposed on Kashmir in September 1990 to supress the insurgency by giving armed forces the powers to kill and arrest without warrant to maintain public order. During this time the dominant tactic involved killing of a prominent figure in a public gathering to push forces into action and the public prevented them from capturing these insurgents. This sprouting of sympathisers in Kashmir led to the hard-line approach of Indian army.[47]

text: With JKLF at forefront large number of militant groups like Allah Tigers, People’s League and Hizb-i-Islamia sprung up. Weapons were smuggled on a large scale from Pakistan. In Kashmir JKLF operated under the leadership of Ashfaq Majid Wani, Yasin Bhat, Hamid Shiekh and Javed Mir. To counter this growing pro-Pakistani sentiment in Kashmir, Indian media associated it exclusively with Pakistan.[48]

text: JKLF used distinctly Islamic themes to mobilise crowds and justify their use of violence. They seeked to establish an Islamic democratic state where the rights of minorities would be protected according to Quran and Sunna and economy would be organised on the principles of Islamic socialism.[49]

text: Beginning in 2004 Pakistan began to end its support for insurgents in Kashmir.[50] This happened because terrorist groups linked to Kashmir twice tried to assassinate Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf.[45] His successor, Asif Ali Zardari has continued the policy, calling insurgents in Kashmir "terrorists".[51] Although it is unclear if Pakistan's intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, thought to be the agency aiding and controlling the insurgency[51][52][53] is following Pakistan's commitment to end support for the insurgency in Kashmir.[51]

text: Despite the change in the nature of the insurgency from a phenomenon supported by external forces to a primarily domestic-driven movement[38][51][54][55][56] the Indian government has continued to send large numbers of troops to the Indian border.[54][56][57]

text: There have been widespread protests against Indian rule.[54]

text: Once the most formidable face of Kashmir militancy, Hizbul Mujahideen is slowly fading away as its remaining commanders and cadres are being taken out on a regular interval by security forces.[58] Some minor incidents of grenade throwing and sniper firing at security forces notwithstanding, the situation is under control and more or less peaceful. A record number of tourists including Amarnath pilgrims visited Kashmir during 2012. On 3 August 2012, a top Lashkar-e-Taiba militant commander, Abu Hanzulah involved in various attacks on civilians and security forces was killed in an encounter with security forces in a village in Kupwara district of north Kashmir.[59]

text: According to an Indian Army data – quoted by Reuters – at least 70 young Kashmiris joined the insurgency in the 2014, army records showed, with most joining the banned group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was accused of carrying out attacks on the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008. Two of the new recruits have doctorates and eight were post graduates, the army data showed.[60] According to BBC, that despite a Pakistani ban on militant activity in Kashmir in 2006, its fighters continue to attempt infiltration into Indian-administered Kashmir. These attempts were curtailed however when people living along the Line of Control which divides Indian and Pakistani Kashmir started to hold public protests against their activities.[61]

text: Reasons for the insurgency

text: Rigging of 1987 Assembly elections

text: Following the rise of Islamisation in the Kashmir valley, during the 1987 state elections, various Islamic anti-establishment groups including Jamaat-e-Islami Kashmir were organised under a single banner named Muslim United Front (MUF), that is largely current Hurriyat. MUF's election manifesto stressed the need for a solution to all outstanding issues according to Simla Agreement, work for Islamic unity and against political interference from the centre. Their slogan was wanting the law of the Quran in the Assembly.[62] But the MUF won only four seats, even though it had polled 31% votes in the election. However, the elections were widely believed to be rigged, changing the course of politics in the state. The insurgency was sparked by the apparent rigging of state elections in 1987.[28][26][63]

text: ISI's role

text:
The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence has allegedly encouraged and aided the Kashmir independence movement through an insurgency[51][52][53][64] due to its dispute on the legitimacy of Indian rule in Kashmir, with the insurgency as an easy way to keep Indian troops distracted and cause international condemnation of India.[38]
Former Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf in Oct 2014 said during TV interview, "We have source (in Kashmir) besides the (Pakistan) army…People in Kashmir are fighting against (India). We just need to incite them."[65]

text: The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in their first ever open acknowledgement in 2011 in US Court, said that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) sponsors terrorism in Kashmir and it oversees terrorist separatist groups in Kashmir.[18][19][19][20][21]

text: Mujahideen influence

text: After the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, Mujahideen fighters, with the aid of Pakistan, slowly infiltrated Kashmir with the goal of spreading a radical Islamist ideology.[26]

text: Religion

text: Jammu and Kashmir is the only Muslim majority state in Hindu-majority India. Indian-American journalist Asra Nomani states that while India itself is a secular state, Muslims are politically, culturally and economically marginalised when compared to Hindus in India as a whole.[66] The government's decision to transfer 99 acres of forest land in near Amarnath in the Kashmir valley to a Hindu organisation (for setting up temporary shelters and facilities for Hindu pilgrims) solidified this feeling and led to one of the largest protest rallies in Jammu and Kashmir.[67]

text: Humanitarian abuses

text: After insurgency started in Kashmir valley because of above reasons in late 1980s, Indian troops entered in Kashmir valley to control the insurgency.[68] Some analysts have suggested that the number of Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir is close to 600,000 although estimates vary and the Indian government refuses to release official figures.[69] The troops have been accused and held accountable for several humanitarian abuses[56] and have engaged in mass extrajudicial killings, torture, rape and sexual abuse.[57]

text: Indian security forces have been implicated in many reports for enforced disappearances of thousands of Kashmiris whereas the security forces deny having their information and/or custody. This is often in association with torture or extrajudicial killing. Human right activists estimate the number of disappeared to be over eight thousand, last seen in government detention.[70][71] The disappeared are believed to be dumped in thousands of mass graves across Kashmir.[72][73][74][75][76] A State Human Rights Commission inquiry in 2011, has confirmed there are thousands of bullet-ridden bodies buried in unmarked graves in Jammu and Kashmir. Of the 2730 bodies uncovered in 4 of the 14 districts, 574 bodies were identified as missing locals in contrast to the Indian governments insistence that all the graves belong to foreign militants.[77][78]

text: Military forces in Jammu and Kashmir operate under impunity and emergency powers granted to them by the central government. These powers allow the military to curtail civil liberties, creating further support for the insurgency.[79][80]

text: The insurgents have also abused human rights, engaging in what some have called an ethnic cleansing by exterminating Kashmiri Pandits from the valley of Kashmir.[81] The government's inability to protect the people from both its own troops and the insurgency has further eroded support for the government.[82]

text: Amnesty International accused security forces of exploiting the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) that enables them to "hold prisoners without trial". The group argues that the law, which allows security to detain individuals for as many as two years "without presenting charges, violating prisoners’ human rights".[83] The Army sources maintain that "any move to revoke AFSPA in Jammu and Kashmir would be detrimental to the security of the Valley and would provide a boost to the terrorists."[84]

text: Former Indian Army Chief General V. K. Singh rejected the accusations that the action was not taken in the cases of human rights violations by Army personnel. On 24 October 2010, he has said that 104 Army personnel had been punished in Jammu and Kashmir in this regard, including 39 officers. He also said that 95% of the allegations of human rights abuses against Indian Army were proved to be false, of which he remarked, had apparently been made with the "ulterior motive of maligning the armed forces".[85] However, according to Human Rights Watch, the military courts in India, in general, were proved to be incompetent to deal with cases of serious human rights abuses and were responsible in covering up evidence and protecting the involved officers.[86] Amnesty International in its report in 2015, titled “Denied”-Failures in Accountability in Jammu and Kashmir, says, "...with respect to investigations, an inquiry that is conducted by the same authority accused of the crime raises serious questions about the independence and impartiality of those proceedings”, adding that according to the international law, an independent authority that is not involved in the alleged violations has to investigate such crimes.[87]

text: These human rights violations are said to have contributed to the rise of resistance in Kashmir.[88][89][90]

text: Other reasons

text: Psychological

text: Psychologist Waheeda Khan, explaining the rebellious nature of the Kashmiris, says that because of the tense situations in the valley from 1990s, the generation gap between parents and young generations has increased. Young generations tend to blame their parents for failing to do anything about the political situation. So they start experimenting with their own aggressive ways to show their curbed feelings and would go against any authority. A prominent psychiatrist of the valley, Margoob, described that children/teenagers are much more vulnerable to passionate actions and reactions, since the young minds are yet to completely develop psychological mechanisms. When they assume that they are "pushed against the wall", they get controlled by the emotions without bothering about the consequences. Also young people easily identify themselves with the "group" rather than with their individual identities. It leads to psychological distress which causes antisocial behaviour and aggressive attitude. Often, this situation gets worsened by the availability of weapons and people becoming familiar to violence after having exposed to conflict for so long. Waheeda Khan remarks, the major concern is that generations of children who are experiencing long-term violence in their lives, may reach adulthood perceiving that violence is a fair means of solving ethinic, religious, or political differences.[91]

text: Economic

text: High unemployment and lack of economic opportunities in Kashmir are also said to have intensified the struggle.[92][93][94]

text: Stone pelting

text: Since the 2008 protests and 2010 unrest, the turmoil has taken a new dimension when people, particularly youngsters of the Kashmir valley have started pelting stones on security forces to express their aggression and protest for the loss of freedom. In turn they get attacked by the armed personnel with pellets, rubber bullets, sling shots and tear gas shells. This leads to eye-injuries and several other kind of injuries to many people. Security forces also face injuries, and sometimes get beaten up during these events. According to Waheeda Khan, most of the 'stone-pelters' are school and college going students. Large number of these people get arrested during these events for allegedly resorting to stone pelting, after which some of them are also tortured. According to political activist Mannan Bukhari, Kashmiris made stone, an easily accessible and defenseless weapon, their weapon of choice for protest.[95][96]

text: Kashmiri senior journalist Parvaiz Bukhari remarked:[96][97]

text: The summer of 2010 witnessed a convulsion in the world’s most militarized zone, the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir, an unprecedented and deadly civil unrest that is beginning to change a few things on the ground. [...] Little known and relatively anonymous resistance activists emerged, organizing an unarmed agitation more fierce than the armed rebellion against Indian rule two decades earlier. And apparently aware of the post 9/11 world, young Kashmiris, children of the conflict, made stones and rocks a weapon of choice against government armed forces, side-stepping the tag of a terrorist movement linked with Pakistan. The unrest represents a conscious transition to an unarmed mass movement, one that poses a moral challenge to New Delhi’s military domination over the region.

text: Human rights violations by militants

text: Further information: Human rights abuses by insurgents and Rape by militants

text: Islamic separatist militants are accused of violence against the Kashmir populace.[98][99][100] They continue serious human rights violations: summary executions, rape, and torture. In the effort to curb support for pro-independence militants, Indian security forces have resorted to arbitrary arrest and collective punishments of entire neighbourhoods, tactics which have only led to further disaffection from India. The militants have kidnapped and killed civil servants and suspected informers.[101] Human Rights Watch alleged that thousands of civilian Kashmiri Hindus have been killed over the past 10 years by Islamic militants organisations or Muslim mobs.[82] The militants committed war rape during the 1980s.[102] Tens of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits have emigrated as a result of the violence. Estimates of the displaced varies from 170,000 to 700,000. Thousands of Kasmiri Pandits had to move to Jammu because of militancy.[103]

text: Notable terrorist attacks in J&K

text:
July and August 1989 – 3 CRPF personnel and politician Mohd. Yusuf Halwai of NC/F were killed.[104]
1989 kidnapping of Rubaiya Sayeed daughter of the then Home Minister of India Mufti Sayeed.
1995 kidnapping of western tourists in Jammu and Kashmir – Six foreign trekkers from Anantnag district were kidnapped by Al Faran. One was beheaded later, one escaped, and the other four remain missing, presumably killed.
1997 Sangrampora massacre – On 22 March 1997, seven Kashmiri Pandits were killed in Sangrampora village in the Budgam district.[105]
Wandhama massacre – In January 1998, 24 Kashmiri Pandits living in the village of Wandhama were massacred by Pakistani militants. According to the testimony of one of the survivors, the militants dressed themselves as officers of the Indian Army, entered their houses and then started firing blindly. The incident was significant because it coincided with former US president Bill Clinton's visit to India and New Delhi used the massacre to present a case against the alleged Pakistan-supported terrorism in Kashmir.[106]
1998 Prankote massacre – 26 Hindu villagers of Udhampur district were killed by militants.
1998 Champanari massacre – 25 Hindu villagers killed on 19 June 1998 by Islamic militants.
2000 Amarnath pilgrimage massacre – 30 Hindu pilgrims massacred by militants.
Chittisinghpura massacre – 36 Sikhs massacred by LET militants.
2001 terrorist attack on Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly – On 1 October 2001, a bombing at the Legislative Assembly in Srinagar killed 38.[107]
2002 Raghunath temple attacks – First attack occurred on 30 March 2002 when two suicide bombers attacked the temple. Eleven persons including three security forces personnel were killed and 20 were injured. In second attack, the fidayeen suicide squad attacked the temple second time on 24 November 2002 when two suicide bombers stormed the temple and killed fourteen devotees and injured 45 others.
2002 Qasim Nagar massacre – On 13 July 2002, armed militants believed to be a part of the Lashkar-e-Toiba threw hand grenades at the Qasim Nagar market in Srinagar and then fired on civilians standing nearby killing 27 and injuring many more.[108]
2003 Nadimarg Massacre – 24 Hindus killed in Nadimarg, Kashmir on 23 March 2003 by Lashkar-e-Taiba militants.
20 July 2005 Srinagar Bombing – A car bomb exploded near an armoured Indian Army vehicle in the famous Church Lane area in Srinagar killing 4 Indian Army personnel, one civilian and the suicide bomber. Militant group Hizbul Mujahideen, claimed responsibility for the attack.[109]
Budshah Chowk attack – A militant attack on 29 July 2005 at Srinigar's city centre, Budshah Chowk, killed 2 and left more than 17 people injured. Most of those injured were media journalists.[110]
Assassination of Ghulam Nabi Lone – On 18 October 2005, suspected Kashmiri militants killed Jammu and Kashmir's then education minister Ghulam Nabi Lone. Militant group called Al Mansurin claimed responsibility for the attack.[111] Abdul Ghani Lone, a prominent All Party Hurriyat Conference leader, was assassinated by unidentified gunmen during a memorial rally in Srinagar. The assassination resulted in wide-scale demonstrations against the Indian forces for failing to provide enough security cover for Lone.[108]
2006 Doda massacre – On 3 May 2006, militants massacred 35 Hindus in Doda and Udhampur districts in Jammu and Kashmir.[112]
On 12 June 2006, one person was killed and 31 were wounded when terrorists hurled three grenades on Vaishnodevi shrine-bound buses at the general bus stand.[113]
2014 Kashmir Valley attacks – There were four attacks on 5 December 2014 on army, police and civilians resulted in 21 deaths and several injured. Their motive was to disrupt the ongoing assembly elections.[114]
2016 Uri attack – Four armed terrorists sneaked into an army camp and lobbed grenades onto tents causing massive fire culminating in the death of 19 military personnel.

text: Tactics

text: India

text: Over time the Indian government has increasingly relied on military presence to control the insurgency.[56] The military has committed human rights violations.[115] The government would often dissolve assemblies, arrest elected politicians and impose president's rule. The government also rigged elections in 1987.[28] In recent times there have been signs that the government is taking local elections more seriously.[116] The government has also funneled development aid to Kashmir and Kashmir has now become the biggest per capita receiver of Federal aid.[117]

text: Pakistan

text: The Pakistani central government originally supported, trained and armed the insurgency in Kashmir,[18][19][19][20][21][118] sometimes known as "ultras" (extremists),[119][120] however after groups linked to the Kashmiri insurgency twice attempted to assassinate president Pervez Musharraf, Musharraf decided to end support for such groups.[45] His successor, Asif Ali Zardari has continued the policy, calling insurgents in Kashmir "terrorists".[51]

text: But the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence hasn't followed the lead of the government and has continued its support for insurgent groups in Kashmir[51][52][53] although Pakistani support for the insurgency has certainly waned.[56]

text: Insurgents

text: Since around 2000 the 'insurgency' has become far less violent and has instead taken on the form of protests and marches.[67] Certain groups have also chosen to lay down their arms and look for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.[121]

text: Groups

text: The different insurgent groups have different aims in Kashmir. Some want complete independence from both India and Pakistan, others want unification with Pakistan and still others just want greater autonomy from the Indian government.[122]

text: A 2010 survey found that 43% in J&K and 44% in AJK would favour complete independence from both India and Pakistan, with support for the independence movement unevenly distributed across the region.[123][124]

text: Identity

text: Over the last two years, the militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba has split into two factions: Al Mansurin and Al Nasirin. Another new group reported to have emerged is the "Save Kashmir Movement". Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (formerly known as Harkat-ul-Ansar) and Lashkar-e-Toiba are believed to be operating from Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir and Muridke, Pakistan respectively.[citation needed]

text: Other less well known groups are the Freedom Force and Farzandan-e-Milat. A smaller group, Al-Badr, has been active in Kashmir for many years and is still believed to be functioning. All Parties Hurriyat Conference, an organisation that uses moderate means to press for the rights of the Kashmiris, is often considered as the mediator between New Delhi and insurgent groups.[citation needed]

text: Al-Qaeda

text: It is unclear if Al Qaeda has a presence in Jammu and Kashmir. Donald Rumsfeld suggested that they were active[125] and in 2002 the SAS hunted for Osama bin Laden in Jammu and Kashmir.[126] Al Qaeda claims that it has established a base in Jammu and Kashmir.[127] However, there has been no evidence for any of these assertions.[125][126][127] The Indian army also claims that there is no evidence of Al Qaeda presence in Jammu and Kashmir.[128] Al Qaeda has established bases in Pakistani administered Kashmir and some, including Robert Gates have suggested that they have helped to plan attacks in India.[128][129][130]

text: Casualties

text: According to Sumantra Bose in his book, Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace, around 40000 (Indian estimates) to 80000 (Hurriyat estimates) civilians, separatist guerilla fighters and Indian security personnel died from the time period of 1989 to 2002 in both Kashmir Valley and Jammu . More than 4600 security personnel, 13500 civilians and 15937 militants including 3000 from outside Jammu and Kashmir (mostly Pakistanis and some Afghans) were killed in this fourteen-year period. Also in this period, 55,538 incidents of violence were recorded. Indian forces engaged in counter insurgency operations captured around 40,000 firearms, 150,000 explosive devices, and over 6 million rounds of assorted ammunition.[131] Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society posits a figure of 70,000 deaths, most of them civilians killed by Indian forces.[132]


document_title: The Walking Dead (video game series)

question_text: the walking dead telltale game season 4 release date

root

text: The Walking Dead (video game series)

text: Concept[edit]

text: The Walking Dead series is based on the comic series of the same name. The game's events run concurrently to the comic, starting at the onset of a zombie apocalypse, where dead humans have become undead "walkers" that feed on the living which quickly overwhelmed most of the population. As established in the comic and show, this is a result of a virus that all living humans possess that takes over the brain of the body once the person dies, and the only way to stop this is to destroy the brain.

tag: p

text: The game series initially starts in Georgia, with the whole of the first season and the events of 400 Days content taking place within the state. The second series follows the protagonists as they move north along the United States' eastern seaboard, believing there to be a human encampment in the north as well as the colder temperatures slowing the walkers' speed.

text: Gameplay[edit]

text: The Walking Dead games follow the same point-and-click adventure game approach that other Telltale Games episodic series have followed. Within an episode, the player controls a protagonist as the story progresses through several scenes. Within a scene, the player can move the character to explore the area, examine items, and initiate conversation trees with non-player characters; in these dialogs, the player has the option of selecting a number of options to reply to characters, including the option to stay silent. Other scenes are based on cinematic elements using quick time events in which the player must hit a controller button or a keyboard command as indicated on screen to react to an event. Failure to do so in time can lead to the character's death or other undesirable ending, and the game will restart just prior to these scenes.

text: All choices made by the player in The Walking Dead are tracked by the game, and certain choices ("determinants") will influence later scenes across the episodes and the series to date, when the player continues from the same saved game state. For example, in the first episode of the first season, the player has an option to save one of two non-player characters from a walker attack; the other character is killed, while the surviving character will uniquely impact other aspects of the story. Other times, selection of certain dialog options will influence the attitude of a non-player character towards the protagonist, and can manifest in later scenes as providing additional options for the player to select from.  Telltale Games tracks these decisions, including five main choices made during the course of each episode, allowing players to compare their choices to others.

text: Series overview[edit]

text: SeasonEpisodesOriginally airedFirst airedLast aired15April 24, 2012 (2012-04-24)November 20, 2012 (2012-11-20)25December 17, 2013 (2013-12-17)August 26, 2014 (2014-08-26)35December 20, 2016 (2016-12-20)May 30, 2017 (2017-05-30)44August 14, 2018TBA400 DaysJuly 2, 2013 (2013-07-02)Michonne3February 23, 2016 (2016-02-23)April 26, 2016 (2016-04-26)

tag: table

text: Season 1 (2012)[edit]

text:
No.overallNo. inseasonTitleDirected byWritten byOriginal release dateMain series
11"A New Day"Sean Vanaman  Jake RodkinSean Vanaman[1]April 24, 2012 (2012-04-24)
22"Starved for Help"Dennis LenartMark Darin[2]Story by: Chuck JordanJune 27, 2012 (2012-06-27)
33"Long Road Ahead"Eric ParsonsSean Vanaman[3]Story by:Sean VanamanJake RodkinHarrison G. PinkAugust 28, 2012 (2012-08-28)
44"Around Every Corner"Nick HermanGary Whitta[4]October 9, 2012 (2012-10-09)
55"No Time Left"Sean VanamanJake RodkinSean AinsworthSean Vanaman[5]November 20, 2012 (2012-11-20)
Downloaded content
––"400 Days"Sean AinsworthSean AinsworthNick BreckonMark DarinSean VanamanGary WhittaJuly 2, 2013 (2013-07-02)

text: At the onset of the zombie apocalypse, Lee Everett rescues young Clementine whose parents had traveled to Savannah prior to the apocalypse. They join with other survivors in Macon, Georgia to protect themselves from the undead, taking shelter in a defensible motel. When their position is overrun by both walkers and scavengers, the group flees and heads towards Savannah hoping to find boats to flee the mainland. Lee promises to reunite Clementine with her parents while teaching her rules of survival in this new world. In Savannah, they find no boats, and a strange man communicating to Clementine via walkie-talkie. When Clementine goes missing, Lee in his panic searching is accidentally bitten by a walker. With his time short, Lee assures the safety of the remaining survivors and goes to rescue Clementine, held by a man who has blamed Lee directly for the death of his family. Lee and Clementine overwhelm the man, and as they escape, they witness Clementine's parents, who have already become walkers. Clementine drags a weakening Lee to a safe location, and Lee, in his final moments of rationality, directs her to find the other survivors, before telling her to kill him or leave him before he fully becomes a walker.

text: 400 Days (2013)[edit]

text: 400 Days is a downloadable special episode. It focuses on five different protagonists and it serves as a bridge between Season 1 and Season 2. In the final scene, the survivors of each story are offered to be taken into a safe camp.

text: Season 2 (2013–14)[edit]

text:
No.overallNo. inseasonTitleDirected byWritten byOriginal release date61"All That Remains"Dennis LenartNick Breckon  Andrew GrantDecember 17, 2013 (2013-12-17)[6]
72"A House Divided"Eric ParsonsNick BreckonMarch 4, 2014 (2014-03-04)[7]
83"In Harm's Way"Graham RossPierre ShoretteMay 13, 2014 (2014-05-13)[8]
94"Amid the Ruins"Jason LatinoJ.T. Petty  Eric StirpeJuly 22, 2014 (2014-07-22)[9]
105"No Going Back"Sean Ainsworth  Dennis LenartNick Breckon  Pierre ShoretteAugust 26, 2014 (2014-08-26)[10]

text: More than a year after the first game, Clementine is separated from the other survivors and forced to fend on her own. She meets up with another group that are attempting to flee a man named Carver, who runs the human survivor camp at a strip mall, as alluded to in 400 Days. Clementine learns Carver seeks to capture Rebecca believing her to be carrying his child while she insists it is her husband Alvin's. They come into another group, discovering that Kenny, one of the survivors that Clementine traveled with from the first season and who had lost his wife and son to walkers, has managed to survive. In the midst of a walker attack, they are captured by Carver. Learning that a massive walker horde is approaching the strip mall and will readily overrun it, the group manages to escape with other prisoners, killing Carver in the process after he kills Alvin. During their escape, a woman that Kenny had taken a romantic interest in is bitten by a walker, forcing Clementine to intercede to kill her before she can turn, angering Kenny. As they regroup, Clementine becomes close to Jane, a loner that was part of the prisoners at Carver's camp and who teaches Clementine survival skills. Later, Rebecca dies after giving birth to a child, which they name Alvin Jr. (AJ) As winter sets in, Jane and Kenny become hostile towards each other, and Kenny's distrust of the group leads to a fraction of them fleeing from Kenny, Jane, Clementine, and Alvin Jr.. Jane forces Clementine to see what Kenny has become from witnessing the deaths of his loved ones by faking the death of Alvin Jr., and Clementine is forced to intercede, killing one of them and opting to continue with the other while overseeing to Alvin Jr. herself.

text: Michonne (2016)[edit]

text:
No.TitleDirected byWritten byOriginal release date1"In Too Deep"Kent MudleMeghan Thornton  Nicole MartinezFebruary 23, 2016 (2016-02-23)[11]
2"Give No Shelter"Sean ManningZack Keller  Andrew HansonMarch 29, 2016 (2016-03-29)[12]
3"What We Deserve"Jason LatinoNicole MartinezErica HarrellDesirée ProctorJoshua RubinApril 26, 2016 (2016-04-26)[13]

text: In June 2015, Telltale announced a three-episode series The Walking Dead: Michonne. The mini-series released on February 23, 2016 for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One; February 25, 2016 for iOS and Android; and March 1, 2016 for PC, and serves as a tie-in between the first two The Walking Dead seasons developed by Telltale. The series mostly focuses on Michonne's untold story on what took Michonne away from Rick, Ezekiel, and the rest of Rick Grimes' trusted group and what brought her back.[14] Samira Wiley voiced Michonne in the game. The mini-series was originally scheduled to be released as downloadable content for Season 2.[15] However, in December 2015, Telltale announced that the game would be released as a standalone title that would not require any previous game in the series to play[16]

text: Season 3: A New Frontier (2016–17)[edit]

text:
No.overallNo. inseasonTitleDirected byWritten byOriginal release date111"Ties That Bind - Part One"Jason LatinoBrad KaneNick BreckonAdam Esquenazi DouglasLaura JacqminDan MartinDesiree ProctorPierre ShoretteDecember 20, 2016 (2016-12-20)[17]
122"Ties That Bind - Part Two"Rebekah Gamin ArcovitchBrad KaneNick BreckonMichael ChoungAdam Esquenazi DouglasLaura JacqminDan MartinEvan SkolnickTimothy WilliamsDecember 20, 2016 (2016-12-20)[17]
133"Above the Law"Chris RebbertJames WindelerPatrick Kevin DayAdam Esquenazi DouglasLaura JacqminAdam MillerEvan SkolnickMarch 28, 2017 (2017-03-28)[18]
144"Thicker Than Water"Chris RieserLuke McMullenTheresa CooleyPatrick Kevin DayLaura JacqminAdam MillerApril 25, 2017 (2017-04-25)[19]
155"From the Gallows"Jason PykeAdam Esquenazi DouglasMay 30, 2017 (2017-05-30)[20]

text: The third season of The Walking Dead launched with two episodes on December 20th of 2016.[21] The season plans to tie in all the possible endings from previous seasons without compromising the story to avoid pushing away new players to the series. In an interview with IGN, Kirkman stated that the third season would bring the video game closer to the comic book's time frame. It takes place a few years after the second season, and includes a somewhat older Clementine along with AJ, the infant she rescues at the end of Season 2 who is now a toddler.[22][23][24] Clementine is a playable character along with a new character, Javier.[25] A New Frontier uses the updated Telltale Tool, the same game engine Telltale used for Batman: The Telltale Series.

text: During the 2016 PAX Expo, Telltale revealed the third season will be released in November 2016, with the subtitle "A New Frontier".[26] Telltale later had to delay the first episode's release until December 20, 2016.[27] Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment will publish retail versions of Season 3 as part of a deal with Telltale for Batman that was released in August 2016.[28] The physical edition is expected to release on February 7, 2017, featuring the first episode on disc and download codes to obtain all future episodes of the series.

text: The Walking Dead Collection (2017)[edit]

text: Announced in November 2017, The Walking Dead Collection includes all episodes from the first three seasons, as well as "400 Days" and The Walking Dead: Michonne. The collection was released on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One on December 5, 2017.[29] The content of the first two seasons and "400 Days" has been visually improved, reflecting on improvements Telltale has made in their engine since these seasons were first released, including high-definition texture mapping for all survivor characters, improved dynamic lighting, and upgrading the game's graphics to use DirectX 11 over DirectX 9. The older games also use the user interface elements developed for the third season as to provide a consistent interface to the players.[30]

text: The Walking Dead Collection was nominated for the Tappan Zee Bridge Award for Best Remake at the New York Game Awards 2018.[31]

text: Season 4: The Final Season (2018)[edit]

text:
No.overallNo. inseasonTitleDirected byWritten byOriginal release date [32]161"Done Running"Chris Rebbert, Vahram AntonianJessica Krause, Adam Esquenazi Douglas, Mary Kenney, Lauren MeeAugust 14, 2018 (2018-08-14)
172"Suffer the Children"TBAJames Windeler, Mary KennySeptember 25, 2018 (2018-09-25)
183"Broken Toys"TBATBANovember 6, 2018 (2018-11-06)
194"Take Us Back"TBATBADecember 18, 2018 (2018-12-18)

text: Announced during the July 2017 San Diego Comic Con, The Walking Dead: The Final Season, launched as four-episode series on August 14, 2018 for Windows, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One, with a Nintendo Switch version to launch later that year.[33] Episodes are expected to launch roughly each month through December 2018.[34] Clementine will return as the lead character, voiced by Hutchinson, as Telltale found that fans of the series were not pleased with how little interactivity there was with Clementine in A New Frontier. Telltale wanted to have the final season call back to what fans had praised about the first season, and knew they needed to make Clementine the focus. With this direction, Telltale decided to make this the final season for The Walking Dead series so that they can create a satisfactory conclusion to Clementine's story arc.[35] For this purpose, Telltale brought back Gary Whitta, the writer for the first season and "400 Days" content, to help close out Clementine's story.[36][35]

text: The story will follow from A New Frontier with Clementine having rescued AJ from the McCarroll Ranch, with a timeskip a few years ahead, where AJ is now a young boy. With diminishing resources amid the apocalypse, Clementine and AJ find the importance of staying with communities of vital importance, meeting other characters who have little memory of the time before the downfall of society. Clementine starts to teach AJ the essentials of survival as Lee had taught her. Telltale had initially considered writing a version of Clementine that had become more jaded, but found this was far too different from the established version of the character, and reworked her to be more sympathetic.[35][37][38]

text: The final season will use the updated version of the Telltale Tool first introduced in Batman: The Telltale Series, along with improvements in the visual style to approach the style used in The Walking Dead comic.[35] Some scenes will feature "unscripted" zombies who may attack Clementine if the player is not careful, creating new freeform combat sequences, while other parts of the game will continue to use quick-time events as from previous games.[37]

text: Despite the title The Final Season, Telltale does not rule out future The Walking Dead games; Creative Director Kent Mudle said that The Final Season title represented the end of Clementine's journal from Telltale's view, but could revisit the franchise through other characters.[39]

text: Main Cast and characters[edit]

text:
Character

Season One(2012)

Season Two(2013/14)

A New Frontier(2016/17)

The Final Season(2018)

Clementine

Melissa Hutchison

Lee Everett

Dave Fennoy

Kenny

Gavin Hammon

Katjaa

Cissy Jones

Kenny "Duck" Jr

Max Kaufman

Lilly

Nicki Rapp

Larry

Terry McGovern

Carley

Nicole Vigil

Doug

Sam Joan

Glenn Rhee

Nick Herman

Mark

Mark Middleton

Ben Paul

Trevor Hoffman

Chuck

Roger L. Jackson

Omid

Owen Thomas

Christa

Mara Junot

Molly

Erin Ashe

Vernon

Butch Engle

Luke

Scott Porter

Nick

Brian Bremer

Pete

Brian Sommer

Carlos

Kid Beyond

Sarah

Louis MacKintosh

Alvin

Dorian Lockett

Rebecca

Shay Moore

William Carver

Michael Madsen

Bonnie

Erin Yvette

Sarita

Julia Farmer

Walter

Kiff Vanden Heuvel

Matthew

Wylie Herman

Jane

Christine Lakin

Mike

Dan White

Arvo

Michael Ark

Javier "Javi" Garcia

Jeff Schine

Kate Garcia

Shelley Shenoy

David Garcia

Alex Hernandez

Gabriel Garcia

Raymond Ochoa

Mariana Garcia

Vale de la Maza

Tripp

Troy Hall

Eleanor

Kelley Crowder

Conrad

William Christopher Stephens

Francine

Valerie Arem

Paul "Jesus" Monroe

Brandon Keener

Max/Rufus

Sean Lynch

Badger

Jon Curry

Lonnie

Charles Halford

Ava

Ally Johnson

Joan

Jayne Taini

Clinton Barnes

Andrew Heyl

Paul Lingard

Yuri Lowenthal

Alvin "AJ" Jr.

N/A

Tayla Parx

Aasim

Ritesh Rajan

Abel

Alex Fernandez

Brody

Hedy Burress

Louis

Sterling Sulieman

Marlon

Ray Chase

Mitch

Robbie Daymond

Omar

Keith Silverstein

Ruby

Ali Hillis

Tennessee

Zaire Hampton

Violet

Gideon Adlon

Willy

Justin Cowden

text: The Walking Dead video game series introduces new characters developed by Telltale for the games. Season One is based around Lee Everett (voiced by Dave Fennoy), a Georgia college professor who had been charged with murder, and was in the midst of being sent to prison at the start of the walker outbreak. Lee escapes and encounters young Clementine (voiced by Melissa Hutchison), hiding in her treehouse after her babysitter had turned and her parents not yet back from vacation. Lee becomes a protective figure to her to help reunite her with her parents. Within Season Two taking place about a year later, Clementine is now the central character, struggling to find a place in several survivor groups.

text: Other major characters include Kenny, a fisherman who has suffered numerous losses of family and loved ones and has become emotionally unstable, Luke, a former entrepreneur who carries himself logically than emotionally, Jane, a young lone-wolf woman that teaches Clementine the values of self-preservation that a person's life comes first than anybody else, Carver, a principle antagonist of Season Two that seeks out the group of survivors that Clementine has joined believing one carries his child, and A.J., the newborn infant that Carver seeks who Clementine takes care of after his mother succumbs to the elements. The fate of several characters are determinant based on the actions that the player has taken in previous episodes, or otherwise unresolved within the narrative of the games. As the game takes place within the comic's universe, there have been some character crossovers with the series; Hershel Greene, Shawn Greene and Glenn Rhee, three characters from the comic series, have appeared briefly in Season One. Michonne, a prominent comic character, is featured as the playable-character in the Michonne mini-series. It was also confirmed in a trailer that Jesus would make some appearance in The New Frontier.

text: Reception[edit]

text: Sales[edit]

text: According to Telltale, the combined games in the series have sold over 50 million episodes worldwide by July 2017.[38]

text: Season 1 and 400 Days[edit]

text: The Walking Dead has received critical acclaim, with reviewers giving praise for the harsh emotional tone, the characters, story and the resemblance to the original comic book, although criticizing the graphical glitches. The game received over 80 Game of the Year awards and many other awards.

text: "Episode 1 – A New Day" received positive reviews. Aggregating review websites GameRankings and Metacritic calculated scores of 85.14%[40] and 84/100,[41] respectively, for the PlayStation 3 version, 83.87%[42] and 79/100[43] for the Xbox 360 version, and 83.38%[44] and 82/100[45] for the PC version. The game received various accolades including the IGN "Editors' Choice", PC Gamer "Editors' Choice", Xbox Editors' Choice Award, and the PlayStation Gold Award.

text: "Episode 2 – Starved for Help" received positive reviews. GameRankings and Metacritic calculated scores of 86.53%[46] and 84/100,[47] respectively, for the PC version, 86.26%[48] and 84/100[49] for the Xbox 360 version, and 85.90%[50] and 84/100[51] for the PlayStation 3 version. The game won the GameSpy E3 2012 award for "Best Adventure Game".[52]

text: "Episode 3 – Long Road Ahead" received positive reviews. GameRankings and Metacritic calculated scores of 88.47%[53] and 88/100,[54] respectively, for the Xbox 360 version, 86.11%[55] and 87/100[56] for the PlayStation 3 version, and 85.41%[57] and 85/100[58] for the PC version. IGN's Greg Miller gave the game a 9 out of 10, saying "It's a disturbing, depressing and entertaining entry in a journey that's been nothing short of excellent so far."[59] GameSpot gave the game an 8.5, saying "The Walking Dead has passed the midway point of its series of five episodes with every indication that the game will keep getting better right through to its inevitably depressing and unsettling conclusion."[60] MTV also gave it a positive review, saying "Telltale has created a series of wrenching, emotional decisions in the middle of a collection of not-too-hard puzzles in a visually-impressive adaptation of the Robert Kirkman comic series (with some nods to the TV show)."[61]

text: "Episode 4 – Around Every Corner" received positive reviews, but to a lesser extent than the previous episodes. GameRankings and Metacritic calculated scores of 84.00%[62] and 80/100,[63] respectively, for the PC version, 82.50%[64] and 82/100[65] the Xbox 360 version, and 78.94%[66] and 81/100[67] for the PlayStation 3 version.

text: "Episode 5 – No Time Left" received critical acclaim. GameRankings and Metacritic calculated scores of 94.75%[68] and 89/100,[69] respectively, for the PC version, 88.15%[70] and 89/100[71] for the Xbox 360 version, and 87.75%[72] and 88/100[73] for the PlayStation 3 version.

text: 400 Days received positive reviews. GameRankings and Metacritic calculated scores of 78.20%[74] and 78/100,[75] respectively,  for the PlayStation 3 version, 78.00%[76] and 78/100[77] for the PC version, and 76.88%[78] and 80/100[79] for the Xbox 360 version.

text: Season 2[edit]

text: The Walking Dead: Season Two overall received generally positive reviews from critics earning praise for its atmosphere, tension, and Clementine's newly appointed role as the protagonist, but earned criticism for its lack of hubs and certain aspects of its storytelling.

text: Episode 1 – All That Remains received positive reviews. Aggregating review websites GameRankings and Metacritic gave the PlayStation 3 version 81.29%[80] and 82/100,[81] the PC version 78.76%[82] and 78/100[83] and the Xbox 360 version 77.50%[84] and 80/100.[85] Matt Liebl from GameZone gave the episode an 8.5/10, stating that it "...is just a taste of what's to come -- a mere setup for the horror that awaits us in the final four episodes."[86]

text: Episode 2 - A House Divided received positive reviews. Aggregating review websites GameRankings and Metacritic gave the PlayStation 3 version 87.29%[87] and 82/100,[88] the PC version 81.39%[89] and 81/100[90] and the Xbox 360 version 79.44%[91] and 80/100.[92] Mitch Dyer from IGN gave the episode a 9.5/10, saying it is one of the best episodes Telltale Games has ever made.[93]

text: Episode 3 - In Harm's Way received positive reviews. Aggregating review websites GameRankings and Metacritic gave the PlayStation 3 version 82.43%[94] and 80/100,[95] the Xbox 360 version 82.25%[96] and 82/100[97] and the PC version 82.22%[98] and 81/100.[99]

text: Episode 4 - Amid the Ruins received mixed to positive reviews. Aggregating review websites GameRankings and Metacritic gave the PlayStation 3 version 79.22%[100] and 78/100,[101] the PC version 78.58%[102] and 78/100[103] and the Xbox 360 version 72.00%[104] and 71/100.[105]

text:
Episode 5 – No Going Back received positive reviews,
higher than its predecessor. Aggregating review websites GameRankings and Metacritic gave the PlayStation 3 version 81.67%[106] and 87/100,[107] the PC version 79.19%[108] and 78/100[109] and the Xbox 360 version 77.00%[110] and 84/100.[111] Mitch Dyer of IGN gave the episode a 9.5/10 saying that the finale is "an impressive and intelligent episode, and among Telltale Games' finest stories."[112]

text: Michonne[edit]

text: The Walking Dead: Michonne received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics earning praise for its action sequences, atmosphere, and the character development of Michonne, but earned criticism for its story, side characters, short episode lengths, and graphical glitches.

text: Season 3: A New Frontier[edit]

text: The Walking Dead: A New Frontier received favorable reviews  from critics with particular praise directed at the game's updated graphics, new cast of characters, action sequences, and overall new direction. However, the short episode lengths and the treatment of the Season 2 endings were both subjects of criticism and Clementine's shift to a supporting character was met with a mixed response.


document_title: Civil Rights Act of 1964

question_text: when was the civil rights act of 1964 proposed

question_tokens: when was the civil rights act of 1964 proposed

text: Civil Rights Act of 1964

text: Origins[edit]

text: The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his Report to the American People on Civil Rights of June 11, 1963,[7] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments", as well as "greater protection for the right to vote". Kennedy delivered this speech following the immediate aftermath of the Birmingham campaign and the growing number of demonstrations and protests throughout the southern United States. Kennedy was moved to action following the elevated racial tensions and wave of black riots in the spring 1963.[8]

text: Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the U.S. Attorney General to join in lawsuits against state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions. However, it did not include a number of provisions deemed essential by civil rights leaders including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, or granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits.[9]

text: Legislative history[edit]

text: House of Representatives[edit]

text: On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with the Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Congressmen drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative".[10][11] The president's bill went first to the House of Representatives, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 and 1960 Acts. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.

text: Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October, 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage.[12] The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

text: Johnson's appeal to Congress[edit]

text: The assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, Lyndon Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the bully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."[13]

text: Judiciary Committee chairman Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee; it required the support of a majority of House members to move the bill to the floor. Initially Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, with many congressmen who supported the civil rights bill itself remaining cautious about violating normal House procedure with the rare use of a discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.

text: After the return of Congress from its winter recess, however, it was apparent that public opinion in the North favored the bill and that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To avert the humiliation of a successful discharge petition, Chairman Smith relented and allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee.

text: Lobbying Efforts[edit]

text: Lobbying support for the Civil Rights Act was coordinated by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of 70 liberal and labor organizations. The principal lobbyists for the Leadership Conference were civil rights lawyer Joseph L. Rauh Jr. and Clarence Mitchell, Sr. of the NAACP.[14]

text: Passage in the Senate[edit]

text: Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate.

text: When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[16] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[17]

text: The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[18]

text: After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[19]

text: On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[20]

text:
"Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964"

Play media

Public statement by Lyndon B. Johnson of July 2, 1964 about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964"

audio only

Problems playing these files? See media help.

text: On June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73–27, and quickly passed through the House–Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.[21]

text: Vote totals[edit]

text: Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:

text:
The original House version: 290–130   (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29   (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27   (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126   (70–30%).

tag: ul

text: By party[edit]

text: The original House version:[22]

text:
Democratic Party: 152–96   (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34   (80–20%)

text: Cloture in the Senate:[23]

text:
Democratic Party: 44–23   (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

text: The Senate version:[22]

text:
Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

text: The Senate version, voted on by the House:[22]

text:
Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)

text: By party and region[edit]

text: Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.[24]

text: The original House version:

text:
Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

text: The Senate version:

text:
Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

text: Women's rights[edit]

text: Just one year earlier, the same Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. The prohibition on sex discrimination was added to the Civil Rights Act by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginia Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and who strongly opposed the legislation. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate Smith's motivation, whether it was a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by someone opposed to civil rights both for blacks and women, or an attempt to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women.[26][27][28][29] Smith expected that Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944,[30] would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because the clause was opposed by labor unions. Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later claimed, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights...he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights,"[31] and the Congressional Record records that Smith was greeted by laughter when he introduced the amendment.[32]

text: Smith asserted that he was not joking; he sincerely supported the amendment and, indeed, along with Rep. Martha Griffiths,[33] he was the chief spokesperson for the amendment.[32] For twenty years Smith had sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment (with no linkage to racial issues) in the House because he believed in it. He for decades had been close to the National Woman's Party and its leader Alice Paul, who was also the leader in winning the right to vote for women in 1920, the author of the first Equal Rights Amendment, and a chief supporter of equal rights proposals since then. She and other feminists had worked with Smith since 1945 trying to find a way to include sex as a protected civil rights category. Now was the moment.[34] Griffiths argued that the new law would protect black women but not white women, and that was unfair to white women. Furthermore, she argued that the laws "protecting" women from unpleasant jobs were actually designed to enable men to monopolize those jobs, and that was unfair to women who were not allowed to try out for those jobs.[35] The amendment passed with the votes of Republicans and Southern Democrats. The final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats. Thus, as Justice William Rehnquist explained in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, "The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives... the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on 'sex.'"[36]

text: Desegregation[edit]

text: One of the most damaging arguments by the bill's opponents was that once passed, the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools.[37] Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing.[37] Humphrey said "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race."[37] While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.[37]

text: Political repercussions[edit]

text: The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographic support of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[38] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. later warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election".[39] Johnson, however, went on to win the 1964 election by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican Party by the 1990s.[40]

text: Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation,[41] Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states' rights. Democrats and Republicans from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN) and J. William Fulbright (D-AR), as well as Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.

text: Major features[edit]

text: (The full text of the Act is available online.)

text: Title I[edit]

text: Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements.

text: Title I did not eliminate literacy tests, which were one of the main methods used to exclude Black voters, other racial minorities, and poor Whites in the South, nor did it address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification", that is to say, it accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but rather might have to meet some standard beyond citizenship.[42][43] It was the Voting Rights Act, enacted one year later in 1965, that directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship.

text: Title II[edit]

text: Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[44]

text: Title III[edit]

text: Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

text: Title IV[edit]

text: Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

text: Title V[edit]

text: Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules and procedures.

text: Title VI[edit]

text: Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding.

text: General

text: This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 – This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

text: Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.

text: Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 1009). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

text: Title VII[edit]

text: Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[45]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[46] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[47] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).

text: In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the bona fide occupational qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the protected trait and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School — Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).

text: Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[48]

text: There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

text:
Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
Federally recognized Native American tribes
Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.

text: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4[45]). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Where a state law is contradicted by a federal law, it is overridden.[49] Every state, except Arkansas and Mississippi, maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)).

text: Precedents and history[edit]

text: In the early 1980s, the EEOC and some federal courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. In 1986, the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998).

text: In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with the fact of an individual's transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex.[50][51] In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration.[52] As of November 2014, Commissioner Chai Feldblum is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[53][54]

text: On December 15, 2014, under a memorandum issued by Attorney General Eric Holder, the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) took a position that aligned with the EEOC, namely the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title VII encompassed the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status. DoJ had already stopped opposing claims of discrimination brought by federal transgender employees.[55]

text: In October 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a directive that withdrew the Holder memorandum.[56] According to a copy of the directive reviewed by BuzzFeed News, Sessions stated that Title VII should be narrowly interpreted to cover discrimination between "men and women". Attorney General Session stated as a matter of law, “Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se.”[57] Devin O'Malley, speaking on behalf of the DoJ, stated "the last administration abandoned that fundamental principle [that the Department of Justice cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided], which necessitated today's action." Sharon McGowan, a lawyer with Lambda Legal who previously served in the Civil Rights division of DoJ, rejected that argument, saying "[T]his memo is not actually a reflection of the law as it is — it's a reflection of what the DOJ wishes the law were" and "The Justice Department is actually getting back in the business of making anti-transgender law in court."[56]

text: On December 11, 2017, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, in which a lower court ruled against the plaintiff, who had argued Title VII protections applied to sexual orientation. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated in its earlier ruling that only the Supreme Court could determine if Title VII applied.[58]

text: Title VIII[edit]

text: Required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.

text: Title IX[edit]

text: Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from state courts to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists[who?] who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts.[citation needed]

text: Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not be confused with Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities.

text: Title X[edit]

text: Established the Community Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.

text: Title XI[edit]

text: Title XI gives a defendant accused of certain categories of criminal contempt in a matter arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Act the right to a jury trial. If convicted, the defendant can be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months.

text: Continued resistance[edit]

text: There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers".[59] Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment and also violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process".[59] In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims.

text: Resistance to the public accommodation clause continued for years on the ground, especially in the South.[60] When local college students in Orangeburg, South Carolina attempted to desegregate a bowling alley in 1968, they were violently attacked, leading to rioting and what became known as the "Orangeburg massacre."[61] Resistance by school boards continued into the next decade, with the most significant declines in black-white school segregation only occurring at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s in the aftermath of the Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968) court decision.[62]

text: Amendments[edit]

text: Between 1965 and 1972, Title VII lacked any strong enforcement provisions. Instead, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was authorized only to investigate external claims of discrimination. The EEOC could then refer cases to the Justice Department for litigation if reasonable cause was found. The EEOC documented the nature and magnitude of discriminatory employment practices, the first study of this kind done.

text: In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. The Act amended Title VII and gave EEOC authority to initiate its own enforcement litigation. The EEOC now played a major role in guiding judicial interpretations of civil rights legislation. The commission was also permitted for the first time to define "discrimination," a term excluded from the 1964 Act.[63]

text: Subsequent court rulings[edit]

text: The Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was, at the time, in some dispute as it applied to the private sector. In the landmark Civil Rights Cases the United States Supreme Court had ruled, in 1883, that Congress did not have the power to prohibit discrimination in the private sector, thus stripping the Civil Rights Act of 1875 of much of its ability to protect civil rights.[64]

text: In the late 19th and early 20th century, the legal justification for voiding the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was part of a larger trend by members of the United States Supreme Court to invalidate most government regulations of the private sector, except when dealing with laws designed to protect traditional public morality.

text: In the 1930s, during the New Deal, the majority of the Supreme Court justices gradually shifted their legal theory to allow for greater government regulation of the private sector under the commerce clause, thus paving the way for the Federal government to enact civil rights laws prohibiting both public and private sector discrimination on the basis of the commerce clause.

text: After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States established the constitutionality of the law, but it did not settle all of the legal questions surrounding the law.

text: In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., a 1971 Supreme Court case regarding the gender provisions of the Act, the Court ruled that a company could not discriminate against a potential female employee because she had a preschool-age child unless they did the same with potential male employees.[29] A federal court overruled an Ohio state law that barred women from obtaining jobs which required the ability to lift 25 pounds and required women to take lunch breaks when men were not required to.[29] In Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, the United States Supreme Court decided that printing separate job listings for men and women was illegal, which ended that practice among the country's newspapers. The United States Civil Service Commission ended the practice among federal jobs which designated them "women only" or "men only".[29]

text: In 1974, the Supreme Court also ruled that the San Francisco school district was violating non-English speaking students' rights under the 1964 act by placing them in regular classes rather than providing some sort of accommodation for them.[65]

text: In 1975, a federal civil rights agency warned a Phoenix, Arizona school that its end-of-year father-son and mother-daughter baseball games were illegal according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.[29] President Gerald Ford intervened, and the games were allowed to continue.[29]

text: In 1977, the Supreme Court struck down state minimum height requirements for police officers as violating the Act; women usually could not meet these requirements.[29]

text: On April 4, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, sitting en banc, ruled that Title VII of the Act forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by a vote of 8–3.[66][67] Over the prior month, panels of both the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City had reached the opposite conclusion, finding that Title VII sex discrimination does not include claims based on sexual orientation.[68]

text: Influence[edit]

text: Despite its lack of influence during its time, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had considerable impact on later civil rights legislation in the United States. It paved the way for future legislation that was not limited to African American civil rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990—which has been called "the most important piece of federal legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964"—was influenced both by the structure and substance of the previous Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was arguably of equal importance, and "draws substantially from the structure of that landmark legislation [Civil Rights Act of 1964]". The Americans With Disabilities Act paralleled its landmark predecessor structurally, drawing upon many of the same titles and statutes. For example, "Title I of the ADA, which bans employment discrimination by private employers on the basis of disability, parallels Title VII of the Act". Similarly, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, "which proscribes discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations, tracks Title II of the 1964 Act while expanding upon the list of public accommodations covered." The Americans with Disabilities Act extended "the principle of nondiscrimination to people with disabilities",[69] an idea unsought in the United States before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act also influenced later civil rights legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, aiding not only African Americans, but also women.