FORMAL WRITING ASSIGNMENT #3
For this final essay, you will not be required to submit a rough draft unless you choose to do so. If you would like me to comment on a rough draft, you can submit it to me via email. I will be holding special sets of Zoom office hours this week and next week and am also available to meet by appointment. Feel free to set up a meeting with me if you would like to discuss your draft.
The final draft of Formal Writing Assignment #3 will be due by the end of the day on Friday, June 11 (please note the new deadline). Please submit your final draft via Blackboard; you can submit it as a Word, PDF, or Google Docs document. The final version of your essay must be at least 6 double-spaced typed pages in length. Because I need to submit final grades for this class on time, I can’t allow any extensions to the deadline.
Congratulations on the amazing work you all have done this semester! While I am calling this Formal Writing Assignment #3, this is really a revised version of Formal Writing Assignment #2. I’m asking you to do the following things to revise your previous essay:
1) Read and carefully revise your final draft of Essay #2. You can use the “Proofreading Guide” that I will be handing out to try to fix any sentence-level errors in your essay.
2) Make at least one connection to Robin D. G. Kelley’s article “Insecure: Policing Under Racial Capitalism.” Be sure to include 1-2 quotes from this article in order to help you make a connection (you are also free to use more quotes if you wish). If you wish, you can also make connections to the podcast and/or video interviews with Ruth Wilson Gilmore that you have watched and listened to.
3) Include a “Works Cited” page with all the sources you are using and be sure to include page numbers for all of the quotes you use in the body of your essay. I will be distributing a guide to writing a works cited page that you can use for this.
You can of course make any other changes, additions, or edits to your final draft of your essay in revising it into Formal Essay #3, including writing about sections of Angela Davis’ Are Prisons Obsolete? and Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s Golden Gulag that you have not yet written about.
Basically, this is about completing the excellent work you’ve been doing this semester and turning it into the best final draft you can produce. I’m excited to read them!
Similarities and Differences Between ‘Are Prisons Obsolete’ and ‘Golden Gulag’
Are Prisons Obsolete? Book by Angela Davis and Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California book by Ruth Wilson Gilmore are similar in so many ways. The main point of similarity is witnessed in the two writers' views about policing and prisons. However, there are also important differences between these two books that cannot be ignored. The differences arise in terms of the approach, level of style and writing techniques, and also in terms of the arguments made by each writer. This essay seeks to describe the areas of similarities between the two books. It also seeks to describe differences between the two books and how the differences affect their language, their tone, their approaches to writing, the way they tell their stories, the audiences they choose to address, and the arguments that they make.
The writers of the two books advocate for the abolition of the prison. Professor Davis feels that prisons are no longer useful and it is high time that the prisons are eradicated. She acknowledges that people cannot imagine living without the existence of prison systems because over time prisons have become a permanent part of people's lives (Davis, 2003).however she champions the prisons abolishment movement to create awareness that prisons are indeed obsolete and should be eradicated. Ruth Gilmore also feels somehow the same about the prison system because she believes the prisons are no longer serving their purpose. She believes prisons have led to increased cases of racial discrimination, gender bias, and other discriminatory bases (Gilmore, 2007).
Also, they bring out the horrible conditions people go through at the hands of the police. Policing is one of the major issues that police officers subject people to. They use violence to get what they want from the prisoners. Violation of the prisoners' rights is recorded in both books as a common challenge that prisoners face while in prison. The police officers subject the prisoners to forced labor without pay without their consent. What is more shocking is that the police receive the payment for the labor offered by the prisoners without giving a single coin to the actual laborers. Women are also molested and taken advantage of while in prisons.
Mass incarceration is a common point of argument between the two writers. Both books record an increase of prisoners being incarnated without major debates. Ruth Gilmore records that since 1980, the number of people in U.S. prisons has increased more than 450%. This is a clear indication that the prison systems are working tirelessly to ensure the prions spaces are filled up. For example, after the largest prison building in California, the Californian prison system had to make sure the bed spaces in the prisons were filled up (Gilmore, 2007). Angela Davis also argues about how the increase in the number of prisoners was so rapid in a short period. She also admits the blacks and Latinos are arrested, charged, and incarnated in large numbers than the whites. This is evidence of racial discrimination and perhaps an indication that mass incarceration is a gain to the prison system
These two authors share a similarity in their view of the opposition of the use of prions reforms to reinstate the situations in the prisons. They both believe that reforms have been used for a very long time but the situation is evolving from worse to worst. Reforms are more like rules which are broken by the police officers daily because they believe they are above the law. Therefore, they strongly oppose the use of the police reforms and advocate for the use of other alternatives to provide justice. Professor Davis advises that the government should use the available funds to improve the quality of education and provide basic needs to the society members rather than using those funds to develop the prisons (Davis, 2003). Ruth Gilmore also expresses the feeling of surprise as to why the California government would use lots of funds to erect such a massive building prison instead of investing those funds in improving the lives of the citizens (Gilmore, 2007). They both believe that with better living conditions in society, the crime rates will reduce.
Both Ruth Gilmore and Professor Davis incorporate a lot of quotes to build their argument. For example, Angela quotes “For example, women have been incarcerated in psychiatric institutions in greater proportions than in prisons. Studies indicating that women have been even more likely to end up in mental facilities than men suggest that while jails and prisons have been dominant institutions for the control of men…” This quote was used to attribute to the fact that women are vulnerable to physical abuse and discrimination in the society. The government has somehow neglected the women and left them to cater for their needs making them insane. Ruth Gilmore uses quotes such as “How and why, then, did California go about the biggest prison-building project in the history of the world? In my view, prisons are partial geographical solutions to political economic crises, organized by the state, which is itself in crisis…” to bring out her anguish concerning the massive prion project in California.
However, there are also differences observed between the two books. First, the central point of argument of the two authors differs greatly. In Golden Gulag, Gilmore records that California has the biggest prison building project in the history of the world although the crime rate had been falling steadily over the past decades. She expresses her disbelief over massive California's expanding prison population. Ruth Wilson Gilmore in her book 'Golden Gulag' explains how political and economic forces, ranging from global to local, conjoined to produce the prison boom. Therefore she argues that a weak labor system, shifting patterns of capital investment and radical struggles defeat have facilitated rapid prison growth. This resulted in an empty, huge, and expensive prison system and a huge number of incarcerated young people particularly based on color (Gilmore, 2007). On the other hand, Angela's point of argument is directed at how social movements have changed the political, cultural, economic, and social institutions. She goes further by illustrating her central point of argument to be the ending times of prison systems. She discusses the history of incarceration and how it has evolved in modern times. She also discusses various alternatives to replace prisons (Davis, 2007).
Professor Davis's tone differs completely from Gilmore's tone. From Davis’ argument, a great level of assertiveness in her tone is revealed. She is very much stern and affirms in her argument. As for Gilmore, her approach reveals an aspect of fragile tone probably because she was tensed about her argument.
Gilmore bases her argument on the real situation at hand and real experiences from people within the society. She captures the development of the great Californian prison building and also records various movements in her book to build her arguments. She captures the formation of the Mothers Reclaiming Our Children (Mothers ROC) movement to reveal that the prison systems were targeting the children as well and thereby there was an increased number of children in the prison systems. Therefore, Barbara Meredith founded the movement to intervene in that crisis (Gilmore, 2007). These events make it much easier for the readers to understand the turning up of events in her book.
These two authors differ in the way conclude their respective arguments. They differ in their approach towards making a conclusion. Professor Davis nullifies the essence of prisons and champions the need to employee other alternatives to administer justice. Ruth on the other hand, gives a practical finality on the need to embrace everyone in the society despite status, gender type, race or ethnicity for the sake of peace and harmony in the world we live in.
The main target audience in 'Are Prisons Obsolete' is the anti-prisons activists. Professor Davis uses her argument to target anti-prison activists to help her fight the existence of the prisons. Being an anti-prison activist, she feels people can do without necessarily having prisons therefore she champions the anti-prison movement to achieve her goal. She engages all her efforts to recruit more anti-prison activists into her team (Davis, 2003). On the other hand, Ruth Gilmore targets every individual with the society and globally. She targets the government, prison system officials, prisoners, and the members of the society in their argument. Therefore she engages everyone within the state, rural areas, and urban areas. She attributes two major different viewpoints between people from the rural and those from the city. She records that the city people assumed that the rural people were in support of prisons and could not imagine living without prisons while the rural people assumed that the city people were not doing anything to intervene concerning the increase in the number of prisoners within the prisons (Gilmore, 2007).
If Ruth Wilson Gilmore and Angela Yvonne Davis were brought into some form of a dialogue to express their primary arguments in their respective book, I would raise some concerns to the both of them. As for Professor Davis, I would acknowledge to her that she was quite resourceful in building her argument however there were so many contradictions that cropped up through her work. As for Ruth Gilmore, I would comment on her extensive use of historical information which was factual and highly reliable. However, she lacked some sense of assertiveness in her tone thereby portraying her as fragile.
In conclusion, both of these writers are great writers and they have used several convincing pieces of evidence that portray their work as factual and less biased. However, both of them have distinct strengths and weaknesses that they should have worked on to improve the quality of their books.
Davis, A. Y. (2003). Are prisons obsolete? Seven Stories Press.
Gilmore, R. W. (2007). Golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California. University of California Press.
“The liberal identification of security with liberty and property in fact masks an underlying insecurity at the heart of the bourgeois order—the insecurity of property—which is deeply connected to the question of class…Security is part of the rationale for the fabrication of order. In terms of the demand for order in civil society, it is under the banner of ‘security’ that police most often marches.” —Mark Neocleous, The Fabrication of Social Order
“Police function to produce race, a category essential to the workings of the state-market under racial capitalism. Any analysis of US policing must consider its constitutive relationship to the racialization of Black and brown subjects, not only theoretically but also in history, with the US police’s structural formation as an antiblack force.” —Micol Seigel, Violence Work
IN THIS FEATURE !
The modern police force in the US was created to protect capital and the owners of capital. As the coercive arm of the state, the police are the primary instruments of state violence, particularly racialized state violence. They function as an occupying force in America’s impoverished ghettoes, barrios, reservations, on the Southwest border, and in any territory with high concentrations of subjugated communities. Their defense of corporate property and capitalist extraction was clearly on display during the protests against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.
The Other BLM (Bureau of Land Management) hired armed officers, employed local police forces, and worked with the FBI to stop what US officials called “domestic terrorism.” At Standing Rock, North Dakota, the police and private guards used tear gas, batons, attack dogs, water cannons, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, and mass arrest to attack Indigenous land defenders and water protectors and their allies—all in the name of protecting the interests of TC Energy Corporation, Energy Transfer Partners, and their various
CHALLENGING ONE OF THE CORE INSTITUTIONS OF RACIAL CAPITALISM
R O B I N D . G . K E L L E Y ( H T T P S : / / S P E C T R E J O U R N A L . C O M / AU T H O R / R O B I N D G K E L L E Y / )
N o v e m b e r 8 , 2 0 2 0
Insecure: Policing Under Racial Capitalism
Insecure: Policing Under Racial Capitalism – Spectre Journal https://spectrejournal.com/insecure-policing-under-racial-capitalism/
1 of 22 2/27/21, 10:31 AM
investors. And despite the handwringing and outrage over the Trump administration’s flagrant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 limiting the use of the military in domestic matters, the police have long functioned as an army against dissident social movements.
The police are the first line of defense against strikes and protests by Black, Brown, Indigenous, antiracist, antifascist, left-wing, queer, and feminist assemblies, while often becoming a cordon to protect Klansman, Nazis, and the Alt Right. For readers of Spectre this is all common knowledge. The idea that the police were created to uphold bourgeois class rule and white supremacy has pretty much been accepted wisdom among various Marxists for at least a century. And yet, abolishing the police has only recently become a chief demand among broad sectors of the Marxist left—and even now, it is not universally embraced.
“ Abolishing the police has only recently become a chief demand among broad sectors of the Marxist left.
We shouldn’t be surprised since the current push to “defund” or abolish the police grew from a decade of organizing by radical movements that are frequently relegated to the margins of the left or dismissed as “identity movements”—namely, anticarceral feminists, Black, Latinx, and Indigenous radicals, community and youth-based mobilizations against police violence. Among them are Black Lives Matter, the Dream Defenders, Black Youth Project 100, We Charge Genocide, BOLD (Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity), Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, Dignity and Power Now, Ella’s Daughters, Assata’s Daughters, Black Feminist Futures Project, Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, Let Us Breathe Collective, Hands Up United, Lost Voices, Organization for Black Struggle, Millennial Activists United—organizations that at some point fell under the umbrella of the Movement for Black Lives.
While the demand for police abolition surfaced in 2014 during the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, in response to the killing of Michael Brown, it doesn’t begin there. Critical Resistance issued a statement calling for the abolition of police as early as 2009. Instead of police, the statement asks “what if we got together with members of our communities and created systems of support for each other? We are capable of looking after and caring for one another, providing each other with our basic human needs, creating community self- determination. Relying on and deploying policing denies our ability to do this, to create real safety in our communities.”
Critical Resistance was part of a wave of radical formations in the 1990s that laid the foundations for the current wave of police and prison abolition: the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, Prison Activist Resource Center, the Prison Moratorium Project, Critical Resistance, Labor/Community Strategy Center, Project South, POWER (People Organized to Win Employment Rights), Southerners on New Ground (SONG); INCITE: Women of Color Against Violence, Sista II Sista, the Los Angeles Community Action Network, Black Youth Coalition Against Civil Injustice, Miami Workers Center, the Praxis Project, FIERCE (Fabulous Independent Educated Radicals for Community Empowerment), Queers for Economic Justice, the Sylvia Rivera Law Project (SRLP), to name a few.
That some of these organizations and many of the leading abolitionist thinkers identify as Marxist or Marxist- oriented—notably, Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, and Mariame Kaba, among others—doesn’t seem to matter. There is a tendency among sectors of the left to treat these movements as narrowly focused on identity, at best, or “race reductionist,” at worst. According to this logic, the only movements that matter focus on “universal” issues of class—jobs, healthcare, taxes, and the environment.
The problem with this argument is that it confuses opposition to institutional oppression and marginalization with “identity politics.” None of these movements are exclusionary. They not only resist racialized and gendered state violence but capitalism itself. Besides, what is more “universal” than a movement dedicated to
Insecure: Policing Under Racial Capitalism – Spectre Journal https://spectrejournal.com/insecure-policing-under-racial-capitalism/
2 of 22 2/27/21, 10:31 AM
eradicating all forms of oppression and exploitation; ending state-sanctioned violence; replacing police, military, and prisons with genuine, humane, noncarceral paths for safety and justice?
This narrow conception of the US left has largely rendered invisible a Black Marxist critique of state violence and policing within established socialist and communist movements—one exception being the Communist leader William L. Patterson’s landmark appeal to the United Nations, We Charge Genocide. There has been surprisingly little discussion of the CPUSA’s National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, which grew out of the campaign to free Angela Davis. Nor has anyone, as far as I know, acknowledged Paul Boutelle (later known as Kwame Somburu) who called for abolishing the police when he was the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party’s (SWP) vice-presidential candidate in 1968.
The Harlem-born Boutelle left school at age sixteen, tired of being indoctrinated with “Christianity, Capitalism, and Caucasianism.” He drove a taxi for a living and became active in a number of Black nationalist and anti- imperialist organizations during the early ’60s, including the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the Freedom Now Party, an all-Black political party that endorsed African American SWP leader Clifton DeBerry for president in 1964. That year Boutelle ran unsuccessfully for a New York State Senate seat on the Freedom Now Party ticket.
He joined Malcolm X’s short-lived Organization of Afro-American Unity and witnessed his assassination in the Audubon Ballroom on February 21, 1965. Boutelle immersed himself in SWP politics, running for Manhattan Borough president in 1965, state attorney general in 1966, chairing Afro-Americans Against the War in Vietnam and the Black United Action Front, before his historic vice-presidential bid as Fred Halstead’s running mate.
Boutelle’s campaign plank in 1968 could be adopted today. In one of his early stump speeches in Philadelphia, he called for free college education and medical care for all, a reduced work week with no corresponding reduction in pay, ending the Vietnam war and reinvesting those resources in “schools and hospitals” and “decent low-rent homes,” nationalizing banks and major corporations and placing them “under the control of democratically elected workers committees,” and the “abolition of police.” The latter, it should be noted, was not part of the SWP’s platform, but Boutelle nevertheless proposed a public safety alternative that would entail electing representatives from communities to “replace troops and police.”
Following a wave of urban rebellions against police violence during the summer of 1967, Boutelle argued that the militarization of police mirrored US counterinsurgency measures abroad. “The capitalist class determines the means of the struggle in this country, and their means is violence. They are ready to do anything at all to suppress the black movement—helicopters, armored tanks, chemical warfare, even concentration camps.”
In other words, the Black left’s protracted struggle to dismantle the US police state has for too long remained at the margins of Marxist thought and praxis. The problem was highlighted recently in Spectre by Peter Ikeler in his excellent response to Dustin Guastella, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) leader who not only opposes defunding the police but affirms their role in ensuring public safety—particularly the safety of people of color and the poor.
Ikeler demolishes Guastella’s arguments, point by point, and his fundamental conclusion repeats what police and prison abolitionists such as Mariame Kaba, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Angela Davis and, indirectly at least, Paul Boutelle (Kwame Somburu) and others have been saying for decades: “To End Police Violence, End Racial Capitalism.” Ikeler’s piece is compelling and persuasive, but it opens up a larger question: what is the role of police in reproducing racial capitalism? This article is an attempt to offer some schematic answers to this question, particularly with respect to the function of police in real estate, finance capital, and technology, as generators of revenue, and as “labor.”
Insecure: Policing Under Racial Capitalism – Spectre Journal https://spectrejournal.com/insecure-policing-under-racial-capitalism/
3 of 22 2/27/21, 10:31 AM
Ruth Wilson Gilmore reminds us that “Capitalism [is] never not racial.” Capitalism emerged in Europe within a feudal system already built on racial hierarchy. Capitalism was/is “racial” not because of some conspiracy to divide workers or justify slavery and dispossession, but because racialism had already permeated Western feudal society. Racial capitalism extracts surplus value and structures exchange value by assigning differential value to human life and labor: through land enclosure, slavery, dispossession, displacement, predatory lending, taxation, disfranchisement, and the long history of looting through terror and government policies that suppressed wages of racialized subjects, relieved them of property, excluded Black people from better schools and public accommodations, suppressed Black home values, and subsidized white wealth accumulation.
Racial capitalism is dynamic. The last couple of generations have endured a neoliberal variant of racial capitalism that dismantled the welfare state; promoted capital flight; privatized public schools, hospitals, housing, transit, and other public resources; and resulted in the massive growth of police and prisons. These policies have produced scarcity, poverty, alternative (illicit) economies regulated through violence, and environmental and health hazards.
Just as capitalism emerged within the feudal order, so did the police. Capitalists may not have invented police, but they remade police into a tool to secure property, profits, and people who refuse to accept the terms of exploitation. In North America, the precursors to the police were the slave patrols— citizen militias deputized by local, state, and federal governments to track down fugitive slaves and put down insurrections— and militias deployed to suppress Native communities.
However, the slave patrols were not a police force, per se. They were closer to what Friedrich Engels described as “self-acting armed organizations of the population.” Using Europe as his guide, Engels recognized the danger that popular militias pose for the state, especially as the class divide sharpens. Fear of armed rebellion compelled the state to replace popular militias with units of “armed men” employed by the state (police and standing armies) and backed up with “material adjuncts, prisons, and institutions of coercion of all kinds.”
In settler societies like North America, however, race kept these popular militias loyal to the state and its colonial projects, even as class antagonisms grew. These units were white for a reason. Before the birth of the Republic, colonial landholders had to manage kidnapped African labor, unruly indentured white labor, and relations with what were then sovereign and often powerful Indigenous communities. Unable to stop white servants and Africans from running away together, finding refuge in swamps, hills, and among Native peoples, the landowning class decided to free white servants and turn them into small property owners, proletarian citizens, and/or slave patrollers invested in the white Republic and the dream of attaining wealth and power for themselves.
An armed white population was not only central to legitimizing antiBlack and anti-Indigenous violence, but it also shored up white propertyless and working class support for this regime. However, with the growth of industrial capitalism and the increase in European immigration during the late nineteenth century, the state and owners of capital could no longer depend on white workers to support the status quo. Professional police forces replaced citizen militias.
Although by the turn of the twentieth century the state held a monopoly of lethal force and assumed greater responsibility for maintaining order, upholding the color line, regulating sexuality, and suppressing dissent, bodies of armed whites continued to exist as adjuncts to racialized state violence. Therefore, it is important to make a distinction between the police as a formal, modern institution and “policing” as a broader set of practices and procedures that operate beyond (but sanctioned by) formal state structures. Historian Peter Linebaugh put it best: “Investigation into the history of police soon finds it to be inseparable from conquest, slavery, debt, industrial discipline, and social hierarchies. Armed settlers, ‘pioneers,’ militia, army units, slave
4 of 22 2/27/21, 10:31 AM
patrollers, Texas rangers, posse comitatus, slave catchers, factory guards, troopers, private security forces, vigilante groups, MPs, lynch mobs, Ford’s ‘service department,’ death squads, night riders, and the KKK have all served police functions.”
Let’s take lynch mobs. How do we explain the fact that Congress passed the first antilynching bill in US history in 2020? (As of this writing, the bill still has not passed the Senate since it is being held up by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. ) Since 1882, the nearly two hundred antilynching bills introduced to the US Congress were all defeated. We’re inclined to either scratch our heads in befuddlement or blame die-hard racist Southern Senators, but the fact of the matter is that lynching was a form of policing.
“ How do we explain the fact that Congress passed the first antilynching bill in US history in 2020? (As of this writing, the bill still has not passed the Senate.) Since 1882, the nearly two hundred antilynching bills introduced to the US Congress were all defeated.
To call it “illegal” because it violates one’s constitutional right to due process misses the point. Lynch mobs were white; their targets were primarily—though not exclusively—Black. Lynch mobs were instruments of state power that performed a key function by punishing those accused of transgressing law or custom, and disciplining entire Black communities. A charred, mutilated body hanging from a tree served as a visible and potent reminder of the price of stepping out of line.
Lynching was a form of racial, class, and sexual regulation. Images of predatory Black men circulated widely in popular culture, and fear of the Black rapist was instilled in white women. Such fear allowed white men to demand subordination, deference, and loyalty from white women in exchange for their “protection.” Their duty, after all, was to maintain the purity of the race, so protecting white womanhood also meant protecting the womb and the bloodline.
In this arrangement, any sexual encounter between Black men and “virtuous” white women was presumed to be rape. Consensual relationships between Black men and white women were inconceivable. These ideas were hardly archaic; on the contrary, they were backed by modern science at the time. Daniel G. Brinton, considered the first professor of Anthropology in the US, wrote in his book Races and Peoples (1890), that white women “have no more holier duty, no more sacred mission, than that of transmitting in its integrity the heritage of ethnic endowment gained by the race throughout thousands of generations of struggle…That philanthropy is false, that religion is rotten, which would sanction a white woman enduring the embrace of a colored man.”
The problem, of course, is that the science was false and the evidence was not there. Only twenty-nine percent of African American lynch victims between 1882 and 1930 were even accused of sexual assault of some kind, and of that figure less than two percent involved a murdered rape victim. Most were lynched for being “insolent” toward whites, attempting to vote, engaging in self-defense, petty theft, assault, throwing stones, arson, economic competition, and sedition (political activism). And even cases of alleged rape often masked consensual relations between Black men and white women.
The failure or refusal of the federal government to protect Black lives and prosecute lynchers proved to be a source of frustration. African Americans had no faith in local law enforcement agencies because they usually worked in concert with lynch mobs, or at best were powerless against the crowd. Writer and activist Frances Ellen Watkins Harper expressed the sentiments of many when, in February 1891, she told members of the National Council of Women, “A government which has power to tax a man in peace, [and] draft him in war, should have power to defend his life in the hour of peril.”
Lynch victims tended to be working class; occasionally they were targeted for union activity or “sedition.” But
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.
Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.
2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.
3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
Why Hire Safehomework.com writers to do your paper?