INTRODUCTION
Today, the Olympic Games are the world's largest pageant of athletic skill and competitive spirit. They are also displays of nationalism, commerce, and politics. These two opposing elements of the Olympics are not a modern invention. The conflict between the Olympic movement's high ideals and the commercialism or political acts which accompany the Game.
Olympic Games
The ancient Olympics were rather different from the modern Games. There were fewer events and only free men who spoke Greek could compete, instead of athletes from any country. Also, the games were always held at Olympia instead of moving around to different sites every time.
Like our Olympics, though, winning athletes were heroes who put their home towns on the map. One young Athenian nobleman defended his political reputation by
mentioning how he entered seven chariots in the Olympic chariot-race. This high number of entries made both the aristocrat and Athens look very wealthy and powerful.
The Ancient Olympic Games
The ancient Olympic Games, was also a part of a major religious festival honoring Zeus, the chief Greek god, were the biggest event in their world. They were the scene of political rivalries between people from different parts of the Greek world, the site of controversies, boasts, public announcements, and humiliations.
Politics were present at the ancient Olympics in many forms. In 365 B.C., the Arcadians and the Pisatans took over the Altis, and they presided over the 104th Olympiad the next year. When the Eleans finally regained control of Olympia, they declared the 104th Games invalid.
Some valuable political deeds were recorded at Olympia. An inscription on a victory statue honored Pantarces of Elis not only for winning in the Olympic horse-races, but also for making peace between the Achaeans and the Eleans, and negotiating the release of both sides' prisoners of war. Olympia was also a place for announcing political alliances. Thucydides describes a 100-year military treaty the Athenians, Argives, Mantineans, and Eleans entered into, which was recorded in public inscriptions on stone pillars at the first three cities, and on a bronze pillar at Olympia.
The Olympic festival not only celebrated excellence in athletics. It also provided the occasion for Greeks to produce lasting cultural achievements in architecture, mathematics, sculpture, and poetry.
The ancient Greeks were architectural innovators. The temple of Zeus, designed by the architect Libon, was one of the largest Doric temples built in Greece. Libon tried to build the temple in an ideal system of proportions, so that the distance between the columns was harmoniously proportional to their height, and the other architectural elements were sized proportionately as well. The Greek mathematician Euclid expressed this ideal ratio in his Elements, a book on geometry which is said to be the second most popular book of all time, after the Bible.
The cultural achievement most directly tied to the Olympic games was poetry commissioned in honor of athletic victors. These poems, called Epinicians, were written by the most famous poets of the day, including Pindar, Bacchylides, and Simonides they were extremely popular. Proof of this is that the playwright Aristophanes portrays an average, not especially literary Athenian man who asks his son to sing a particular forty-year-old epinician poem composed by Simonides. The poem and the athlete live on in people's memories long after the day of victory. The epinician odes were written to immortalize the athletic victors and they have lasted longer than many of the statues and inscriptions which were made for the same purpose.
A truce (in Greek, ekecheiria, which literally means "holding of hands") was announced before and during each of the Olympic festivals, to allow visitors to travel safely to Olympia. An inscription describing the truce was written on a bronze discus which was displayed at Olympia. During the truce, wars were suspended, armies were prohibited from entering Elis or threatening the Games, legal disputes, and the carrying out of death penalties were forbidden.
The Olympic truce was faithfully observed for the most part, although the historian Thucydides recounts that the Lacedaemonians were banned from participating in the Games, after they attacked a fortress in Lepreum and a town in Elis, during the truce. The Lacedaemonians complained that the truce had not yet been announced at the time of their attack. But the Eleans fined them two thousand minae, two for each soldier, as the law required.
Another international truce was enforced during the annual Mysteries, a religious rite held at the major sanctuary site of Eleusis. The truces of Olympia and Eleusis not only allowed worshippers and athletes to travel more safely; they also provided a common basis for peace among the Greeks. Lysistrata, the title character in a comic play by Aristophanes, makes this point when she tries to convince the Athenians and the Spartans to end their war.
As you can see that the Olympic Game is a historical event that has lasted through the centuries till today. The Greek then are now taking the privilege of honoring.
The assignment of the year's 2004 Olympic Games to Athens is radically
different from previous ones. For a main characteristic of the 2004 Olympics is
its cultural dimension.
Greece does not consider the Olympics just to be the foremost athletic event that lasts for a few days every four years because Greece wishes to revive the idea of the Olympiad. Therefore, it is desirable to organize not just one cultural event but a cultural program of global scope which will develop and culminate during the four years period between two successive Olympic Games. Greece undertakes the responsibility to organize the 2004 Olympic Games in a manner that will incorporate this new cultural dimension and feels committed to set a new vision of the Olympic idea which will have a permanent effect.
The Main Idea of Cultural Olympiad
The main idea is that the Cultural Olympiad will become a permanent institution and extend over the period of the four years between two successive Olympic Games and culminating with the Cultural Olympics. Greece envisions these Olympics of Culture as the Olympics of the Spirit and Arts, sees itself as the permanent seat of the institution that will cooperate effectively with the various cities which will be assigned the organization of the Olympic Games.
The Political and Ideological Problems
The political and ideological problems of international athletic gatherings are well-known. Prominent among them is the ideological and media exploitation of the organization itself, as well as the symbolic and media exploitation. The commer-cialization of the athletic achievements with whatever this entails for athletes.
The Cultural Olympiad 2000-2004 and the Cultural Olympic games of 2004 will be hosted in the already existing cultural facilities all over the country. The events will take place in the existing covered or open–air exhibition spaces or cultural halls, ancient theaters or other "natural settings". Special emphasis will be given to places with historic reference (Athens, Olympia, Epidavros, Thessaloniki, Olympus, Philippoi, e.t.c.).
Nicholas II, The Last Tsar of Russia (1894-1917)
Nicholas II, The Last Tsar of Russia (1894-1917)
The earliest ancestor of the Russian Romanovs emigrated to Russia from Prussia in the 14th century. This ancestor’s great-great granddaughter was Anastasia Romanov, who became Tsar Ivan IV’s first wife. Ivan IV (1533-1584), known as Ivan the Terrible, was the grandson of Ivan the Great and was crowned the first Tsar of all Russia in 1547. The son of Ivan the Terrible was a very weak Tsar and allowed the ruling power to fall into the hands of the nobles, one of whom was Nikita Romanov. This Tsar died without any heirs and the chaos that followed his reign became known as the “Time of Troubles.” In 1613, a national assembly of nobles elected Michael Romanov (Russian name Mikhail), as the first Romanov Tsar of Russia. Michael was Tsar from 1613 until 1645. The Romanov Dynasty ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917, a period of over three hundred years. The last Romanov Tsar was Nicholas II (Russian name Nikolai) who was Tsar from 1894 until 1917, when the Romanov Dynasty came to a tragic end. Nicholas II is the focus of this paper, but to understand the Nicholas II reign requires a short description of rule under the Tsars preceding him.
All of the Russian Tsars, from the time of Ivan the Terrible, drew their political power away from the nobility, either by force or through diplomacy which allowed the nobility greater control over the occupants on their land. This political power grab by the Tsars increased until the nineteenth century when both of these relationships came increasingly under attack. A revolt in 1825 by young, reformist military officers attempted to force a constitutional monarchy by preventing the accession of Nicholas I, but failed. Russia became more industrialized as the twentieth century approached, and the inadequacies of autocratic Tsarist rule became increasingly evident. At the same time, Russia expanded its territory and power considerably with borders extending to Afghanistan and China.
Alexander III was the father of Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia. Alexander III came to the throne as Tsar on March 1, 1881 after the assassination of his father, when he was only 36 years old. During Alexander III’s reign, capitalism was strengthened and an industrial revolution was developing. But his domestic policy was particularly harsh against both revolutionaries and liberal movements which developed from the policies of the preceding Tsars.
Nicholas II, the last Russian Emperor and eldest son of Alexander III, was born on May 6, 1868. Ironically, this particular day is the Orthodox feast day of Saint Job the Suffer, whose image appears to have mirrored Nicholas’s troubled life. He was called little “Nickey” by his mother, Marie Fyodorovna Romanov, a petite brunette and his father, the giant and intimidating Alexander Alexandrovich Romanov. The Romanov men throughout the 19th century were well known as being physically large and imposing figures, an image well adapted to their roles as Russian Tsars. But Nicholas took after his mother instead of his father in stature, and was only about 5’-6” tall, and the other Romanov men towered over him. Nicholas tried to compensate for his lack of stature by working out with weights and other athletic equipment, but he remained slight and wiry in physique. His legs were short, but he appeared quite regal when mounted on a horse, which was one of his loves in life, others being large cars and collie dogs. Tsar Alexander III realized that the problems facing a 20th Century Tsar would be quite different from those of the past, so he arranged an excellent education to prepare Nicholas for his role as Russian Tsar, ensuring that Nicholas was probably the best educated European Monarch in his time. As time progressed, the Romanov dynasty had became more Europeanized through intermarriage with European royal families. It was estimated that Nicholas II was only 1/256 Russian.
Terrorism was a real threat to the Tsars, and this caused Nicholas to be isolated from his future subjects and also to be cut off from any liberal thinking. This isolation deprived Nicholas of any interaction with the intellectual and artistic communities, and caused a dearth of ideas about honor, service, and tradition which would later hinder his ability to govern Russia. Nicholas achieved the rank of Colonel in the Life Guards while he was the Tsarevich, heir to the throne. He enjoyed these years as a military officer and also the friendships of the other officers. These were relatively stress free times, and in 1893 he became engaged to a German princess, Alix Victoria Eleanor Louisa Beatrice (Alexandra Fedorovna) and married her. However, in the Fall of 1894, Tsar Alexander III developed a serious nephritis condition, which is a chronic inflammation of the kidneys, and died on October 20, 1894 at only 47 years of age. This event caused Nicholas II to ascended to the throne and he was crowned on May 14, 1896. The crowning ceremony in Moscow was overshadowed by catastrophe on Khodynskoe Field, when in the rush for refreshments which had been set up on tables over ditches in a field, over a thousand spectators were crushed to death. This event probably created an impression in Nicholas II’s subjects of an uncaring ruler.
Nicholas II and Alexandra had four daughters between 1885 and 1901, a situation that did not produce a heir to the throne, since only males could become Tsars. The four daughters were the Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia. Finally, on July 30, 1904, a heir to the throne was born and named Aleksey Nickolaevich Romanov, the last child born to the Tsar and his wife. This child was both a blessing and a curse to his parents, the Romanov Dynasty and Russia as a whole. This resulted from Aleksey being born a hemophiliac, sometimes called “the royal disease.” Hemophilia is a disease in which the blood does not clot properly, and the person can die easily from small injuries. Only males can get hemophilia, and only women can carry the disease. Alexandra inherited the hemophilia genes from her mother, who in turn got them from her mother Queen Victoria . Aleksey became the first Russian Boy Scout in 1909 due to Tsar Nicholas interest and support of this organization, which disappeared after the 1917 Revolution.
After Aleksey was diagnosed a hemophiliac, Alexandra became frantic and searched for a solution to this medical dilemma. This search led her to a man named Grigory Rasputin. Rasputin was shadowy and mysterious character from the Tyumen district of Siberia. One day while he was plowing a field, Rasputin thought he saw a vision which told him to make a pilgrimage, and he walked two thousand miles to a church in Greece. He returned home a changed man, reciting the scripture and praying at length, even though he was neither a monk nor or a priest. In fact, Rasputin had a wife and children, and one of his children named Maria, became a circus performer and died in Los Angeles, California. Alexandra saw Rasputin as the cure for Aleksey’s hemophilia, and while he was alive, witness including medical doctors and skeptics, concluded that he possessed some inexplicable power over Tsarevich Aleksey and his hemophilia. This gave Rasputin some power and protection from both Tsar Nicholas II and Alexandra.
After he became Tsar, Nicholas quickly learned that he was surrounded by deceit and the self-interest of bureaucrats and sycophants. He realized that he could trust very few people besides his wife and became cynical and mistrustful of human nature. This fear was not without cause since Nicholas II’s ministers were very reactionary and created an unstable political situation for him. Nicholas II loved Russia first, then his family, a trait of a good ruler. He was a hard and diligent worker, but unfortunately, he was unable to see the whole picture because he tended to focus greatly on details. Nicholas became a strong supporter of the right of the sovereign despite growing pressures from revolutionary groups with practical desires. At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia had many anti-tsarist political movements. One of them, the Cadets (liberal Constitutional Democrats) advocated constitutional monarchy and representative government. Another group, the Social Revolutionaries, which were a revival of the populist revolutionary tradition of the 1870’s, espoused a Russian agrarian socialism based on the collective, cooperative spirit of the mir. The Social Democrats hoped to apply the theories of Karl Marx to the Russian situation. The Social Democrats had a radial faction called the Bolsheviks, which included Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky, and planned on an industrial laborers (Proletariat) revolt, a small classs in Russia since industrialization was still in a developing stage. This explosive political scene was noted by Tsar Nicholas II, and was part of the reason that Russia went to war with Japan. In 1905 Japan attacked Russia in a dispute over far eastern territories which caused Russia to suffer greatly, as the Russian logistical supply system broke down and food prices soared, public discontent spread rapidly. Russia suffered a bad military defeat by Japan, and 400,000 Russian soldiers were killed, wounded or captured. Material losses were valued at 2.5 billion gold rubles. Bloody Sunday occurred in January, 1905 when Tsarist troops fired on peaceful demonstrators who were petitioning Nicholas II for a redress of perceived grievances. Nicholas II was absent during this occurrence. This tragic event caused revolutionary outbreaks to erupt throughout Russia, which Nicholas II responded to by proclaiming the Manifesto of 17 October 1905. This Manifesto guaranteed fundamental civil freedoms including personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association. A national parliament was also created and called the Duma. The right to vote in the Duma was severely restricted and it became a kind of debating society with no real voice in the Russian Government. After concluding the war with Japan, Nicholas II attempted to reverse the new freedoms, which resulted in a more reactionary government and increased repression. It is not clear whether Russia was moving towards or away from a revolution prior to World War I.
Peter Stolypin served as Nicholas II’s chief advisor from 1906 until 1911 when he was assassinated. After Stolypin’s demise, Rasputin’s political influence with Tsar Nicholas II and Alexandra greatly increased. During Nicholas II’s reign, and prior to the outbreak of World War I, Russia contributed to the fine arts. In 1898, Moscow Art Theater was founded and produced Chekhov’s Sea Gull. In 1909 Diaghilev’s Ballet russe toured Western Europe. In 1910, Igor Stravinsky’s Firebird scandalized Paris. In 1913, Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring was produced. Russia’s contributions to the fine arts essentially disappeared after the Romanov Dynasty ended and the Bolsheviks era began.
Russia entered World War I on the Allied side against Germany on August 1, 1914. The war was being fought on Russia’s borders with European nations, and Russia suffered badly in this war. Territory was lost to Germany, and Russia suffered massive casualties. Tsarist armies fared poorly in battles which they should have won but lost. This caused Nicholas II to go to the scene of the battles and take over the army, which left control of the government in the hands of Tsarist Alexandra and Rasputin. This only created greater discontent and unrest in the Russian people who feared that their government was now controlled by a German Princess whose allegiance was to Germany. Loss of territory combined with massive war causalities caused civilian unrest and resulted in the Second Russian Revolution in February 1917. Nicholas II was forced to abdicate on March 15, 1917. This was the end of the Romanov Dynasty. A provisional government was implemented after Nicholas II abdication, in an effort to try and maintain order out of the chaos in society, but this measure was unsuccessful partly due to the archaic political scene existing in Russia at this point in time.
Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra, and their four daughters and their son were held as political prisoners for just over a year after Nicholas II’s abdication. Then, just after midnight on July 17, 1918, they were awakened by their captors and told to dress for a photograph, but instead they were to be executed. Yakov Yurovsky was the captor in charge of carrying out the execution of the imperial family. In addition to the imperial family, they were joined by their servants: Trupp, the valet; Demidova, the maid; and Kharitonov, the cook and Dr. Botkin, the family physician. Yakov Yurovsky and his accomplices carried out the execution of these eleven victims and ended the Romanov Dynasty of Russia.
This brutal murder of Russia’s last Tsar ended the Romanov Dynasty of Russia and probably set the pattern for the Stalinists and their brutal treatment of the Russian people in the years following the Second Russian Revolution.
The earliest ancestor of the Russian Romanovs emigrated to Russia from Prussia in the 14th century. This ancestor’s great-great granddaughter was Anastasia Romanov, who became Tsar Ivan IV’s first wife. Ivan IV (1533-1584), known as Ivan the Terrible, was the grandson of Ivan the Great and was crowned the first Tsar of all Russia in 1547. The son of Ivan the Terrible was a very weak Tsar and allowed the ruling power to fall into the hands of the nobles, one of whom was Nikita Romanov. This Tsar died without any heirs and the chaos that followed his reign became known as the “Time of Troubles.” In 1613, a national assembly of nobles elected Michael Romanov (Russian name Mikhail), as the first Romanov Tsar of Russia. Michael was Tsar from 1613 until 1645. The Romanov Dynasty ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917, a period of over three hundred years. The last Romanov Tsar was Nicholas II (Russian name Nikolai) who was Tsar from 1894 until 1917, when the Romanov Dynasty came to a tragic end. Nicholas II is the focus of this paper, but to understand the Nicholas II reign requires a short description of rule under the Tsars preceding him.
All of the Russian Tsars, from the time of Ivan the Terrible, drew their political power away from the nobility, either by force or through diplomacy which allowed the nobility greater control over the occupants on their land. This political power grab by the Tsars increased until the nineteenth century when both of these relationships came increasingly under attack. A revolt in 1825 by young, reformist military officers attempted to force a constitutional monarchy by preventing the accession of Nicholas I, but failed. Russia became more industrialized as the twentieth century approached, and the inadequacies of autocratic Tsarist rule became increasingly evident. At the same time, Russia expanded its territory and power considerably with borders extending to Afghanistan and China.
Alexander III was the father of Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia. Alexander III came to the throne as Tsar on March 1, 1881 after the assassination of his father, when he was only 36 years old. During Alexander III’s reign, capitalism was strengthened and an industrial revolution was developing. But his domestic policy was particularly harsh against both revolutionaries and liberal movements which developed from the policies of the preceding Tsars.
Nicholas II, the last Russian Emperor and eldest son of Alexander III, was born on May 6, 1868. Ironically, this particular day is the Orthodox feast day of Saint Job the Suffer, whose image appears to have mirrored Nicholas’s troubled life. He was called little “Nickey” by his mother, Marie Fyodorovna Romanov, a petite brunette and his father, the giant and intimidating Alexander Alexandrovich Romanov. The Romanov men throughout the 19th century were well known as being physically large and imposing figures, an image well adapted to their roles as Russian Tsars. But Nicholas took after his mother instead of his father in stature, and was only about 5’-6” tall, and the other Romanov men towered over him. Nicholas tried to compensate for his lack of stature by working out with weights and other athletic equipment, but he remained slight and wiry in physique. His legs were short, but he appeared quite regal when mounted on a horse, which was one of his loves in life, others being large cars and collie dogs. Tsar Alexander III realized that the problems facing a 20th Century Tsar would be quite different from those of the past, so he arranged an excellent education to prepare Nicholas for his role as Russian Tsar, ensuring that Nicholas was probably the best educated European Monarch in his time. As time progressed, the Romanov dynasty had became more Europeanized through intermarriage with European royal families. It was estimated that Nicholas II was only 1/256 Russian.
Terrorism was a real threat to the Tsars, and this caused Nicholas to be isolated from his future subjects and also to be cut off from any liberal thinking. This isolation deprived Nicholas of any interaction with the intellectual and artistic communities, and caused a dearth of ideas about honor, service, and tradition which would later hinder his ability to govern Russia. Nicholas achieved the rank of Colonel in the Life Guards while he was the Tsarevich, heir to the throne. He enjoyed these years as a military officer and also the friendships of the other officers. These were relatively stress free times, and in 1893 he became engaged to a German princess, Alix Victoria Eleanor Louisa Beatrice (Alexandra Fedorovna) and married her. However, in the Fall of 1894, Tsar Alexander III developed a serious nephritis condition, which is a chronic inflammation of the kidneys, and died on October 20, 1894 at only 47 years of age. This event caused Nicholas II to ascended to the throne and he was crowned on May 14, 1896. The crowning ceremony in Moscow was overshadowed by catastrophe on Khodynskoe Field, when in the rush for refreshments which had been set up on tables over ditches in a field, over a thousand spectators were crushed to death. This event probably created an impression in Nicholas II’s subjects of an uncaring ruler.
Nicholas II and Alexandra had four daughters between 1885 and 1901, a situation that did not produce a heir to the throne, since only males could become Tsars. The four daughters were the Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia. Finally, on July 30, 1904, a heir to the throne was born and named Aleksey Nickolaevich Romanov, the last child born to the Tsar and his wife. This child was both a blessing and a curse to his parents, the Romanov Dynasty and Russia as a whole. This resulted from Aleksey being born a hemophiliac, sometimes called “the royal disease.” Hemophilia is a disease in which the blood does not clot properly, and the person can die easily from small injuries. Only males can get hemophilia, and only women can carry the disease. Alexandra inherited the hemophilia genes from her mother, who in turn got them from her mother Queen Victoria . Aleksey became the first Russian Boy Scout in 1909 due to Tsar Nicholas interest and support of this organization, which disappeared after the 1917 Revolution.
After Aleksey was diagnosed a hemophiliac, Alexandra became frantic and searched for a solution to this medical dilemma. This search led her to a man named Grigory Rasputin. Rasputin was shadowy and mysterious character from the Tyumen district of Siberia. One day while he was plowing a field, Rasputin thought he saw a vision which told him to make a pilgrimage, and he walked two thousand miles to a church in Greece. He returned home a changed man, reciting the scripture and praying at length, even though he was neither a monk nor or a priest. In fact, Rasputin had a wife and children, and one of his children named Maria, became a circus performer and died in Los Angeles, California. Alexandra saw Rasputin as the cure for Aleksey’s hemophilia, and while he was alive, witness including medical doctors and skeptics, concluded that he possessed some inexplicable power over Tsarevich Aleksey and his hemophilia. This gave Rasputin some power and protection from both Tsar Nicholas II and Alexandra.
After he became Tsar, Nicholas quickly learned that he was surrounded by deceit and the self-interest of bureaucrats and sycophants. He realized that he could trust very few people besides his wife and became cynical and mistrustful of human nature. This fear was not without cause since Nicholas II’s ministers were very reactionary and created an unstable political situation for him. Nicholas II loved Russia first, then his family, a trait of a good ruler. He was a hard and diligent worker, but unfortunately, he was unable to see the whole picture because he tended to focus greatly on details. Nicholas became a strong supporter of the right of the sovereign despite growing pressures from revolutionary groups with practical desires. At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia had many anti-tsarist political movements. One of them, the Cadets (liberal Constitutional Democrats) advocated constitutional monarchy and representative government. Another group, the Social Revolutionaries, which were a revival of the populist revolutionary tradition of the 1870’s, espoused a Russian agrarian socialism based on the collective, cooperative spirit of the mir. The Social Democrats hoped to apply the theories of Karl Marx to the Russian situation. The Social Democrats had a radial faction called the Bolsheviks, which included Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky, and planned on an industrial laborers (Proletariat) revolt, a small classs in Russia since industrialization was still in a developing stage. This explosive political scene was noted by Tsar Nicholas II, and was part of the reason that Russia went to war with Japan. In 1905 Japan attacked Russia in a dispute over far eastern territories which caused Russia to suffer greatly, as the Russian logistical supply system broke down and food prices soared, public discontent spread rapidly. Russia suffered a bad military defeat by Japan, and 400,000 Russian soldiers were killed, wounded or captured. Material losses were valued at 2.5 billion gold rubles. Bloody Sunday occurred in January, 1905 when Tsarist troops fired on peaceful demonstrators who were petitioning Nicholas II for a redress of perceived grievances. Nicholas II was absent during this occurrence. This tragic event caused revolutionary outbreaks to erupt throughout Russia, which Nicholas II responded to by proclaiming the Manifesto of 17 October 1905. This Manifesto guaranteed fundamental civil freedoms including personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association. A national parliament was also created and called the Duma. The right to vote in the Duma was severely restricted and it became a kind of debating society with no real voice in the Russian Government. After concluding the war with Japan, Nicholas II attempted to reverse the new freedoms, which resulted in a more reactionary government and increased repression. It is not clear whether Russia was moving towards or away from a revolution prior to World War I.
Peter Stolypin served as Nicholas II’s chief advisor from 1906 until 1911 when he was assassinated. After Stolypin’s demise, Rasputin’s political influence with Tsar Nicholas II and Alexandra greatly increased. During Nicholas II’s reign, and prior to the outbreak of World War I, Russia contributed to the fine arts. In 1898, Moscow Art Theater was founded and produced Chekhov’s Sea Gull. In 1909 Diaghilev’s Ballet russe toured Western Europe. In 1910, Igor Stravinsky’s Firebird scandalized Paris. In 1913, Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring was produced. Russia’s contributions to the fine arts essentially disappeared after the Romanov Dynasty ended and the Bolsheviks era began.
Russia entered World War I on the Allied side against Germany on August 1, 1914. The war was being fought on Russia’s borders with European nations, and Russia suffered badly in this war. Territory was lost to Germany, and Russia suffered massive casualties. Tsarist armies fared poorly in battles which they should have won but lost. This caused Nicholas II to go to the scene of the battles and take over the army, which left control of the government in the hands of Tsarist Alexandra and Rasputin. This only created greater discontent and unrest in the Russian people who feared that their government was now controlled by a German Princess whose allegiance was to Germany. Loss of territory combined with massive war causalities caused civilian unrest and resulted in the Second Russian Revolution in February 1917. Nicholas II was forced to abdicate on March 15, 1917. This was the end of the Romanov Dynasty. A provisional government was implemented after Nicholas II abdication, in an effort to try and maintain order out of the chaos in society, but this measure was unsuccessful partly due to the archaic political scene existing in Russia at this point in time.
Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra, and their four daughters and their son were held as political prisoners for just over a year after Nicholas II’s abdication. Then, just after midnight on July 17, 1918, they were awakened by their captors and told to dress for a photograph, but instead they were to be executed. Yakov Yurovsky was the captor in charge of carrying out the execution of the imperial family. In addition to the imperial family, they were joined by their servants: Trupp, the valet; Demidova, the maid; and Kharitonov, the cook and Dr. Botkin, the family physician. Yakov Yurovsky and his accomplices carried out the execution of these eleven victims and ended the Romanov Dynasty of Russia.
This brutal murder of Russia’s last Tsar ended the Romanov Dynasty of Russia and probably set the pattern for the Stalinists and their brutal treatment of the Russian people in the years following the Second Russian Revolution.
The Next Generation IP
The Next Generation IP
Recent years saw huge increase in Internet growth there were 40,073 networks on Internet (as of 10/4/94) and it was doubling approximately every 12 months. The current version (IPv4) of Internet Protocol was sufficient for 20 years, but if Internet will continue to grow, pretty soon we will run out of addresses for all connections because IPv4 can handle only 32 bit addresses (which are millions of connections). This is the major drawback of IPv4. The other issues is that IPv4 was not designed to handle real time applications such as video and audio efficiently and IPv4 can create a lot of fragmentation due to the lack of ability to predict or detect the bottlenecks in the packet’s path.
The next generation of IP was designed by Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to handle all of these problems and was first presented on July 25, 1994 in Toronto. Thou structurally it is very different from IPv4; it still incorporates all the successful features of IPv4 like its ability to adapt to many topologies or technologies at the same time. IPv6 is also connectionless and routed independently. The biggest problem was solved by increasing address format from 32 bits to 128 bits. This increase gave 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (should be more that enough for a long time). IPv6 is also better designed for choosing the optimum path of the packet since switching the paths for each packet will degrade performance of the network. You (well the protocol) can request the unbreakable path, for the applications that need constant connection, through the same route. You need this feature to successfully transmit high quality video and audio over the net. Another great advantage of IPv6 is its compatibility with the IPv4. This will make transition between these two versions painless. Because it doesn't matter how well a new protocol is if there is no practical way to transition the current operational systems running IPv4 to the new protocol.
Structurally both versions are also different. They have different datagram systems and unlike IPv4, IPv6 does not specify all the possible protocol features, this makes it more adaptable to the user’s needs. The datagram in IPv6 consists of Base Header, Optional Extension Headers, and the Data Area. The Base Header is twice as large than in IPv4 due to the added extra 96 bits to the each destination and source addresses, but it actually contains less data. It contains: VERS – for version IPv6, PRIORITY – specifies the urgency
0 Uncharacterized traffic
1 "Filler" traffic (e.g., Netnews)
2 Unattended data transfer (e.g., email)
3 (Reserved)
4 Attended bulk transfer (e.g., FTP, HTTP, NFS)
5 (Reserved)
6 Interactive traffic (e.g., telnet, X)
7 Internet control traffic (e.g., routing protocols, SNMP),
FLOW LABEL – designed for use with performance dependant applications, PAYLOAD LENGTH –how much data is in the packet, NEXT HEADER – tells what is the data going to be in the next header, HOP LIMIT – same as time to live, and SOURCE and DESTINATION addresses. The Base Header takes 40 octets without the optional headers. The IPv6 also differs in the way it is assigning addresses. It has 3 different types: unicast, multicast and anycast. UNICAST (uni – one) address corresponds to the single machine and datagram is given a shortest possible path. MULTICAST corresponds to the many computers on the Internet. It basically sends a copy of the packet to each node. The set of nodes is dynamic they can change over time. ANYCAST sends one copy of a datagram to the group of PCs that share same class prefix (same network). IPv6 also saves space by using ‘0’ address compression which works by compressing many 0’s in one row into smaller equivalent.
The other advantage of IPv6 over IPv4 is the better data security. This is achieved by adding two optional extensions “Authentication Header” provide authentication and integrity to IPv6 datagrams. The second security extension header provided with IPng is the "IPng Encapsulating Security Header" this mechanism provides integrity and confidentiality to IPv6 datagrams. Both extension headers are flexible and algorithm independent, this provides flexibility and universality to them.
Recent years saw huge increase in Internet growth there were 40,073 networks on Internet (as of 10/4/94) and it was doubling approximately every 12 months. The current version (IPv4) of Internet Protocol was sufficient for 20 years, but if Internet will continue to grow, pretty soon we will run out of addresses for all connections because IPv4 can handle only 32 bit addresses (which are millions of connections). This is the major drawback of IPv4. The other issues is that IPv4 was not designed to handle real time applications such as video and audio efficiently and IPv4 can create a lot of fragmentation due to the lack of ability to predict or detect the bottlenecks in the packet’s path.
The next generation of IP was designed by Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to handle all of these problems and was first presented on July 25, 1994 in Toronto. Thou structurally it is very different from IPv4; it still incorporates all the successful features of IPv4 like its ability to adapt to many topologies or technologies at the same time. IPv6 is also connectionless and routed independently. The biggest problem was solved by increasing address format from 32 bits to 128 bits. This increase gave 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (should be more that enough for a long time). IPv6 is also better designed for choosing the optimum path of the packet since switching the paths for each packet will degrade performance of the network. You (well the protocol) can request the unbreakable path, for the applications that need constant connection, through the same route. You need this feature to successfully transmit high quality video and audio over the net. Another great advantage of IPv6 is its compatibility with the IPv4. This will make transition between these two versions painless. Because it doesn't matter how well a new protocol is if there is no practical way to transition the current operational systems running IPv4 to the new protocol.
Structurally both versions are also different. They have different datagram systems and unlike IPv4, IPv6 does not specify all the possible protocol features, this makes it more adaptable to the user’s needs. The datagram in IPv6 consists of Base Header, Optional Extension Headers, and the Data Area. The Base Header is twice as large than in IPv4 due to the added extra 96 bits to the each destination and source addresses, but it actually contains less data. It contains: VERS – for version IPv6, PRIORITY – specifies the urgency
0 Uncharacterized traffic
1 "Filler" traffic (e.g., Netnews)
2 Unattended data transfer (e.g., email)
3 (Reserved)
4 Attended bulk transfer (e.g., FTP, HTTP, NFS)
5 (Reserved)
6 Interactive traffic (e.g., telnet, X)
7 Internet control traffic (e.g., routing protocols, SNMP),
FLOW LABEL – designed for use with performance dependant applications, PAYLOAD LENGTH –how much data is in the packet, NEXT HEADER – tells what is the data going to be in the next header, HOP LIMIT – same as time to live, and SOURCE and DESTINATION addresses. The Base Header takes 40 octets without the optional headers. The IPv6 also differs in the way it is assigning addresses. It has 3 different types: unicast, multicast and anycast. UNICAST (uni – one) address corresponds to the single machine and datagram is given a shortest possible path. MULTICAST corresponds to the many computers on the Internet. It basically sends a copy of the packet to each node. The set of nodes is dynamic they can change over time. ANYCAST sends one copy of a datagram to the group of PCs that share same class prefix (same network). IPv6 also saves space by using ‘0’ address compression which works by compressing many 0’s in one row into smaller equivalent.
The other advantage of IPv6 over IPv4 is the better data security. This is achieved by adding two optional extensions “Authentication Header” provide authentication and integrity to IPv6 datagrams. The second security extension header provided with IPng is the "IPng Encapsulating Security Header" this mechanism provides integrity and confidentiality to IPv6 datagrams. Both extension headers are flexible and algorithm independent, this provides flexibility and universality to them.
LIFE OF MA PARKER
LIFE OF MA PARKER
Katherine Mansfield was born in Wellington, New Zealand, in 1888. She went
to London to study music when she was quite young. When she later returned to
New Zealand, she found life there difficult, and moved to England again.
Because of serious lung disease which eventually led to her death, she also spent
many years of her life in Germany and France. She died in 1923.
Katherine Mansfield is remembered as one of the classical writers of
English short stories, and it is very much due to her works that the short story
gained a full literary status.
In Life of Ma Parker, we meet Ma Parker, an aging woman, now working as a
housekeeper. She was born in Stratford-on-Avon, and left home at the age of 16
to work as a maid in London. She had to work hard, she was never allowed to
go out and she was harassed by the cook. After working here, she worked just as
hard in a doctor's house for a couple of years before marrying her husband, who
was a baker. They had 13 children together, but only six of them survived.
When the children still were young, her husband died of consumption. Her
husband's sister then came to assist her, but soon afterwards hurt herself so
badly that Ma Parker now had one more person to look after. Ma Parker's
children grew up, but only one of her daughters kept in touch. The daughter
married a waiter and got Lennie, Ma Parker's only joy in life. However, also he
died because of consumption. We meet Ma Parker working in a young
gentleman's house the day after Lennie was buried.
As in most short stories, the setting in Life of Ma Parker plays an important role
and is quite relevant to the story. The description of the weather outside plays an
important role in conveying the right melancholic and dark mood. The
gentleman's apartment is probably also very typical for the places where Ma
Parker works.
Ma Parker has had a very hard life. Because of this, she's both physically and
psychologically exhausted. You can notice this when she's taking off her boots.
For many years that has meant great agony to her, so her face expresses the pain
even before she starts taking them off. She probably doesn't look very well
anymore either. This is supported by what the young gentleman tells his friends
about his household system and thinks about her as a hag; «You simply dirty
everything you've got, get a hag in once a week to clean up, and the thing's
done.»
Ma Parker has worked as a servant for others almost whole her life, and
therefore also behaves like one. She wants to do her job, and not be in anyone's
way. Even if she's dissatisfied with things, she doesn't usually complain. When
she's talking to an employer she's using a polite and inferior language and she
doesn't express any of her own feelings or ideas. Actually, she's normally not
showing any feelings to close family members. She has never cried in front of
others, not even her own children.
As we follow her throughout this specific day, Ma Parker comes closer
and closer to a point where she will break down. The more she thinks about her
misery over the years, the more she wants to cry about it all. Unfortunately it
will take too much time, and wherever she starts to cry, she will bother
someone. Therefore, in her opinion, she can't...
Ma Parker is probably quite representative for her social background as a
member of the poor working class. She, as many others, has had a life filled
with poverty, hard work, lousy wages and lack of appreciation. Because of her
social position, she hasn't got much of an education and she hadn't learnt about
Shakespeare, even if he was from her home city.
The «literary gentleman» who Ma Parker works for, isn't very concerned
by her situation. He does ask her how her grandson is, but judging by his
comment upon Lenny's burial («I hope the funeral was a success»), it seems he
asks mostly to be polite and to show that he after all is paying some attention.
The gentleman seems to think that Ma Parker is quite stupid. After giving his
unsuitable comment on the burial, he thinks she has problems understanding
him, while it really is him who has said something extremely stupid. Her
neighbors talk among themselves about how hard a life Ma Parker has had, but
without feeling very sorry for her.
Because of the life she has had, and because of the hard work she still
does, I feel very much respect and sympathy towards Ma Parker. She has also
got a tremendous self discipline. On the positive side, this has made her able to
work hard and raise six children almost on her own. However, the strong self
discipline has also stopped her from expressing her feelings, and therefore also
get rid of the burden she's bearing in her mind. Because of that, she's now on the
edge of a nervous breakdown.
Judging by his conversations with Ma Parker, it seems that the «literary
gentleman» is not very self confident. He tries to prove to himself and to his
housekeeper the opposite, but he's quite a helpless person, not even capable of
looking after his own apartment. During his upbringing in a middle or upper
class family, he's probably been taken so much care of that he's not able to stand
on his own feet as an adult. I don't think he's a typical representative of his
social background, but his personality has very much been shaped by his social
background. For someone from Ma Parker's social layer, it would be almost
impossible to get as coddled as her employer is. Both he and Ma Parker are
victims of different circumstances, but I don't feel as much sympathy for «the
literary gentleman» as for Ma Parker.
Life of Ma Parker follows one plot all the time, with the otherwise
chronological story being broken up by Ma Parker looking back at her life and
reflecting about her grandson.
Throughout the story, as we get to know Ma Parker better and learn about
all her problems, the tension increases. It's quite obvious that she eventually will
break down. However, the end of the story doesn't suggest when this is going to
happen, as Ma Parker can't think of anywhere to cry. At this point the tension
drops, but it's still there as it's up to the reader to think of what probably
happened in the end. The plot hasn't really indicated anything about the ending,
so it isn't that unexpected.
During most of the story we see things from an outside point of view.
However, the point of view switches to one inside Ma Parker sometimes when
she's thinking. The way Katherine Mansfield uses the point of view is important
to make the story as simple in construction as it is, because you haven't got more
than two points of view to relate to.
To support the story's simple construction, symbols and figures of speech aren't
very much used, the language is quite simple, the vocabulary not especially rich
and there are few connotations in use. The tone throughout the story is quite
gloomy, supported by Ma Parker's sad thoughts and also the cold and rainy
weather outside.
I would say that the theme in Life of Ma Parker is how unfair life can be. Ma
Parker has worked hard for herself and her family her whole life, but has
nothing left. In my opinion, the author wants to tell us that it's important to show
sympathy and understanding across traditional class borders.
Katherine Mansfield was born in Wellington, New Zealand, in 1888. She went
to London to study music when she was quite young. When she later returned to
New Zealand, she found life there difficult, and moved to England again.
Because of serious lung disease which eventually led to her death, she also spent
many years of her life in Germany and France. She died in 1923.
Katherine Mansfield is remembered as one of the classical writers of
English short stories, and it is very much due to her works that the short story
gained a full literary status.
In Life of Ma Parker, we meet Ma Parker, an aging woman, now working as a
housekeeper. She was born in Stratford-on-Avon, and left home at the age of 16
to work as a maid in London. She had to work hard, she was never allowed to
go out and she was harassed by the cook. After working here, she worked just as
hard in a doctor's house for a couple of years before marrying her husband, who
was a baker. They had 13 children together, but only six of them survived.
When the children still were young, her husband died of consumption. Her
husband's sister then came to assist her, but soon afterwards hurt herself so
badly that Ma Parker now had one more person to look after. Ma Parker's
children grew up, but only one of her daughters kept in touch. The daughter
married a waiter and got Lennie, Ma Parker's only joy in life. However, also he
died because of consumption. We meet Ma Parker working in a young
gentleman's house the day after Lennie was buried.
As in most short stories, the setting in Life of Ma Parker plays an important role
and is quite relevant to the story. The description of the weather outside plays an
important role in conveying the right melancholic and dark mood. The
gentleman's apartment is probably also very typical for the places where Ma
Parker works.
Ma Parker has had a very hard life. Because of this, she's both physically and
psychologically exhausted. You can notice this when she's taking off her boots.
For many years that has meant great agony to her, so her face expresses the pain
even before she starts taking them off. She probably doesn't look very well
anymore either. This is supported by what the young gentleman tells his friends
about his household system and thinks about her as a hag; «You simply dirty
everything you've got, get a hag in once a week to clean up, and the thing's
done.»
Ma Parker has worked as a servant for others almost whole her life, and
therefore also behaves like one. She wants to do her job, and not be in anyone's
way. Even if she's dissatisfied with things, she doesn't usually complain. When
she's talking to an employer she's using a polite and inferior language and she
doesn't express any of her own feelings or ideas. Actually, she's normally not
showing any feelings to close family members. She has never cried in front of
others, not even her own children.
As we follow her throughout this specific day, Ma Parker comes closer
and closer to a point where she will break down. The more she thinks about her
misery over the years, the more she wants to cry about it all. Unfortunately it
will take too much time, and wherever she starts to cry, she will bother
someone. Therefore, in her opinion, she can't...
Ma Parker is probably quite representative for her social background as a
member of the poor working class. She, as many others, has had a life filled
with poverty, hard work, lousy wages and lack of appreciation. Because of her
social position, she hasn't got much of an education and she hadn't learnt about
Shakespeare, even if he was from her home city.
The «literary gentleman» who Ma Parker works for, isn't very concerned
by her situation. He does ask her how her grandson is, but judging by his
comment upon Lenny's burial («I hope the funeral was a success»), it seems he
asks mostly to be polite and to show that he after all is paying some attention.
The gentleman seems to think that Ma Parker is quite stupid. After giving his
unsuitable comment on the burial, he thinks she has problems understanding
him, while it really is him who has said something extremely stupid. Her
neighbors talk among themselves about how hard a life Ma Parker has had, but
without feeling very sorry for her.
Because of the life she has had, and because of the hard work she still
does, I feel very much respect and sympathy towards Ma Parker. She has also
got a tremendous self discipline. On the positive side, this has made her able to
work hard and raise six children almost on her own. However, the strong self
discipline has also stopped her from expressing her feelings, and therefore also
get rid of the burden she's bearing in her mind. Because of that, she's now on the
edge of a nervous breakdown.
Judging by his conversations with Ma Parker, it seems that the «literary
gentleman» is not very self confident. He tries to prove to himself and to his
housekeeper the opposite, but he's quite a helpless person, not even capable of
looking after his own apartment. During his upbringing in a middle or upper
class family, he's probably been taken so much care of that he's not able to stand
on his own feet as an adult. I don't think he's a typical representative of his
social background, but his personality has very much been shaped by his social
background. For someone from Ma Parker's social layer, it would be almost
impossible to get as coddled as her employer is. Both he and Ma Parker are
victims of different circumstances, but I don't feel as much sympathy for «the
literary gentleman» as for Ma Parker.
Life of Ma Parker follows one plot all the time, with the otherwise
chronological story being broken up by Ma Parker looking back at her life and
reflecting about her grandson.
Throughout the story, as we get to know Ma Parker better and learn about
all her problems, the tension increases. It's quite obvious that she eventually will
break down. However, the end of the story doesn't suggest when this is going to
happen, as Ma Parker can't think of anywhere to cry. At this point the tension
drops, but it's still there as it's up to the reader to think of what probably
happened in the end. The plot hasn't really indicated anything about the ending,
so it isn't that unexpected.
During most of the story we see things from an outside point of view.
However, the point of view switches to one inside Ma Parker sometimes when
she's thinking. The way Katherine Mansfield uses the point of view is important
to make the story as simple in construction as it is, because you haven't got more
than two points of view to relate to.
To support the story's simple construction, symbols and figures of speech aren't
very much used, the language is quite simple, the vocabulary not especially rich
and there are few connotations in use. The tone throughout the story is quite
gloomy, supported by Ma Parker's sad thoughts and also the cold and rainy
weather outside.
I would say that the theme in Life of Ma Parker is how unfair life can be. Ma
Parker has worked hard for herself and her family her whole life, but has
nothing left. In my opinion, the author wants to tell us that it's important to show
sympathy and understanding across traditional class borders.
The Holocaust
The Holocaust
The word Holocaust means “widespread destruction.” It took place during World War II as Adolf Hitler’s plan of conquering the world. Hitler, the Nazi Dictator, planned to carry out his plan by destroying the Jewish population.
The Holocaust first came into perspective when Adolf Hitler took power in 1933. At first Hitler has harsh laws put on the Jewish religion to minimize their power and freedom. Such laws included not being allowed in public stores. The actual start of the Holocaust has been traced by historians to November 9, 1938. It started by the Nazis forcing the Jewish cultural to go to concentration camps. After the Nazis cleared out a Jewish neighborhoods, they would burn them down leaving no trace. Jews who did not go to concentration camps went to ghettos to work as slaves.
No matter how many Jews the Nazis had, they always went after more. In 1939 Germany took over Poland and took control over its three million Jews. In 1940, Germany took over Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway, and the Netherlands gaining many more Jews.
At the concentration camps the Jews were badly mistreated. The Nazis showed no signs of pity towards them. In 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union and began the mass murder of Jews. The Nazis saw it all as a game. They wanted to see how much they could put the Jews through until they finally died. The Nazis also participated in horrifying practices and treatment of the Jews. According to the magazine Social Education October 1995 such activities were:
A- Human skin form the dead corps was made into lampshades, bags, and brief cases. Human fat was made into soap, and shrunken skulls were used as paper weights.
B- Jews were fed the bears housed in private zoos.
C- Husbands were forced to have sex with other’s wives in front of their children.
D- Women were forced to have sexual relations with animals.
E- Soldiers practiced there gunsmanship by shooting the Jew’s finger tips and noses.
F- Jewish babies were launched into the air and skewered by bayonets in front of their mothers.
G- Prisoners were used as guinea pigs to test how long a human could go with out oxygen, how long one could tolerate in cold water, and to observe the effect of injected deadly germs.
I- Women’s ovaries were burned with x-rays and then the effects were observed.
No matter what the lack of supplies the Nazis had, they just kept on hauling in the Jews. They were starved, beaten, crammed into small housing area with many other Jews, and forced to sleep in freezing weather without blankets. When a Jew would die, which happened very often, they would just throw the bodies on the side of the streets. When there was a severe lack of food, the cooks would use the corps as food for the living Jews.
In 1945 the Nazis started what was known as the “death marches” toward Germany. The “death marches” were when all of the Jews were forced to run to new concentration camps away from the moving in allied powers. They would have to run in freezing conditions non-stop. If they were to slow down, the Nazis would start shooting them. If someone was to trip, they would be trampled to death by the many thousands of other Jews also running. The only hope for the Jews was that the running would soon come to a stop. Those who could not keep on going died. They did not even get to take a break to go to the bathroom, nor did they get to eat while running. They ended up running many hours before being able to stop. The Jew ended up staying at these new camps for a short while.
On May 7, 1945, Nazi Germany surrendered ending the World War II in Europe. Shortly after this occurred, the Jews that remained were set free and rescued by the allied powers. On October 1, 1946, another major event that involved the Holocaust took place, the conclusion of the first major Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg trials were where Nazi leaders, such as the death camp leaders, were brought to trial by the International Military Tribunal, composed of one judge and one alternate judge from each of the signatory nations. The conclusion of the trials were as followed. Twelve Nazi leaders were executed. Three were sentenced to life in prison, and four others received various prison terms. On October 16, the twelve Nazi leaders sentenced to death, were executed.
The number of people killed in the Holocaust has been to be known around 11,000,000. Not all of them were Jewish though. The total number of Jews killed in the Holocaust has been estimated to be around 5,820,960. This was two thirds of the entire Jewish population. The countries that lost the most were Polish Soviet Area with 4,666,000, Hungary with 402,000, and Czechoslovakia with 277,000. The remaining Holocaust victims that were killed belonged to such ethnic groups such as Gypsies, Poles, and Slavs.
I conclude this essay by stating that the Holocaust was a very tragic and devastating time. Most of the books that survivors have written only touch what actually went on there. Those who carried out these horrible crimes should be put through the same pain that they caused millions of others. Anyone who has survived it has gone through more than any of us could ever imagine, and those that did not make it possibly went through more than those who did.
The word Holocaust means “widespread destruction.” It took place during World War II as Adolf Hitler’s plan of conquering the world. Hitler, the Nazi Dictator, planned to carry out his plan by destroying the Jewish population.
The Holocaust first came into perspective when Adolf Hitler took power in 1933. At first Hitler has harsh laws put on the Jewish religion to minimize their power and freedom. Such laws included not being allowed in public stores. The actual start of the Holocaust has been traced by historians to November 9, 1938. It started by the Nazis forcing the Jewish cultural to go to concentration camps. After the Nazis cleared out a Jewish neighborhoods, they would burn them down leaving no trace. Jews who did not go to concentration camps went to ghettos to work as slaves.
No matter how many Jews the Nazis had, they always went after more. In 1939 Germany took over Poland and took control over its three million Jews. In 1940, Germany took over Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway, and the Netherlands gaining many more Jews.
At the concentration camps the Jews were badly mistreated. The Nazis showed no signs of pity towards them. In 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union and began the mass murder of Jews. The Nazis saw it all as a game. They wanted to see how much they could put the Jews through until they finally died. The Nazis also participated in horrifying practices and treatment of the Jews. According to the magazine Social Education October 1995 such activities were:
A- Human skin form the dead corps was made into lampshades, bags, and brief cases. Human fat was made into soap, and shrunken skulls were used as paper weights.
B- Jews were fed the bears housed in private zoos.
C- Husbands were forced to have sex with other’s wives in front of their children.
D- Women were forced to have sexual relations with animals.
E- Soldiers practiced there gunsmanship by shooting the Jew’s finger tips and noses.
F- Jewish babies were launched into the air and skewered by bayonets in front of their mothers.
G- Prisoners were used as guinea pigs to test how long a human could go with out oxygen, how long one could tolerate in cold water, and to observe the effect of injected deadly germs.
I- Women’s ovaries were burned with x-rays and then the effects were observed.
No matter what the lack of supplies the Nazis had, they just kept on hauling in the Jews. They were starved, beaten, crammed into small housing area with many other Jews, and forced to sleep in freezing weather without blankets. When a Jew would die, which happened very often, they would just throw the bodies on the side of the streets. When there was a severe lack of food, the cooks would use the corps as food for the living Jews.
In 1945 the Nazis started what was known as the “death marches” toward Germany. The “death marches” were when all of the Jews were forced to run to new concentration camps away from the moving in allied powers. They would have to run in freezing conditions non-stop. If they were to slow down, the Nazis would start shooting them. If someone was to trip, they would be trampled to death by the many thousands of other Jews also running. The only hope for the Jews was that the running would soon come to a stop. Those who could not keep on going died. They did not even get to take a break to go to the bathroom, nor did they get to eat while running. They ended up running many hours before being able to stop. The Jew ended up staying at these new camps for a short while.
On May 7, 1945, Nazi Germany surrendered ending the World War II in Europe. Shortly after this occurred, the Jews that remained were set free and rescued by the allied powers. On October 1, 1946, another major event that involved the Holocaust took place, the conclusion of the first major Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg trials were where Nazi leaders, such as the death camp leaders, were brought to trial by the International Military Tribunal, composed of one judge and one alternate judge from each of the signatory nations. The conclusion of the trials were as followed. Twelve Nazi leaders were executed. Three were sentenced to life in prison, and four others received various prison terms. On October 16, the twelve Nazi leaders sentenced to death, were executed.
The number of people killed in the Holocaust has been to be known around 11,000,000. Not all of them were Jewish though. The total number of Jews killed in the Holocaust has been estimated to be around 5,820,960. This was two thirds of the entire Jewish population. The countries that lost the most were Polish Soviet Area with 4,666,000, Hungary with 402,000, and Czechoslovakia with 277,000. The remaining Holocaust victims that were killed belonged to such ethnic groups such as Gypsies, Poles, and Slavs.
I conclude this essay by stating that the Holocaust was a very tragic and devastating time. Most of the books that survivors have written only touch what actually went on there. Those who carried out these horrible crimes should be put through the same pain that they caused millions of others. Anyone who has survived it has gone through more than any of us could ever imagine, and those that did not make it possibly went through more than those who did.
The Painted Door
Is John Guilty of Causing Ann to Commit Adultery ?
It is evident that John is guilty of causing Ann to Commit adultery in Sinclair Ross’s “The Painted Door.” John’s desire, for instance, reveals his intentions. In addition, John’s low self-esteem suggests his motive. Finally, the card game showed us that John planned and deliberately caused Ann to commit adultery.
The purpose of John’s action is to make Ann happy. John believes that Ann is the most important person in his life as he was described on Pg. 48 "… naively proud of Ann.” He believes that "it seemed only right that she should have [the best].” To John, Ann deserves a man better than a dull-witted man like himself. When John learned that Ann liked the companionship of Steven (Pg. 52 Once she had danced with Steven six or seven times in the evening, and they talked about it for as many months.), he conceived the plan for Ann and Steven to fall in love. Owing to John's love and devotion to Ann, he causes Ann to commit adultery with Steve.
John’s intention or the reason for his action is his low self-esteem. John had so little faith in himself that he did not believe that he can fulfill his wife’s desires. On Pg. 49, John described one of Ann's needs, "That's what you need, Ann - someone to talk to beside me.” When Ann reveals to us that John does not often talk to her, Pg. 50 That's what I need - someone to talk to, John never talks, we learned that John is actually telling Ann that she needs Steven instead of him. In addition, John believes that he was such a stupid person that he could not do anything for his wife.
“To him it was not what he actually accomplished by means of the sacrifice that mattered, but the sacrifice itself, the gesture-something done fore her sake"
Owing to the little self-respect that he had, he decided to sacrifice his relationship with Ann and later on his own life to show Ann he loves her.
Ann falling in love with Steven is not an accident, but instead, a part of John’s plan. John knew a storm was coming (Pg. 47. You said yourself we could expect a storm) so he left the house. He then invited Steve to his house sot hat Ann and Steven were alone together. Ann, having been flattered by Steve (Pg. 51. Such a storm to face, I should feel flattered), fell in love with him. Moreover, Ross foreshadowed that John will carry out his plan by the skillful use of the card game as a symbol. The fact that Ann never had a say in the out come of the story was shown by Ann’s own words on Pg. 55, “ . . . I will watch and let John play.” John was the person controlling the out come of the story. Ann was merely a prize to be won. Furthermore, we can assume that John setup Ann to fall in love and have sex with Steven owing to the fact that John planned this card game as Ann said on Pg. 58, “ We’re going to play cards, He was the one suggested it.”
Although this story had often been taught emphasizing that Ann was the unfaithful wife who betrayed her husband, one may still argue it was John who setups the whole incident. John's purpose in setting them up was to make Ann happy and his reason was to show Ann his devotion though sacrifice. Moreover, the card game as symbol was used by Sinclair Ross as a device to unfold what really happened. Sinclair Ross never directly told us that John was responsible for causing Ann’s adultery; however, John’s clear intention, motives and a workable plan reveled the possibility.
It is evident that John is guilty of causing Ann to Commit adultery in Sinclair Ross’s “The Painted Door.” John’s desire, for instance, reveals his intentions. In addition, John’s low self-esteem suggests his motive. Finally, the card game showed us that John planned and deliberately caused Ann to commit adultery.
The purpose of John’s action is to make Ann happy. John believes that Ann is the most important person in his life as he was described on Pg. 48 "… naively proud of Ann.” He believes that "it seemed only right that she should have [the best].” To John, Ann deserves a man better than a dull-witted man like himself. When John learned that Ann liked the companionship of Steven (Pg. 52 Once she had danced with Steven six or seven times in the evening, and they talked about it for as many months.), he conceived the plan for Ann and Steven to fall in love. Owing to John's love and devotion to Ann, he causes Ann to commit adultery with Steve.
John’s intention or the reason for his action is his low self-esteem. John had so little faith in himself that he did not believe that he can fulfill his wife’s desires. On Pg. 49, John described one of Ann's needs, "That's what you need, Ann - someone to talk to beside me.” When Ann reveals to us that John does not often talk to her, Pg. 50 That's what I need - someone to talk to, John never talks, we learned that John is actually telling Ann that she needs Steven instead of him. In addition, John believes that he was such a stupid person that he could not do anything for his wife.
“To him it was not what he actually accomplished by means of the sacrifice that mattered, but the sacrifice itself, the gesture-something done fore her sake"
Owing to the little self-respect that he had, he decided to sacrifice his relationship with Ann and later on his own life to show Ann he loves her.
Ann falling in love with Steven is not an accident, but instead, a part of John’s plan. John knew a storm was coming (Pg. 47. You said yourself we could expect a storm) so he left the house. He then invited Steve to his house sot hat Ann and Steven were alone together. Ann, having been flattered by Steve (Pg. 51. Such a storm to face, I should feel flattered), fell in love with him. Moreover, Ross foreshadowed that John will carry out his plan by the skillful use of the card game as a symbol. The fact that Ann never had a say in the out come of the story was shown by Ann’s own words on Pg. 55, “ . . . I will watch and let John play.” John was the person controlling the out come of the story. Ann was merely a prize to be won. Furthermore, we can assume that John setup Ann to fall in love and have sex with Steven owing to the fact that John planned this card game as Ann said on Pg. 58, “ We’re going to play cards, He was the one suggested it.”
Although this story had often been taught emphasizing that Ann was the unfaithful wife who betrayed her husband, one may still argue it was John who setups the whole incident. John's purpose in setting them up was to make Ann happy and his reason was to show Ann his devotion though sacrifice. Moreover, the card game as symbol was used by Sinclair Ross as a device to unfold what really happened. Sinclair Ross never directly told us that John was responsible for causing Ann’s adultery; however, John’s clear intention, motives and a workable plan reveled the possibility.
Pascal
Pascal
Surprised or incredulous, members of the intellectual elite of Paris attend the exhibition of a strange machine, created by a 21 year-old youth. Nobody notices its reach: so that a mechanism capable to do so many calculations? Centuries later, the mill would be considered the calculating- first of the modern ones.
Blaise Pascal, the inventor of the calculating machine, would also develop important studies of Mathematics and Physics, besides leaving deep meditations on Philosophy and Christian Religion.
Born in 1623, Blaise Pascal interiorizou the dilemmas of its time: the shock among the old medieval order, in that the influence of the Christian doctrine, and a new vision of the world prevailed, own of the emergent capitalist society, based on the development of the sciences (mathematics, physics, etc.) and of its application in the technology. On a side, the Church tried to preserve its authority on the men, reaffirming the need of the faith; from the other, the humanity discovered that it could walk without the divine help, being guided for by force of its reason.
The Cientist
The scientific and rationalistic aspect of Pascal was revealed from the childhood. Instigated by the father, that, refusing to send the son to the school, took charge of his education, young Pascal rushed to the investigation of any problem with that if he ran across. Restless and curious, already to the 11 years, he accomplished experiences on the sounds, that resulted in a small agreement.
It is also counted that, not satisfied with the paternal promise that later he would receive lessons on mathematics, he developed for own initiative, the study of geometric illustrations. Thus, to the 12 years, he got to deduce alone the first 32 positions of the geometry established by Euclides.
The processes in the study of the Mathematics were fast: no longer he was to reproduce the one that the old specialists had done, but of doing new discoveries. To the 16 years, he wrote the " Rehearsal on the Conical " published in 1640, a work on the Profective Geometry in that investigated the conical ones - geometric illustrations whose properties don't lose temper when projected in several ways of a plan on another one.
After “La Pascaline's " construction - the machine of calculating -, the attention of Pascal went back to the experiences on the atmospheric pressure accomplished by Torricelli. Second this cientist, the space that stayed on the column of mercury of a barometer corresponded to the vacuum; Pascal demonstrated that the assumed " vacuum " didn't pass of rarefied air. In that study, he also analyzed the properties of the hydraulic pressure, enunciating a proposition that would be known as " law of Pascal "; the pressure exercised on the liquid in a shut recipient is transmitted by all the directions, with no modifyings.
The Religious Crisis
During that whole period, Pascal, as his contemporaries, he directed his conduct according with the prescriptions of the Catholic Church. This seemed to conform to at the new times, being shown tolerant with the scientific investigations that, direct or indirectly, they refuted the extracted dogmas of the Bible. In that measured, the Catholicism of the generation of Pascal tended to be much more a simple habit than a true faith: the faith in God didn't have consequences in the daily life.
The theological current founded by Dutch Cornelius Jansen, even so, it considered such attitude a true corruption of the Christianity. Jansen affirmed that the philosophical reason was the " mother of all the heresies "; in other words, it condemned any free thought, I don't subject to the control of the Church. According to him, the man was not guided by its free will; it was predestined, and the salvation didn't depend on its actions, but, only, of the divine grace.
In France, such current - known like Jansenism -, in spite of officially condemned by the Pope, it spread quickly, tends with main center difusor, the convent of Port-Royal. From there, the French jansenists started to nail the solitary retreat and the scorn for the material and social life.
Pascal would take contact with the jansenism in 1646, when the father, sick, became attended by two medical followers of the doctrine. In the discussions with these, Pascal went being taken by the feeling that there was something superior, deeper than the human reason.
If this solved the problems of the Nature, of mathematical or physical order, it was shown impotent to solve other problems, as the sin and the salvation.
This, even so, it didn't take it he abandon the scientific researches. Starting from 1652, Pascal began to investigate the mathematical subjects raised by the " Games of Dices ", elaborating the calculation of the probabilities. It gave studies, that he called himself “Geometry of Pascal ", it controls numeric that allows to calculate several possible combinations to a certain number of objects contained to each other.
However, no longer he felt more comfortable in than himself denominated as " mundane " life. Like this, as he tells his sister, to the 30 years, Pascal " decided to give up of the social " commitments. He began moving of neighborhood and, for better break with his habits, went live in the field, where so much did to abandon the world that the world after all abandoned him.
The Man and the Infinite
Actually he didn't abandon the world. In spite of having confined in the convent of Port-Royal starting from 1655, it started to develop intense literary activity and philosophical-religious person to disclose and to defend before the world the ideas of Jansenism. Of that activity they resulted, among other works, the " Provincial ", a series of goods writings starting from 1656, and, “Thoughts ", published in 1670, eight years after the author's death.
Besides, Pascal didn't totally stand back of the scientific activity: retaking the previous studies on the subject of the " infinitely small " ones; it developed in 1658 a work on the area of the ciclóide, it curves described by a point of the circumference that rolls on a straight line. That study would be the percursor of the integral calculation, elaborated later by Leibniz and Newton.
But even that scientific work was tied up to problems physiologic-religious persons. In fact, its interest for the " infinitely small " ones was associated to a larger subject. What is the man before the infinite "? Because the man, according to Pascal, is it placed among two infinites: the " infinitely big " (the Universe) and the " infinitely small " (particles, atoms).
Before that immensity, the man meets lost: We " burned in the desire of finding a firm platform and a last and permanent base for on her to build a tower that rises until the infinite; even so, the alicerces ruem and the earth opens up until the abyss ".
If the man, through its reason, gets to unmask several secrets of the world, he will never get to know everything, the infinite. There is only, therefore, a fixed point where the man can lean on: God. But the existence of God establishes in the man the trust in himself. The man continues lost, tormented, while it doesn't come the grace of God. It is not the man that should reveal the existence of God, because the reason is unable of that; the revelation only depends on God. While this not to grant the grace to the man, God will always be occult.
Surprised or incredulous, members of the intellectual elite of Paris attend the exhibition of a strange machine, created by a 21 year-old youth. Nobody notices its reach: so that a mechanism capable to do so many calculations? Centuries later, the mill would be considered the calculating- first of the modern ones.
Blaise Pascal, the inventor of the calculating machine, would also develop important studies of Mathematics and Physics, besides leaving deep meditations on Philosophy and Christian Religion.
Born in 1623, Blaise Pascal interiorizou the dilemmas of its time: the shock among the old medieval order, in that the influence of the Christian doctrine, and a new vision of the world prevailed, own of the emergent capitalist society, based on the development of the sciences (mathematics, physics, etc.) and of its application in the technology. On a side, the Church tried to preserve its authority on the men, reaffirming the need of the faith; from the other, the humanity discovered that it could walk without the divine help, being guided for by force of its reason.
The Cientist
The scientific and rationalistic aspect of Pascal was revealed from the childhood. Instigated by the father, that, refusing to send the son to the school, took charge of his education, young Pascal rushed to the investigation of any problem with that if he ran across. Restless and curious, already to the 11 years, he accomplished experiences on the sounds, that resulted in a small agreement.
It is also counted that, not satisfied with the paternal promise that later he would receive lessons on mathematics, he developed for own initiative, the study of geometric illustrations. Thus, to the 12 years, he got to deduce alone the first 32 positions of the geometry established by Euclides.
The processes in the study of the Mathematics were fast: no longer he was to reproduce the one that the old specialists had done, but of doing new discoveries. To the 16 years, he wrote the " Rehearsal on the Conical " published in 1640, a work on the Profective Geometry in that investigated the conical ones - geometric illustrations whose properties don't lose temper when projected in several ways of a plan on another one.
After “La Pascaline's " construction - the machine of calculating -, the attention of Pascal went back to the experiences on the atmospheric pressure accomplished by Torricelli. Second this cientist, the space that stayed on the column of mercury of a barometer corresponded to the vacuum; Pascal demonstrated that the assumed " vacuum " didn't pass of rarefied air. In that study, he also analyzed the properties of the hydraulic pressure, enunciating a proposition that would be known as " law of Pascal "; the pressure exercised on the liquid in a shut recipient is transmitted by all the directions, with no modifyings.
The Religious Crisis
During that whole period, Pascal, as his contemporaries, he directed his conduct according with the prescriptions of the Catholic Church. This seemed to conform to at the new times, being shown tolerant with the scientific investigations that, direct or indirectly, they refuted the extracted dogmas of the Bible. In that measured, the Catholicism of the generation of Pascal tended to be much more a simple habit than a true faith: the faith in God didn't have consequences in the daily life.
The theological current founded by Dutch Cornelius Jansen, even so, it considered such attitude a true corruption of the Christianity. Jansen affirmed that the philosophical reason was the " mother of all the heresies "; in other words, it condemned any free thought, I don't subject to the control of the Church. According to him, the man was not guided by its free will; it was predestined, and the salvation didn't depend on its actions, but, only, of the divine grace.
In France, such current - known like Jansenism -, in spite of officially condemned by the Pope, it spread quickly, tends with main center difusor, the convent of Port-Royal. From there, the French jansenists started to nail the solitary retreat and the scorn for the material and social life.
Pascal would take contact with the jansenism in 1646, when the father, sick, became attended by two medical followers of the doctrine. In the discussions with these, Pascal went being taken by the feeling that there was something superior, deeper than the human reason.
If this solved the problems of the Nature, of mathematical or physical order, it was shown impotent to solve other problems, as the sin and the salvation.
This, even so, it didn't take it he abandon the scientific researches. Starting from 1652, Pascal began to investigate the mathematical subjects raised by the " Games of Dices ", elaborating the calculation of the probabilities. It gave studies, that he called himself “Geometry of Pascal ", it controls numeric that allows to calculate several possible combinations to a certain number of objects contained to each other.
However, no longer he felt more comfortable in than himself denominated as " mundane " life. Like this, as he tells his sister, to the 30 years, Pascal " decided to give up of the social " commitments. He began moving of neighborhood and, for better break with his habits, went live in the field, where so much did to abandon the world that the world after all abandoned him.
The Man and the Infinite
Actually he didn't abandon the world. In spite of having confined in the convent of Port-Royal starting from 1655, it started to develop intense literary activity and philosophical-religious person to disclose and to defend before the world the ideas of Jansenism. Of that activity they resulted, among other works, the " Provincial ", a series of goods writings starting from 1656, and, “Thoughts ", published in 1670, eight years after the author's death.
Besides, Pascal didn't totally stand back of the scientific activity: retaking the previous studies on the subject of the " infinitely small " ones; it developed in 1658 a work on the area of the ciclóide, it curves described by a point of the circumference that rolls on a straight line. That study would be the percursor of the integral calculation, elaborated later by Leibniz and Newton.
But even that scientific work was tied up to problems physiologic-religious persons. In fact, its interest for the " infinitely small " ones was associated to a larger subject. What is the man before the infinite "? Because the man, according to Pascal, is it placed among two infinites: the " infinitely big " (the Universe) and the " infinitely small " (particles, atoms).
Before that immensity, the man meets lost: We " burned in the desire of finding a firm platform and a last and permanent base for on her to build a tower that rises until the infinite; even so, the alicerces ruem and the earth opens up until the abyss ".
If the man, through its reason, gets to unmask several secrets of the world, he will never get to know everything, the infinite. There is only, therefore, a fixed point where the man can lean on: God. But the existence of God establishes in the man the trust in himself. The man continues lost, tormented, while it doesn't come the grace of God. It is not the man that should reveal the existence of God, because the reason is unable of that; the revelation only depends on God. While this not to grant the grace to the man, God will always be occult.
Macbeth
A Tale of Two Theories
Macbeth(c.1607), written by William Shakespeare, is the tragic tale of Macbeth, a virtuous man, corrupted by power and greed. This tagedy could in fact be called "A Tale of Two Theories". One theory suggests that the tragic hero, Macbeth, is led down an unescapable road of doom by an outside force, namely fate in the form of the three witches. The second suggests that there is no supernatural force working against Macbeth, which therefore makes him responsible for his own actions and inevitable downfall. It must be remembered that Macbethis a literary work of art, and as a peice of art is open to many different interpretations, none of them right and none of them wrong. But the text of the play seems to imply that Macbeth is indeed responsible for his own actions which are provoked by an unwillingness to listen to his own conscience, the witches, and his ambition.
First, Macbeth ignores the voice of his own psyche. He knows what he is doing is wrong even before he murders Duncan, but he allows Lady Macbeth and greed to cloud his judgement. In referring to the idea of the murder of Duncan, Macbeth first states,"We will proceed no further in this business"(I.vii.32). Yet, after speaking with Lady Macbeth he recants and proclaims,"I am settled, and bend up/Each corporal agent to this terrible feat"(I.vii.79 80). There is nothing supernatural to be found in a man being swayed by the woman he loves, as a matter of fact this action could be perceived as quite the opposite.
Second, the witches have to be dispelled as a source of Macbeth's misfortune before the latter theory can be considered. It is admittedly strange that the weird sisters first address Macbeth with,"All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee Thane of Cawdor!"(I.iii.49), a title which not even Macbeth is aware he has been awarded. Even stranger is the third witch calling to Macbeth,"All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter!"(I.iii.50). However as stated by Bradley,"No connection of these announcements with any actions of his was even hinted by [the withches]"(232). Some are still not convinced though of the witches less than supernatural role; nevertheless, Macbeth appears throughout the play to be completely aware
3
of his actions, as opposed to being contolled by some mystic force. The effect of the witches on the action of the play is best summarized by these words:
...while the influences of the Witches'
prophecies on Macbeth is very great, it is
quite clearly shown to be an influnce and
nothing more.(Bradley 232)
Most important to the theory that Macbeth is reponsible for his own actions would be a point that the infamous witches and Macbeth agree upon. Such an element exists in the form of Macbeth's ambiton. In the soliloquy Macbeth gives before he murders Duncan, he states, "...I have no spur/To prick the sides of intent, but only/Vaulting ambition,..."(I.vii.25 27). Are these the words of a man who is merely being led down a self dustructive path of doom, with no will of his own? Or are they the words of a man who realizes not only the graveness of his actions, but, also the reasons behind them? The answer is clear, Macbeth is a totally cognizant principal and not a mindless puppet. Later the head witch, Hecate, declares,"Hath been but for a wayward son,/Spiteful and wrathful, who, as others do,/Loves for his own ends, not for you." (III.v.11 13), which again highlights Macbeth's ambitious nature. The most significant part of the play is the part that is missing, and that is a connection between Macbeth's ambition and some spell cast by the weird sisters which might be said to magically cause an increase in his desires.
While purposely played in a mysterious setting, the location is not meant to cloud the true theme of the play with the supernatural. Macbeth simply succumbs to natural urges which take him to a fate of his own making. Everyone has character flaws that he must live with; Macbeth simply allowed those flaws to destroy him.
Macbeth(c.1607), written by William Shakespeare, is the tragic tale of Macbeth, a virtuous man, corrupted by power and greed. This tagedy could in fact be called "A Tale of Two Theories". One theory suggests that the tragic hero, Macbeth, is led down an unescapable road of doom by an outside force, namely fate in the form of the three witches. The second suggests that there is no supernatural force working against Macbeth, which therefore makes him responsible for his own actions and inevitable downfall. It must be remembered that Macbethis a literary work of art, and as a peice of art is open to many different interpretations, none of them right and none of them wrong. But the text of the play seems to imply that Macbeth is indeed responsible for his own actions which are provoked by an unwillingness to listen to his own conscience, the witches, and his ambition.
First, Macbeth ignores the voice of his own psyche. He knows what he is doing is wrong even before he murders Duncan, but he allows Lady Macbeth and greed to cloud his judgement. In referring to the idea of the murder of Duncan, Macbeth first states,"We will proceed no further in this business"(I.vii.32). Yet, after speaking with Lady Macbeth he recants and proclaims,"I am settled, and bend up/Each corporal agent to this terrible feat"(I.vii.79 80). There is nothing supernatural to be found in a man being swayed by the woman he loves, as a matter of fact this action could be perceived as quite the opposite.
Second, the witches have to be dispelled as a source of Macbeth's misfortune before the latter theory can be considered. It is admittedly strange that the weird sisters first address Macbeth with,"All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee Thane of Cawdor!"(I.iii.49), a title which not even Macbeth is aware he has been awarded. Even stranger is the third witch calling to Macbeth,"All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter!"(I.iii.50). However as stated by Bradley,"No connection of these announcements with any actions of his was even hinted by [the withches]"(232). Some are still not convinced though of the witches less than supernatural role; nevertheless, Macbeth appears throughout the play to be completely aware
3
of his actions, as opposed to being contolled by some mystic force. The effect of the witches on the action of the play is best summarized by these words:
...while the influences of the Witches'
prophecies on Macbeth is very great, it is
quite clearly shown to be an influnce and
nothing more.(Bradley 232)
Most important to the theory that Macbeth is reponsible for his own actions would be a point that the infamous witches and Macbeth agree upon. Such an element exists in the form of Macbeth's ambiton. In the soliloquy Macbeth gives before he murders Duncan, he states, "...I have no spur/To prick the sides of intent, but only/Vaulting ambition,..."(I.vii.25 27). Are these the words of a man who is merely being led down a self dustructive path of doom, with no will of his own? Or are they the words of a man who realizes not only the graveness of his actions, but, also the reasons behind them? The answer is clear, Macbeth is a totally cognizant principal and not a mindless puppet. Later the head witch, Hecate, declares,"Hath been but for a wayward son,/Spiteful and wrathful, who, as others do,/Loves for his own ends, not for you." (III.v.11 13), which again highlights Macbeth's ambitious nature. The most significant part of the play is the part that is missing, and that is a connection between Macbeth's ambition and some spell cast by the weird sisters which might be said to magically cause an increase in his desires.
While purposely played in a mysterious setting, the location is not meant to cloud the true theme of the play with the supernatural. Macbeth simply succumbs to natural urges which take him to a fate of his own making. Everyone has character flaws that he must live with; Macbeth simply allowed those flaws to destroy him.
Living Together Before Marriage
Living Together Before Marriage First, let's get some pre-conceived notions out of the way. I am not a religious zealot. I am not some pastor of a church. I am not some founder of a religious organization. I am not a preacher. I was not ordained by God. I am not a harsh judgmental person. I am however, simply 20 years old, struggling to walk with Christ, and my views come from the Bible. They were not taught to me by parents. My church did not teach me this. My youth leader did not tell me what to think. I simply sit down in the corner of my room, open up my Bible and read it, and tell people what I think; not what I FEEL is right, but what I THINK is right based on the Bible. Now let's face the subject at hand. First, I want to answer a question people may have, "Am I a bad person for living with someone before marriage?" This is not a good question to ask. It is equivalent to someone asking, "Do people sin? Can someone on this earth make it without sinning?" The answer is no. The question is not "am I a bad person?" It is "are WE bad people?" Yes we are. Christ says, "Why do you call me good? There is only one that is good. God is good." Paul later says, "For ALL have sinned. . ." People are not "basically good." It's not that you lie once or lust after someone a couple of times, or live with someone before marriage. It's that all people are corrupt. They have an inner nature to rebel aganist laws. There are two types of laws. There are God's natural physical laws (i.e. gravity, etc.), and there are God's moral laws. People's nature is to rebel against God. God says, "Don't lie." The next day, you're lying. God says, "Don't lust." Everyday you find yourself lusting. ALL people have a corrupt, evil, sinful heart. It is a constant battle with the flesh. The flesh says, "Please your body. If your happy, it's fine", but Christ says, "Love people and obey my commands." Second: I DO NOT go by these notions: "If your happy, it's okay." "We use birth control, it's fine." "I have kids; it's fine to live together." "It is a very common thing to do around here; it's fine." "People are going to do it anyway, protect yourself. . .it's fine." I think these notions are false. They go directly against the Bible, and OPPOSITE Christ. Christ says, "Don't do. Period." He does NOT say, "If you're happy. . .", "Use protection", "It's okay to live together, but make sure..." He says, "Do not. Period." But people don't like to hear that. People do not want to be told how to live their life. People want to do what FEELS good and what their body says is pleasing. In Hebrews 3, it says, "...fix your thoughts on Jesus...whom we confess." We are daily supposed to fix our thoughts on Him. Live a life to what HE wants. Jesus tells His people to live a life NOT of the world. Don't love the world or anything in the world. The world thinks it's perfectly fine to do whatever makes you happy. Christ says, "No, you do what I want. If it goes against 10,000 people, you go aganist 10,000 people. If it goes against what your girl/boyfriend desires, you follow Me first. If it seems these disastors will happen to you if you do this, you do it anyway because I told you to." Christ makes it very plain to us that he wants us to live a very moral life on this earth. Christians are supposed to be moral people. They are supposed to be like Christ. Christians live their lives trying to copy Christ. Now, a person may not see the reasons for doing what God wants. You may find yourself asking, "Wait to have sex before marriage?! But why?! There is birth control now! We are engaged to be married! This is a 100% committed relationship! Doing this will make me happy which will make my kids happy!" Christ says, "So? You do what I say. No if's, and's, or but's about it. I created sex for marriage, and I created a man and a woman to marry, not to live together. Why are you having sex before marriage and living together? You are doing the opposite what I say!" "But it's just soooo right to do it!" Christ's only words are: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." Whoever calls himself a Christian and does not obey God's commands, is a lire. Again, to make this straight, there is a difference between God's LAW, and Jesus' COMMANDS. What are Jesus' commands? "Love your neighbor as yourself, and love God with all your heart, soul, and mind." If you love God with everything, you will then do what is morally right. Every law God ever gave is boiled down to those two commands. Now you may ask, "Where does the notion come in that says Christ doesn't want his people to live together before marriage, with sex or no sex?" In the Bible there is NO place that says, "God doesn't want people to live together before marriage, sex or no sex." Just like there is no place in the Bible where the word "Trinity" is used, or there is no place in the Bible where it says, "God doesn't want people to look at pornography." The more you read the Bible, the more you study it, the more deeply you get into it, the more of a bigger picture you will see. It is not that you "look for a specific verse", it is the big picture that God is trying to say. . .the over all thing God is trying to get across. First of all, why is it wrong for Christians to look at porn? Certainly there is no verse which says that, but you can gather it from verses like, "focus on whatever is pure, lovely, true...". From verses like, "If you lust after somebody in your heart, you have already committed adultry," and from others like, "Please Christ, not the flesh." From all those, one can conclude that looking at porn goes against what Christ wants in his people. It is the same idea about living together before marriage. Certainly there is no verse that speaks aganist the specific act. But you can gather it from verses like, "A man and a woman shall leave their parents and become one in the flesh," and from verses like, "Don't place yourself in tempting postions," and "Focus your thoughts on Jesus. . ." and "Marriage should be honored by all. . ." This means you place marriage above anything else. . .above living together, above birth control. Marriage comes first. Then you may find yourself saying, "True. If I move in with my boy/girlfriend (or commonly referred to as "shacking up"), then I AM going aganist what Christ says here and here and here and here and here." Again, it's the big picture the Bible is trying to say through all SORTS of different verses. Second of all, shacking up together is not something you do. You just don't do it. It is not a rule to live by. . .not something you teach your kids. You teach your kids that marriage is to be honored, revered, protected, and profound. . .not living with a shack-up honey. It's like the concept of stealing. If you ask someone, "Why don't you steal? If there was a laptop computer sitting in a room with nobody around, why wouldn't you steal it?" Normally he would say, "It's just wrong," or "It's something that is not to be done," or "It's just not right to do." Same idea about shacking up. It's just wrong. Period. It's not wise, smart, or good. As in stealing a person wouldn't say "Because I might get caught," and in sex or shacking up you wouldn't say, "But I use protection!," or "I am totally committed to this person!" You would simply say, "It's just wrong. It's trying to come as close as you can come to the moral boundaries and trying to get away with it." I believe when Christ appears at his "second coming" and begins to judge every person, millions and millions of people are going to look up at Christ and say: "Ooooops!" I believe that they aren't even going to speak a single word. No defense's are going to come out of their mouths. All Christ will do is just stand in front of them and not say a word and they all will know for certain that they are condemed.. My next point has to do with trusting God. I have heard countless people say, "Well, living together before marriage is smart because THEN you know if this is the person I'm meant to be with;" or the big one, "It would be better if we live together faithfully all our lives, than to get married and divorced." I have several responses to this. One is that you are not honoring marriage a single bit. You are honoring a totally different belief system. You are honoring living together above marriage. Second is that you are not trusting God at all! You are using shacking up as the test to see if you are the right ones to be together, INSTEAD of marrying "the one" picked out by God. You marry that right one, THEN you do not get a divorce. It is NOT the switched around version. The bottom line is, if you just HAVE to move in together, then how can you be trusting God? How is God being trusted here if the notion of "I have to SEE if this is the right one before I get married?" Rather, you should be saying, "I'm trusting God that he will bring me my mate for life, and Christ will be the center of our marriage so that divorce will never happen." To me, a girl like that is an absoulute jewel. A precious stone is such a girl. There is, somewhere, a girl God has for me. The most awesomest God fearing girl there is! God knows my future. God knows when the time is right.
Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in Porbandar, India, on October 2, 1869. Although his father was a chief minister for the maharaja of Porbandar, the family came from the traditional caste of grocers (the name Gandhi means "grocer"). His mother's religion was Jainism, a Hindu religion which ideas of nonviolence and vegetarianism are very important. Gandhi said that he was most influenced by his mother, whose life "was an endless chain of fasts and vows." When, in the company of boyhood friends, he secretly smoked, ate meat, told lies, or wore Western clothing, he had an intense feeling of guilt. These feelings forced him to make resolutions about his moral behaviour that were to stay with him for the rest of his life.
Ghandi married at the age of 13. When he was 18, he went to London to study law. He was admitted to the bar in 1891 and for a while he was attorney in Bombay. From 1893 to 1914 he worked for an Indian firm in South Africa. During these years Gandhi's humiliating experiences of open, official racial discrimination and aphartheid propelled him into agitation on behalf of the Indian community of South Africa.
He started protest campaigns and organized provocating demonstrations, but never used violence. His philosophy was to never fight back against the atrocities, but still never retreat. This, he said, would decrease the hate against him and his fellow believers, and increase the respect felt towards him. Gandhi's one aim was that everybody - hindues, muslims, sikhs, jews, christians, black and white - could live together in peace and harmony.
Under the banner "We are citizens of the empire" he gathered Indians from all over South Africa to a march for freedom.
He gradually developed his techniques and tenets of nonviolent resistance, and when he returned to India in January 1915, he was celebrated as a national hero.
He was soon asked to participate in and organize India's fight for freedom, as he fought aphatheid in South Africa.
Then he started his journey to discover "the real India", the life in the 700.000 small villages and the countryside with all the hardworking men and women.
These were the ones he was going to represent in his fight for justice.
As time passed, more and more people got to know about Gandhi and his controversial views, and Gandhi's popularity grew incredibly fast, something the English Vice-king and government didn't approve of at all. Armed only with honesty and a bamboo stick, Gandhi got through demands like a rebait on rent pay to the English land-owners, freedom for the Indians to grow crops of their own choice and the establishment of a part- Indian commission to hear grievances from the Indians.
The Englishmen allowed these demands without questions, "just to see the back of him".
But Gandhi had greater aims.
They sent Gandhi to jail several times, but they always had to release him, because he never used or indirectly caused violence or crime. He convinced almost everyone that nonviolence increases respect and decreases hate, but terror-actions and violence justifies the atrocities.
Now, the Englishmen were getting afraid of this little, big man. And fright made them dangerous.
In the town of Amritsar in 1919, English soliders, armed with guns, attacked and shot to kill hundreds of nationalist demonstrators, demonstrators who's goal was, ironically enough, nonviolence. 1516 demonstrators were killed or wounded.
The general said that he wanted to give the Indians a lesson that would have an impact throughout all of India.
The English people and government reputiated this terrible action and the attitude that prompted it.
The massacre of Amritsar turned Gandhi to direct political protest, and made it possible for him to propose that maybe it was time for the Englishmen to go home for good. Within a year he was the dominant figure in the Indian National Congress, where Gandhi challenged the Brits: "100.000 Englishmen cannot control 350 million Indians if these Indians won't cooperate".
That was what Gandhi wanted to achieve when he launched on a policy of noncooperation with the British. Nonviolence and noncooperation would make India independent of the British Empire, and the Indians would see the Englishmen off as friends.
The first action of this noncooperation policy was to make the indians realize that to buy and use cotton clothing made in England made the Indian people unemployed and poor.
But one day a policeman got killed as a direct consequence of one of the civil disobedience-marches, and Gandhi felt obligated to abandon total noncooperation.
Despite that Gandhi actually stopped a revolution that cold have cost hundreds of Englishmens lives, Gandhi was sentenced to jail, this time on the charges of encouraging the Indian people to noncooperation and civil disobedience.
The Englishmen thought that after a few years in jail, Gandhi would be forgotten.
But from the first day he became a free man he once again fought for a free India.
In 1930 Gandhi arranged one of his most famous anti-English action: The salt march. This was a reaction to England's unreasonable salt-taxes. The Indish people are, as all other people, dependent of salt. Many Indians couldn't afford salt because of the new taxes. Gandhi gathered hundreds of thousands people, and they all marched towards the Indian Sea to extract salt from the ocean. First, the British government chose to overlook it, but after a while they tried to stop the action. They arrested 90-100.00 people, and in one demonstration the British soliders killed and wounded 10-20.000 men.
After the salt-massacre the British empire's moral and ethic reputation was lost forever (if there ever were any).
India had endured all the cruelties, unreason and hardship, and the people had neither defeated nor retreated. In everybodies hearts, India was now free and independent.
It seemed like the British government finally saw that, because in 1931 Gandhi was invited to participate in a government-conference in London, to discuss "the possible independence of India".
But the talking in England ends in nothing, India is still a part of the British empire.
Together with his struggle for political independence, Gandhi fought to improve the status of the lowest classes of society, the casteless "Untouchables", whom he called harijans ("children of God"). He was a believer in manual labor and simple living; he spun the thread and wove the cloth for his own garments and insisted that his followers do so, too. He disagreed with those who wanted India to become an industrial country.
Gandhi thought that his philisophy, the nonviolent resistance, could be used during World War II. Not without a great number of causualties and deaths of course, but people always get killed or wounded in wars.
In 1942-44, Gandhi was imprisoned for the last time, after he had demanded total withdrawal of the British (the "Quit India" movement).
Gandhi was tireless in his attempts to get a closer relationship between the Hindu majority and the numerous minorities of India, particularly the Muslims. His greatest failure, in fact, was his inability to dissuade India Muslims, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, from creating a separate state, Pakistan.
When independence of India was finally achieved in 1947 after negotiations in whitch Gandhi was a principal participant, he opposed the partition of India with such intensity that he launched a mass movement against it. This resulted in a gruesome Civil War in India and Pakistan, the muslims fought the hindues. Millions of people got killed, men, women and children were slaughtered.
Gandhi couldn't watch this without action. He started fasting and said he would not eat until he was convinced that the fighting would stop, and never ever start again. And once again the people of India listened to Bapu, the country's Father. The fighting stopped and the people swore that they would rather die than fight again, noone wanted to see Gandhi die!
Nobody but one.
January 30, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated in Dehli by a Hindu fanatic who mistakenly thought that Gandhi was both pro-Muslim and pro-Pakistan.
India had lost their father, the whole world had lost one of the greatest and wisest men ever.
Gen. George C. Marshal, American Secretary of State, said about Gandhi:
"Mahatma Gandhi has become a spokesman for the concience of all mankind.
He was a man who made humility and simple truth more powerful than
Empires."
And Albert Einstein added:
"Generations to come will scarcely not believe that such a man as this ever
in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth."
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in Porbandar, India, on October 2, 1869. Although his father was a chief minister for the maharaja of Porbandar, the family came from the traditional caste of grocers (the name Gandhi means "grocer"). His mother's religion was Jainism, a Hindu religion which ideas of nonviolence and vegetarianism are very important. Gandhi said that he was most influenced by his mother, whose life "was an endless chain of fasts and vows." When, in the company of boyhood friends, he secretly smoked, ate meat, told lies, or wore Western clothing, he had an intense feeling of guilt. These feelings forced him to make resolutions about his moral behaviour that were to stay with him for the rest of his life.
Ghandi married at the age of 13. When he was 18, he went to London to study law. He was admitted to the bar in 1891 and for a while he was attorney in Bombay. From 1893 to 1914 he worked for an Indian firm in South Africa. During these years Gandhi's humiliating experiences of open, official racial discrimination and aphartheid propelled him into agitation on behalf of the Indian community of South Africa.
He started protest campaigns and organized provocating demonstrations, but never used violence. His philosophy was to never fight back against the atrocities, but still never retreat. This, he said, would decrease the hate against him and his fellow believers, and increase the respect felt towards him. Gandhi's one aim was that everybody - hindues, muslims, sikhs, jews, christians, black and white - could live together in peace and harmony.
Under the banner "We are citizens of the empire" he gathered Indians from all over South Africa to a march for freedom.
He gradually developed his techniques and tenets of nonviolent resistance, and when he returned to India in January 1915, he was celebrated as a national hero.
He was soon asked to participate in and organize India's fight for freedom, as he fought aphatheid in South Africa.
Then he started his journey to discover "the real India", the life in the 700.000 small villages and the countryside with all the hardworking men and women.
These were the ones he was going to represent in his fight for justice.
As time passed, more and more people got to know about Gandhi and his controversial views, and Gandhi's popularity grew incredibly fast, something the English Vice-king and government didn't approve of at all. Armed only with honesty and a bamboo stick, Gandhi got through demands like a rebait on rent pay to the English land-owners, freedom for the Indians to grow crops of their own choice and the establishment of a part- Indian commission to hear grievances from the Indians.
The Englishmen allowed these demands without questions, "just to see the back of him".
But Gandhi had greater aims.
They sent Gandhi to jail several times, but they always had to release him, because he never used or indirectly caused violence or crime. He convinced almost everyone that nonviolence increases respect and decreases hate, but terror-actions and violence justifies the atrocities.
Now, the Englishmen were getting afraid of this little, big man. And fright made them dangerous.
In the town of Amritsar in 1919, English soliders, armed with guns, attacked and shot to kill hundreds of nationalist demonstrators, demonstrators who's goal was, ironically enough, nonviolence. 1516 demonstrators were killed or wounded.
The general said that he wanted to give the Indians a lesson that would have an impact throughout all of India.
The English people and government reputiated this terrible action and the attitude that prompted it.
The massacre of Amritsar turned Gandhi to direct political protest, and made it possible for him to propose that maybe it was time for the Englishmen to go home for good. Within a year he was the dominant figure in the Indian National Congress, where Gandhi challenged the Brits: "100.000 Englishmen cannot control 350 million Indians if these Indians won't cooperate".
That was what Gandhi wanted to achieve when he launched on a policy of noncooperation with the British. Nonviolence and noncooperation would make India independent of the British Empire, and the Indians would see the Englishmen off as friends.
The first action of this noncooperation policy was to make the indians realize that to buy and use cotton clothing made in England made the Indian people unemployed and poor.
But one day a policeman got killed as a direct consequence of one of the civil disobedience-marches, and Gandhi felt obligated to abandon total noncooperation.
Despite that Gandhi actually stopped a revolution that cold have cost hundreds of Englishmens lives, Gandhi was sentenced to jail, this time on the charges of encouraging the Indian people to noncooperation and civil disobedience.
The Englishmen thought that after a few years in jail, Gandhi would be forgotten.
But from the first day he became a free man he once again fought for a free India.
In 1930 Gandhi arranged one of his most famous anti-English action: The salt march. This was a reaction to England's unreasonable salt-taxes. The Indish people are, as all other people, dependent of salt. Many Indians couldn't afford salt because of the new taxes. Gandhi gathered hundreds of thousands people, and they all marched towards the Indian Sea to extract salt from the ocean. First, the British government chose to overlook it, but after a while they tried to stop the action. They arrested 90-100.00 people, and in one demonstration the British soliders killed and wounded 10-20.000 men.
After the salt-massacre the British empire's moral and ethic reputation was lost forever (if there ever were any).
India had endured all the cruelties, unreason and hardship, and the people had neither defeated nor retreated. In everybodies hearts, India was now free and independent.
It seemed like the British government finally saw that, because in 1931 Gandhi was invited to participate in a government-conference in London, to discuss "the possible independence of India".
But the talking in England ends in nothing, India is still a part of the British empire.
Together with his struggle for political independence, Gandhi fought to improve the status of the lowest classes of society, the casteless "Untouchables", whom he called harijans ("children of God"). He was a believer in manual labor and simple living; he spun the thread and wove the cloth for his own garments and insisted that his followers do so, too. He disagreed with those who wanted India to become an industrial country.
Gandhi thought that his philisophy, the nonviolent resistance, could be used during World War II. Not without a great number of causualties and deaths of course, but people always get killed or wounded in wars.
In 1942-44, Gandhi was imprisoned for the last time, after he had demanded total withdrawal of the British (the "Quit India" movement).
Gandhi was tireless in his attempts to get a closer relationship between the Hindu majority and the numerous minorities of India, particularly the Muslims. His greatest failure, in fact, was his inability to dissuade India Muslims, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, from creating a separate state, Pakistan.
When independence of India was finally achieved in 1947 after negotiations in whitch Gandhi was a principal participant, he opposed the partition of India with such intensity that he launched a mass movement against it. This resulted in a gruesome Civil War in India and Pakistan, the muslims fought the hindues. Millions of people got killed, men, women and children were slaughtered.
Gandhi couldn't watch this without action. He started fasting and said he would not eat until he was convinced that the fighting would stop, and never ever start again. And once again the people of India listened to Bapu, the country's Father. The fighting stopped and the people swore that they would rather die than fight again, noone wanted to see Gandhi die!
Nobody but one.
January 30, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated in Dehli by a Hindu fanatic who mistakenly thought that Gandhi was both pro-Muslim and pro-Pakistan.
India had lost their father, the whole world had lost one of the greatest and wisest men ever.
Gen. George C. Marshal, American Secretary of State, said about Gandhi:
"Mahatma Gandhi has become a spokesman for the concience of all mankind.
He was a man who made humility and simple truth more powerful than
Empires."
And Albert Einstein added:
"Generations to come will scarcely not believe that such a man as this ever
in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth."
Home sweet home
Engelsk stilinnlevering
Oppgave 5
Uke 43
I chose to divide the composition into three, and use all of the headlines.
Home sweet home
I’m home....my worst nightmare was over. The last five days I have spent in a dark, cold «mine». I did never thought I got home, but I did and here is the story....
Left alone
It was Sunday morning. The autumn had coloured the nature with all kinds of coloures. It was beautiful. Mum and I decided to go for a walk. We went up to the hills and headed for the mountains. It was beautiful. Once again I sat down and thought about life. God must have a colourfull fantasy if he really created this, I thought to myself. After a few hours of walking my mother was getting on my nerves.
-I got to go pee. I’ll be right back, I said. I had to get some rest from my mother, so I sat down. Later I had to go back to her so she wouldn’t worry. From here I don’t remember that much, besides that I was falling into a big hole. I’ve still got bruces from the landing. It was dark and cold. I was screaming for my mother, but there was no use. I took out a lighter from my bag. I lightened it, and I could not see anything but walls. Where were I, in a cave, or a kind of cellar? I was left alone, and it was getting dark. I thought about my mother, what would she think? I fooled around in my bag, and I found some of my mother’s cigaretts.
I knew it was bad for me but I took one anyway. It was getting cold, and I was hungry too. I looked in the bag again and I grabbed some biscuits to eat, and a coat to wear. I thought to myself; what if they don’t find me, how do I get out, and do they even care looking for me? I was frightened to death. I didn’t know if there was day or night, but I got up and looked around. I found a lantern, and lightened it up. I didn’t believe my own eyes...It was some kind of a mine. I jumped into a wagon, and rolled slowly longer into the mine. After fooling around in the mine for a long time I gleamed light ahead of me. I was free, well I thought so, but I was wrong. As far as I could see, I saw mountains, nothing but mountains. I didn’t know what to do. I sat down and cried, I cried for a long time. I didn’t know how much I would miss my family and friends until then. I missed my bed to. I had not slept for two days, so I lied down and fell asleep. I slept for a long time.....
Saved!
....and when I woke up, I was home. I didn’t understand how or when I got home, but that didn’t make any differents, because all that mattered was that I was home......
Jon Anders Midthun
Oppgave 5
Uke 43
I chose to divide the composition into three, and use all of the headlines.
Home sweet home
I’m home....my worst nightmare was over. The last five days I have spent in a dark, cold «mine». I did never thought I got home, but I did and here is the story....
Left alone
It was Sunday morning. The autumn had coloured the nature with all kinds of coloures. It was beautiful. Mum and I decided to go for a walk. We went up to the hills and headed for the mountains. It was beautiful. Once again I sat down and thought about life. God must have a colourfull fantasy if he really created this, I thought to myself. After a few hours of walking my mother was getting on my nerves.
-I got to go pee. I’ll be right back, I said. I had to get some rest from my mother, so I sat down. Later I had to go back to her so she wouldn’t worry. From here I don’t remember that much, besides that I was falling into a big hole. I’ve still got bruces from the landing. It was dark and cold. I was screaming for my mother, but there was no use. I took out a lighter from my bag. I lightened it, and I could not see anything but walls. Where were I, in a cave, or a kind of cellar? I was left alone, and it was getting dark. I thought about my mother, what would she think? I fooled around in my bag, and I found some of my mother’s cigaretts.
I knew it was bad for me but I took one anyway. It was getting cold, and I was hungry too. I looked in the bag again and I grabbed some biscuits to eat, and a coat to wear. I thought to myself; what if they don’t find me, how do I get out, and do they even care looking for me? I was frightened to death. I didn’t know if there was day or night, but I got up and looked around. I found a lantern, and lightened it up. I didn’t believe my own eyes...It was some kind of a mine. I jumped into a wagon, and rolled slowly longer into the mine. After fooling around in the mine for a long time I gleamed light ahead of me. I was free, well I thought so, but I was wrong. As far as I could see, I saw mountains, nothing but mountains. I didn’t know what to do. I sat down and cried, I cried for a long time. I didn’t know how much I would miss my family and friends until then. I missed my bed to. I had not slept for two days, so I lied down and fell asleep. I slept for a long time.....
Saved!
....and when I woke up, I was home. I didn’t understand how or when I got home, but that didn’t make any differents, because all that mattered was that I was home......
Jon Anders Midthun
THE GREAT DEPRESSION
THE GREAT DEPRESSION
"ONLY A PERIODIC LOW-POINT, OR A
BREAKDOWN OF CAPITALISM?"
The great depression from 1929 and into the 1930's, is the period in modern times with the largest unemployment, and the highest frequencies of bankruptcies. But can one from this say that "the Great Depression" was a breakdown of capitalism? Or was it simply an economic low-point that had to follow the prosperous 20's?
In the 1920's everything seemed to be running smoothly over the whole world. People had a good time and business prospered. Lots of new inventions were introduced such as the first planes, the radio and many families got hold of a refrigerators. In the more wealthy families they even had washing machines and vacuum cleaners. As the 20's were coming to an end, over 20 million Americans had cars.
During the 1920's there was a free marked where all was manufactured from the play of
supply and demand on the world marked. The whole production was based on credit i.e..
promise to pay in the future. The system was based on mutual confidence and exchange.
The economy was dependent on foreign loans, and government expenditure was
dangerously high, with businesses suffering from low profit margins.
The world believed that the great expansion, as in the early 20's, would continue and with all
the new inventions life would become pure joy and happiness. Sales, profits and wages went
through the roof.
The acute phase of the Great Depression began in October 1929, on "the Black Friday", with the Wall Street Crash and continued through the early 1930s. The stock marked crash was not the cause of the depression, but a symptom of a problem whose real causes lay much deeper. Some of them even so fare away from Wall Street, as the farmers of eastern Europe,
After share prices plunged on Wall Street in 1929 the US banks began to call in their foreign
loans. They had also loaned money to many people who as a result of the Crash could not
repay it. Meanwhile, those who had money on deposit at the bank began to withdraw it.
Without enough money to pay depositors, many banks collapsed. A shortage of cash meant
that there was less money to invest in industry and less money to be spent on industrial and
farm products. Many banks had to close down, and was the mere symbol of how terrifying the depression was. The first bank to close down in Europe was the "Creditanstalt" in Vienna in 1931.
As the depression got worse the years following the "Black Friday" (1929), different views developed on what had to be done. The optimists, people like president H.C. Hoover, believed this was just a periodic low point that had to follow the prosperity of the 20's, and that the prosperity was just around the corner. They said this based on earlier experiences, and knowledge of that history repeats itself. They said that the depression followed the prosperity as WW1 had followed the prosperity at the change of the century. Hoovers way of tackling the depression made him very unpopular.
Hoover was inaugurated in March 1929, and enjoyed only half a year of the economic prosperity with which the country had become familiar. He took unprecedented measures to deal with the depression as for the interest of maintaining consumer purchasing power, he urged business leaders not to cut wages, as had been their usual custom during hard times. His policy was only temporarily successful; production declined, unemployment grew, and eventually wages for those still employed were cut after all.
The people not so optimistic as Hoover, took measures to prevent getting dragged down into the dark whole of economic ruin.
On the international scene this meant an end to the old economic system, with manufacturing from the play of supply and demand. Now every country tried to protect itself by putting up high tariffs so to make sure it got to sell its own products. This again gradually lead to the abandoning of the gold standard. In this way the world capitalism was effected, but not broken down. There was still buying and selling across boarders even though in a much smaller scale. Some measures were though taken at the bottom of the depression which reminded strongly of the communism of the Soviet Union. When Hoover was replaced by Roosevelt in 1933, factories were put on manufacturing schemes and rationalism appeared in many aspects of life. The governments took hold of production to get the countries up of the dump. This can be said to be a breakdown of capitalism to a certain extent, but can also be viewed as a strengthening and return to capitalism. It would take more than two-three years to breakdown a system that it had taken so long to build up.
In Germany, the withdrawal of foreign finance in the early 1930s and the resulting
hardships opened the way for the rise of fascism and Adolf Hitler. The withdrawal of loans from Germany was not meant as a punishment of Germany, but a measure of saving ones own skin. In the totalitarian system of Hitler Germany there was a special kind of capitalism, which was run by the government, but distributed by the people. In many countries the Great Depression resulted in a big shift in public attitudes and in government policy towards welfare provision.
"ONLY A PERIODIC LOW-POINT, OR A
BREAKDOWN OF CAPITALISM?"
The great depression from 1929 and into the 1930's, is the period in modern times with the largest unemployment, and the highest frequencies of bankruptcies. But can one from this say that "the Great Depression" was a breakdown of capitalism? Or was it simply an economic low-point that had to follow the prosperous 20's?
In the 1920's everything seemed to be running smoothly over the whole world. People had a good time and business prospered. Lots of new inventions were introduced such as the first planes, the radio and many families got hold of a refrigerators. In the more wealthy families they even had washing machines and vacuum cleaners. As the 20's were coming to an end, over 20 million Americans had cars.
During the 1920's there was a free marked where all was manufactured from the play of
supply and demand on the world marked. The whole production was based on credit i.e..
promise to pay in the future. The system was based on mutual confidence and exchange.
The economy was dependent on foreign loans, and government expenditure was
dangerously high, with businesses suffering from low profit margins.
The world believed that the great expansion, as in the early 20's, would continue and with all
the new inventions life would become pure joy and happiness. Sales, profits and wages went
through the roof.
The acute phase of the Great Depression began in October 1929, on "the Black Friday", with the Wall Street Crash and continued through the early 1930s. The stock marked crash was not the cause of the depression, but a symptom of a problem whose real causes lay much deeper. Some of them even so fare away from Wall Street, as the farmers of eastern Europe,
After share prices plunged on Wall Street in 1929 the US banks began to call in their foreign
loans. They had also loaned money to many people who as a result of the Crash could not
repay it. Meanwhile, those who had money on deposit at the bank began to withdraw it.
Without enough money to pay depositors, many banks collapsed. A shortage of cash meant
that there was less money to invest in industry and less money to be spent on industrial and
farm products. Many banks had to close down, and was the mere symbol of how terrifying the depression was. The first bank to close down in Europe was the "Creditanstalt" in Vienna in 1931.
As the depression got worse the years following the "Black Friday" (1929), different views developed on what had to be done. The optimists, people like president H.C. Hoover, believed this was just a periodic low point that had to follow the prosperity of the 20's, and that the prosperity was just around the corner. They said this based on earlier experiences, and knowledge of that history repeats itself. They said that the depression followed the prosperity as WW1 had followed the prosperity at the change of the century. Hoovers way of tackling the depression made him very unpopular.
Hoover was inaugurated in March 1929, and enjoyed only half a year of the economic prosperity with which the country had become familiar. He took unprecedented measures to deal with the depression as for the interest of maintaining consumer purchasing power, he urged business leaders not to cut wages, as had been their usual custom during hard times. His policy was only temporarily successful; production declined, unemployment grew, and eventually wages for those still employed were cut after all.
The people not so optimistic as Hoover, took measures to prevent getting dragged down into the dark whole of economic ruin.
On the international scene this meant an end to the old economic system, with manufacturing from the play of supply and demand. Now every country tried to protect itself by putting up high tariffs so to make sure it got to sell its own products. This again gradually lead to the abandoning of the gold standard. In this way the world capitalism was effected, but not broken down. There was still buying and selling across boarders even though in a much smaller scale. Some measures were though taken at the bottom of the depression which reminded strongly of the communism of the Soviet Union. When Hoover was replaced by Roosevelt in 1933, factories were put on manufacturing schemes and rationalism appeared in many aspects of life. The governments took hold of production to get the countries up of the dump. This can be said to be a breakdown of capitalism to a certain extent, but can also be viewed as a strengthening and return to capitalism. It would take more than two-three years to breakdown a system that it had taken so long to build up.
In Germany, the withdrawal of foreign finance in the early 1930s and the resulting
hardships opened the way for the rise of fascism and Adolf Hitler. The withdrawal of loans from Germany was not meant as a punishment of Germany, but a measure of saving ones own skin. In the totalitarian system of Hitler Germany there was a special kind of capitalism, which was run by the government, but distributed by the people. In many countries the Great Depression resulted in a big shift in public attitudes and in government policy towards welfare provision.
Summary of 'The Country of the Blind'
Summary of 'The Country of the Blind'
Author: Herbert George Wells
Plot: In this tale a mountain climber falls off into a strange and isolated world which is inhabited by blind people who claim to have been in existence for about 15 generations and cut off from the rest of the world by an earthquake in the early years of founding. The intruder remembers an old rhyme and quickly decides that "In the Country of the Blind, the One-eyed Man is King."
However, his attitude seems wrong in a society which no longer knows the meaning of the word "see" and still operates perfectly, effectively and happily with their other senses tuned sensitively. Virtually imprisoned and relegated to serve them, the interloper begins to learn living with his disability - his sight. Eventually he falls in love with a woman. He gains the permission to marry her only if he is willing to abandon his eyes, which are deemed the course of the irrational outbursts which occurred in the beginning of his 'imprisonment', and have them removed. When he finally has to choose between his love and one of his most important senses, his sight, he chooses the latter one and decides to break out.
Interpretation: The whole story is a reversal of the idea of disability which shows us that the circumstances alone define the word disability. The experience of being an alien seems to be the major point of this story.
The visitor first thinks that he has got an advantage over the blind people, remembering an old phrase: "In the Country of the Blind, the One-eyed Man is King," but his advantage turns out to be in fact a disadvantage. The climax of the story is the end where he has to decide whether his sight is more important to him or love.
Author: Herbert George Wells
Plot: In this tale a mountain climber falls off into a strange and isolated world which is inhabited by blind people who claim to have been in existence for about 15 generations and cut off from the rest of the world by an earthquake in the early years of founding. The intruder remembers an old rhyme and quickly decides that "In the Country of the Blind, the One-eyed Man is King."
However, his attitude seems wrong in a society which no longer knows the meaning of the word "see" and still operates perfectly, effectively and happily with their other senses tuned sensitively. Virtually imprisoned and relegated to serve them, the interloper begins to learn living with his disability - his sight. Eventually he falls in love with a woman. He gains the permission to marry her only if he is willing to abandon his eyes, which are deemed the course of the irrational outbursts which occurred in the beginning of his 'imprisonment', and have them removed. When he finally has to choose between his love and one of his most important senses, his sight, he chooses the latter one and decides to break out.
Interpretation: The whole story is a reversal of the idea of disability which shows us that the circumstances alone define the word disability. The experience of being an alien seems to be the major point of this story.
The visitor first thinks that he has got an advantage over the blind people, remembering an old phrase: "In the Country of the Blind, the One-eyed Man is King," but his advantage turns out to be in fact a disadvantage. The climax of the story is the end where he has to decide whether his sight is more important to him or love.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS
CHEMICAL WEAPONS
It is time for Norwegians to get their heads out of the sand
regarding chemical weapons. Declaring Norway a chemical weapons
free area is an illusion. Those Soviet systems on the Kola
Peninsula capable of delivering chemical weapons are not there
for the amusement of Russian soldiers.
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev did not get around to
discussing chemical weapons in Iceland. An American official who
was there commented that there are only so many hours in a day.
Another reason was that there was little public pressure.
This is surprising, since a number of countries have used
chemical weapons since World War II, most recently in the Iraq-
Iran conflict. Furthermore, they have always been used against
countries which had poor chemical defenses and little or nothing
with which to retaliate.
A quarter of a century ago, there were about five countries
with chemical weapons. There are now about fifteen, and the
number is growing.
It is ironic that most discussion recently has been about
the US decision to produce binary chemical weapons. These
consist of two chemicals, which remain separate until firing. If
nothing else, they are safer to transport and store than the
present unitary weapons.
Most people have forgotten that the US unilaterally ceased
production of chemical weapons in 1969. There has also been
little interest until recently in the stocks of American chemical
weapons which have been in Europe for decades. Nor did anyone
pay much attention to the Soviet buildup of its chemical forces
which followed the US decision to stop production.
It was only when the Storting Foreign Affairs Committee went
to Washington early this year that the binary weapon issue arose
here. At that time, the committee's members learned that some
Congressmen who were opposing the binary weapons insisted on
consulting NATO.
During the discussion of the binaries in NATO, some coun-
tries, including Norway, registered their objections. Most of
the members, however, regretfully endorsed them.
Subsequently, the US Congress has authorized the Pentagon to
go ahead with the production of some binary weapons. The US Army
will stockpile these in the US. It will also destroy all of its
present chemical stocks.
General Bernard Rogers, the senior NATO commander in Europe,
has expressed his satisfaction with these arrangements. He is,
however, not happy with the unwillingness of NATO politicians to
provide him guidance regarding the possible use of chemical
weapons.
NATO strategy provides for the possible use of chemical
weapons, in response to their use by the Soviet Union. Unlike
with nuclear weapons, however, Rogers has no political guidelines
regarding how chemical weapons might be used.
If, for example, the Soviets were to use chemical weapons
against Norway, how should NATO military commanders respond?
Should they only take protective measures, which will greatly
limit their ability to fight? If the decision were to retaliate
with chemical weapons, what kind should they use and against what
targets?
Some people suggest that NATO could retaliate with nuclear
weapons. Are they serious? Can anyone imagine an American
President authorizing the use of nuclear weapons because the
Soviets used some chemical weapons against, for example, Norwe-
gian troops in Finnmark?
Everyone agrees that the best solution would be to destroy
all chemical weapons. There have been negotiations on this
subject in Geneva for many years now.
The main obstacle is verification. There has been much
controversy regarding American charges that the Soviets are
producing biological weapons and have used chemical weapons, for
example in Afghanistan. If these charges were wrong, the Soviets
could have dispelled them easily by allowing on site inspections.
Until they understand this, there will be no agreement on
chemical weapons. When talking to Russians, Norwegians should
point this out.
In writing this article, I am not suggesting that Norwegians
should not continue to be concerned about nuclear weapons. After
Iceland, one can at least hope that there will be some reduction
in their numbers. As things are going, one cannot be equally
optimistic about chemical weapons.
If there is to be any progress regarding chemical weapons in
Geneva, governments must show more concern. This in turn will
require that the public learn to discuss this emotional subject
at least as calmly as they do nuclear weapons. Ignoring chemical
weapons because they are terrible will not make them go away.
It is time for Norwegians to get their heads out of the sand
regarding chemical weapons. Declaring Norway a chemical weapons
free area is an illusion. Those Soviet systems on the Kola
Peninsula capable of delivering chemical weapons are not there
for the amusement of Russian soldiers.
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev did not get around to
discussing chemical weapons in Iceland. An American official who
was there commented that there are only so many hours in a day.
Another reason was that there was little public pressure.
This is surprising, since a number of countries have used
chemical weapons since World War II, most recently in the Iraq-
Iran conflict. Furthermore, they have always been used against
countries which had poor chemical defenses and little or nothing
with which to retaliate.
A quarter of a century ago, there were about five countries
with chemical weapons. There are now about fifteen, and the
number is growing.
It is ironic that most discussion recently has been about
the US decision to produce binary chemical weapons. These
consist of two chemicals, which remain separate until firing. If
nothing else, they are safer to transport and store than the
present unitary weapons.
Most people have forgotten that the US unilaterally ceased
production of chemical weapons in 1969. There has also been
little interest until recently in the stocks of American chemical
weapons which have been in Europe for decades. Nor did anyone
pay much attention to the Soviet buildup of its chemical forces
which followed the US decision to stop production.
It was only when the Storting Foreign Affairs Committee went
to Washington early this year that the binary weapon issue arose
here. At that time, the committee's members learned that some
Congressmen who were opposing the binary weapons insisted on
consulting NATO.
During the discussion of the binaries in NATO, some coun-
tries, including Norway, registered their objections. Most of
the members, however, regretfully endorsed them.
Subsequently, the US Congress has authorized the Pentagon to
go ahead with the production of some binary weapons. The US Army
will stockpile these in the US. It will also destroy all of its
present chemical stocks.
General Bernard Rogers, the senior NATO commander in Europe,
has expressed his satisfaction with these arrangements. He is,
however, not happy with the unwillingness of NATO politicians to
provide him guidance regarding the possible use of chemical
weapons.
NATO strategy provides for the possible use of chemical
weapons, in response to their use by the Soviet Union. Unlike
with nuclear weapons, however, Rogers has no political guidelines
regarding how chemical weapons might be used.
If, for example, the Soviets were to use chemical weapons
against Norway, how should NATO military commanders respond?
Should they only take protective measures, which will greatly
limit their ability to fight? If the decision were to retaliate
with chemical weapons, what kind should they use and against what
targets?
Some people suggest that NATO could retaliate with nuclear
weapons. Are they serious? Can anyone imagine an American
President authorizing the use of nuclear weapons because the
Soviets used some chemical weapons against, for example, Norwe-
gian troops in Finnmark?
Everyone agrees that the best solution would be to destroy
all chemical weapons. There have been negotiations on this
subject in Geneva for many years now.
The main obstacle is verification. There has been much
controversy regarding American charges that the Soviets are
producing biological weapons and have used chemical weapons, for
example in Afghanistan. If these charges were wrong, the Soviets
could have dispelled them easily by allowing on site inspections.
Until they understand this, there will be no agreement on
chemical weapons. When talking to Russians, Norwegians should
point this out.
In writing this article, I am not suggesting that Norwegians
should not continue to be concerned about nuclear weapons. After
Iceland, one can at least hope that there will be some reduction
in their numbers. As things are going, one cannot be equally
optimistic about chemical weapons.
If there is to be any progress regarding chemical weapons in
Geneva, governments must show more concern. This in turn will
require that the public learn to discuss this emotional subject
at least as calmly as they do nuclear weapons. Ignoring chemical
weapons because they are terrible will not make them go away.
Breakdown of the early Ancient roman republic
Essay on the breakdown of the early Ancient roman republic.
For men who had easily endured hardship, danger and difficult uncertainty, leisure and riches, though in some ways desirable, proved burdensome and a source of grief. Sallust
The causes for the breakdown of the early Roman Republic cannot be attributed to a single event, trend or individual, rather it was due to a combination of all three in varying degrees. The principal and fundamental cause was the breakdown of the political checks and balances, particularly the Cursus Honorum from 133 BC onwards. This subversion occurred both accidentally and through the subversive behavior of individuals, unconsciously and consciously undermining the fabric of the republic in their quest for power and glory. One substantial outcome of this incapacitation was the emergence of violence as a political means. Once this had occurred the end of the old republic was heralded an autocratic dictatorship was born.
The republic was born out of a collapsed monarchy and was specifically geared to prevent a centralization of power. The mechanisms to this end were contained in the Cursus Honorum, a document that outlined the ladder of offices. It demanded, among other things, 10 years of military or legal service before any magistracy could be held, annual election and two years between consecutive offices (Plutarch, 1974. p.140). This system was designed to ensure that no individual could become too powerful by dividing jurisdiction between several groups and allowing for veto.
The Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius are often blamed for causing divisions and antagonizing the aristocracy and particularly the senate by introducing laws and legislation that, although promoting egalitarianism for the poor, were catalysts to later breaches of the Cursus Honorum. Both Tiberius and Gaius had laws enacted without consulting the senate. This weakened the senate’s power and started a trend of ignoring the senate that remained until the breakdown (Plutarch, 1986. p 176). These Graccian reforms included the implementation of a welfare system whereby Romans citizens would be given free corn and the Lex Agraria or land reforms that broke down the latafundia and increased the number of small-scale farms. The welfare corn system not only aroused violent anger from the nobility but also created an urban mob (Suetonius, 1979. p.42) that relied on handouts and later participated in violence. Tiberius Gracchus ran for election to the tribunate for two years consecutively (123 and 122 BC). This was in direct contradiction to the Cursus honorum. The senate, when they heard of Tiberius’ plan, killed him. This action was significant, due to it being the first time that violence had been used for a political end, it was not to be the last.
Marius and Sulla, great leaders of Rome from 119 to 78 BC, can be attributed part of the blame for the breakdown of the republic. Their constant quarreling led to factional fighting amongst the people and eventually to civil war. Marius came into power before Sulla and, like the Gracchi, showed a tendency towards disturbing the status quo and antagonized the nobility. Marius’ reforms centered on military change, the most controversial of which was the extension of military service for the landless class. This seemingly insignificant reform had wide repercussions since it created semi-professional soldiers rather than a citizen militia (Bradley, 1990. p 270). Since no pension scheme was organized, the soldiers were largely dependent on their commanders for payment and pensions of land. This dependence led to the soldiers being "tied" to their commanders, allowing for the later development of armies that were loyal to individuals rather than to the state. Marius’ contempt for the Cursus Honorum is illustrated by his standing in the consular elections while not in Rome, a post that he gained and held for six years. This action was in direct contradiction to the rule of one-year consulships in the Cursus Honorum and allowed Marius to establish a power base that he used for his own political designs.
Both Marius and Sulla used violence openly as a political means. The first such incident was during the tribunal election where Marius killed Nonnius, a political opponent to his friend Saturnius. This was not the only example of violence from Marius. When returned from exile, he killed everyone who had ever offended him and took their land for himself. Sulla was not much better, having a similar proscription list and sometimes adding names to the list simply to acquire property. Legions of Roman soldiers, who had effectualy turned into private armies, carried out these executions. This practice of obtaining soldiers for personal means led eventually to the widespread use of violence and eventually to civil war.
Close to the end of the republic, a triumvirate arose, combining the three most powerful men in Rome-Pompey, Caesar and Crassus. Caesar engineered the union, using the military and political skill of Pompey and the Financial and political power of Crassus for his own benefit. He manipulated both men to pass legislation and reforms that would spell the end of the republic and catapult him into an autocratic Dictatorship.
Caesar, upon election to his first consulship in 59 BC, was faced not only with a hostile senate, but also a large proportion of the tribunes, acting on behalf of the nobles, that seemed determined to oppose his amendments. A relatively moderate bill to provide pensions for Pompey’s veterans was met with prolonged and systematic obstruction (Bradley, 1990. p336) by the senate. Caesar chose then to bypass the senate and took the bill directly to the assembly where it was vetoed by a tribune named Bibulus. Upon knowledge of this, he presented the assembly with Pompey, who vowed to use violence if necessary to defend the people’s rights. The bill was subsequently passed. Caesar, according to Suetonius, governed alone, and did very much as he pleased. (Suetonius, 1979. p.110)
Each of the men was greedy for glory and power, demanding triumphs and ovations for military and political victories. Their earlier quarrels over such things had been damaging for the republic but their eventual union was to be its downfall.
It is interesting to note however that, in the words of Plutarch. All of these men "came to an inglorious and ineffectual end". (Plutarch, 1974. p.213)
Close to the breakdown, violence was used almost as a matter of course in political activities. From 133 BC mob violence became commonplace. Many politicians were dragged away and butchered by angry mobs, not the least of whom was Caesar himself. This trend towards violent resolution of political issues is well documented. Pompey used this element to his advantage, stirring up the crowd to the point that people were afraid to speak out against him since if they did, they were liable to be beaten to death by his supporters or murdered by his army.
The culmination of these events and trends was the breakdown of the Republic and the regression into a dictatorship, a system that survived until the fall of the Empire hundreds of years later. The seeds for the fall were planted very early in the form of social and political problems that continued for the Romans long after the breakdown of the republic. Although brilliant in their military and the development of physical infrastructure, the Romans made the mistake of letting the carefully and meticulously placed system of checks and balances fall asunder, taking with it the stability and potential for political egalitarianism that had made the Roman empire great.
For men who had easily endured hardship, danger and difficult uncertainty, leisure and riches, though in some ways desirable, proved burdensome and a source of grief. Sallust
The causes for the breakdown of the early Roman Republic cannot be attributed to a single event, trend or individual, rather it was due to a combination of all three in varying degrees. The principal and fundamental cause was the breakdown of the political checks and balances, particularly the Cursus Honorum from 133 BC onwards. This subversion occurred both accidentally and through the subversive behavior of individuals, unconsciously and consciously undermining the fabric of the republic in their quest for power and glory. One substantial outcome of this incapacitation was the emergence of violence as a political means. Once this had occurred the end of the old republic was heralded an autocratic dictatorship was born.
The republic was born out of a collapsed monarchy and was specifically geared to prevent a centralization of power. The mechanisms to this end were contained in the Cursus Honorum, a document that outlined the ladder of offices. It demanded, among other things, 10 years of military or legal service before any magistracy could be held, annual election and two years between consecutive offices (Plutarch, 1974. p.140). This system was designed to ensure that no individual could become too powerful by dividing jurisdiction between several groups and allowing for veto.
The Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius are often blamed for causing divisions and antagonizing the aristocracy and particularly the senate by introducing laws and legislation that, although promoting egalitarianism for the poor, were catalysts to later breaches of the Cursus Honorum. Both Tiberius and Gaius had laws enacted without consulting the senate. This weakened the senate’s power and started a trend of ignoring the senate that remained until the breakdown (Plutarch, 1986. p 176). These Graccian reforms included the implementation of a welfare system whereby Romans citizens would be given free corn and the Lex Agraria or land reforms that broke down the latafundia and increased the number of small-scale farms. The welfare corn system not only aroused violent anger from the nobility but also created an urban mob (Suetonius, 1979. p.42) that relied on handouts and later participated in violence. Tiberius Gracchus ran for election to the tribunate for two years consecutively (123 and 122 BC). This was in direct contradiction to the Cursus honorum. The senate, when they heard of Tiberius’ plan, killed him. This action was significant, due to it being the first time that violence had been used for a political end, it was not to be the last.
Marius and Sulla, great leaders of Rome from 119 to 78 BC, can be attributed part of the blame for the breakdown of the republic. Their constant quarreling led to factional fighting amongst the people and eventually to civil war. Marius came into power before Sulla and, like the Gracchi, showed a tendency towards disturbing the status quo and antagonized the nobility. Marius’ reforms centered on military change, the most controversial of which was the extension of military service for the landless class. This seemingly insignificant reform had wide repercussions since it created semi-professional soldiers rather than a citizen militia (Bradley, 1990. p 270). Since no pension scheme was organized, the soldiers were largely dependent on their commanders for payment and pensions of land. This dependence led to the soldiers being "tied" to their commanders, allowing for the later development of armies that were loyal to individuals rather than to the state. Marius’ contempt for the Cursus Honorum is illustrated by his standing in the consular elections while not in Rome, a post that he gained and held for six years. This action was in direct contradiction to the rule of one-year consulships in the Cursus Honorum and allowed Marius to establish a power base that he used for his own political designs.
Both Marius and Sulla used violence openly as a political means. The first such incident was during the tribunal election where Marius killed Nonnius, a political opponent to his friend Saturnius. This was not the only example of violence from Marius. When returned from exile, he killed everyone who had ever offended him and took their land for himself. Sulla was not much better, having a similar proscription list and sometimes adding names to the list simply to acquire property. Legions of Roman soldiers, who had effectualy turned into private armies, carried out these executions. This practice of obtaining soldiers for personal means led eventually to the widespread use of violence and eventually to civil war.
Close to the end of the republic, a triumvirate arose, combining the three most powerful men in Rome-Pompey, Caesar and Crassus. Caesar engineered the union, using the military and political skill of Pompey and the Financial and political power of Crassus for his own benefit. He manipulated both men to pass legislation and reforms that would spell the end of the republic and catapult him into an autocratic Dictatorship.
Caesar, upon election to his first consulship in 59 BC, was faced not only with a hostile senate, but also a large proportion of the tribunes, acting on behalf of the nobles, that seemed determined to oppose his amendments. A relatively moderate bill to provide pensions for Pompey’s veterans was met with prolonged and systematic obstruction (Bradley, 1990. p336) by the senate. Caesar chose then to bypass the senate and took the bill directly to the assembly where it was vetoed by a tribune named Bibulus. Upon knowledge of this, he presented the assembly with Pompey, who vowed to use violence if necessary to defend the people’s rights. The bill was subsequently passed. Caesar, according to Suetonius, governed alone, and did very much as he pleased. (Suetonius, 1979. p.110)
Each of the men was greedy for glory and power, demanding triumphs and ovations for military and political victories. Their earlier quarrels over such things had been damaging for the republic but their eventual union was to be its downfall.
It is interesting to note however that, in the words of Plutarch. All of these men "came to an inglorious and ineffectual end". (Plutarch, 1974. p.213)
Close to the breakdown, violence was used almost as a matter of course in political activities. From 133 BC mob violence became commonplace. Many politicians were dragged away and butchered by angry mobs, not the least of whom was Caesar himself. This trend towards violent resolution of political issues is well documented. Pompey used this element to his advantage, stirring up the crowd to the point that people were afraid to speak out against him since if they did, they were liable to be beaten to death by his supporters or murdered by his army.
The culmination of these events and trends was the breakdown of the Republic and the regression into a dictatorship, a system that survived until the fall of the Empire hundreds of years later. The seeds for the fall were planted very early in the form of social and political problems that continued for the Romans long after the breakdown of the republic. Although brilliant in their military and the development of physical infrastructure, the Romans made the mistake of letting the carefully and meticulously placed system of checks and balances fall asunder, taking with it the stability and potential for political egalitarianism that had made the Roman empire great.
BRAIN DRAIN OF ASIA
BRAIN DRAIN OF ASIA
By what reason can we criticize ones ambitions? In Global Studies we were told that the developing countries, such as India and China, should cease the “exports of great minds and invest them in their own country”. I can understand the point that is being made. Developing and Low-Income nations need all of the help that they can get.
However, the critics of the “Brain Drain” feel that brilliant minds should be left where they are... yet I find it hard to believe that the peanut gallery can speak on behalf of these select scholars. In the United States our education systems are superb. Most every student has ambitions and future visions of their lives- and find that the key to such successes are through learning. We are encouraged by our parents, teachers and peers to venture out and reach our goals... and we find that no matter where we go education seems to be a key element along the way. If one wanted to pursue astronomy... they’d be sent to the moon. If one wanted to pursue ice fishing... they’d most likely find happiness in the Arctic. If one wanted to pursue fashion... they’d be aboard the next flight to Paris. No
country offers every amenity in life. One may find what they truly want in life beyond the fifty-nifty states.
I’d like to think that all countries encourage their people to get educated and experience what world offers. Those intellects who have things to share should not be closed away by domestic greed. It is no surprise that countries with poor education systems, and governments that condemn free thought, should have few, but bright, stars under their roof. Those individuals who have dreams of success are determined to fight ignorance, and find it in themselves to get educated. In a nation of poverty and chaos it is hard for these people to win. I have spoken to such people and they have told me that they have experienced a lot of competition and discouragement along their way. These people
now live in the United States... and their names can be found in medical journals throughout the world. They told me that they were one out of their entire graduating class to be able to go to college. The wonderful minds that derive from such perseverance find that developed nations hold the technology and the support for their studies. Undeveloped countries don’t have as great a number of colleges, medical schools, hospitals and technical
investments, that developed countries have. They pursue our systems... and we welcome their ideas.
The “Brain Drain” is the only way out for those people who want more in life than farming and weaving baskets, as the majority of the people in developing countries try to follow their forefathers trades in a modern world. When given the opportunity through education they are able to contribute so much more back into society. The intellects of
these nations cannot be wasted. If one’s country cannot provide what they need, then they are best off leaving. No one has ever found new horizons without first losing sight of the shore.
By what reason can we criticize ones ambitions? In Global Studies we were told that the developing countries, such as India and China, should cease the “exports of great minds and invest them in their own country”. I can understand the point that is being made. Developing and Low-Income nations need all of the help that they can get.
However, the critics of the “Brain Drain” feel that brilliant minds should be left where they are... yet I find it hard to believe that the peanut gallery can speak on behalf of these select scholars. In the United States our education systems are superb. Most every student has ambitions and future visions of their lives- and find that the key to such successes are through learning. We are encouraged by our parents, teachers and peers to venture out and reach our goals... and we find that no matter where we go education seems to be a key element along the way. If one wanted to pursue astronomy... they’d be sent to the moon. If one wanted to pursue ice fishing... they’d most likely find happiness in the Arctic. If one wanted to pursue fashion... they’d be aboard the next flight to Paris. No
country offers every amenity in life. One may find what they truly want in life beyond the fifty-nifty states.
I’d like to think that all countries encourage their people to get educated and experience what world offers. Those intellects who have things to share should not be closed away by domestic greed. It is no surprise that countries with poor education systems, and governments that condemn free thought, should have few, but bright, stars under their roof. Those individuals who have dreams of success are determined to fight ignorance, and find it in themselves to get educated. In a nation of poverty and chaos it is hard for these people to win. I have spoken to such people and they have told me that they have experienced a lot of competition and discouragement along their way. These people
now live in the United States... and their names can be found in medical journals throughout the world. They told me that they were one out of their entire graduating class to be able to go to college. The wonderful minds that derive from such perseverance find that developed nations hold the technology and the support for their studies. Undeveloped countries don’t have as great a number of colleges, medical schools, hospitals and technical
investments, that developed countries have. They pursue our systems... and we welcome their ideas.
The “Brain Drain” is the only way out for those people who want more in life than farming and weaving baskets, as the majority of the people in developing countries try to follow their forefathers trades in a modern world. When given the opportunity through education they are able to contribute so much more back into society. The intellects of
these nations cannot be wasted. If one’s country cannot provide what they need, then they are best off leaving. No one has ever found new horizons without first losing sight of the shore.
Area 51
Area 51
The creation of Area 51 began in April of 1955, when a Lockheed test pilot, Tony LeVier, searched for a remote site to test the U-2. Grooms Lake is chosen as the location for the runway. By August of 1955, the U-2 makes its first flight from Grooms Lake. That was only the beginning for test flights from Area 51. In April 1962, the first A-12 Blackbird was tested at Groom Lake. February 1982, the F-117A Stealth fighter takes off for the first time. All other test flights have not been released to the public, but that doesn’t mean they don’t occur. However, they are, in no way, shape or form, alien test flights. Nearly all of the evidence that supports the alien spacecraft theory, is without backing, or solid information. Also, the US government played on the UFO theories to hide their own testing plans. Today, Area 51 is the home to the latest top secret aircraft: the Aurora, among others Many of these aircraft, past and present, are able to perform incredible feats in the sky. Some so unbelievable, that they could be mistaken for alien spacecraft by fanatics of extra-terrestrials. However, based on the falsified eye-witness accounts of Area 51, and declassification of military spy planes like the U-2 and F-117A Stealth fighter, I am here to tell you that these flights are not alien crafts, but actually secret military aircraft.
I. According to Glenn Campbell, a leading researcher on Area 51, Bob Lazar provided the most incredible source for information supporting alien ships at Area 51, and also the most falsified.
A. He claims to have worked with alien spacecraft at an area called Area S-4, which is right next to Area 51.
1. He claims he worked there until 1988 as a senior researcher.
2. Government papers have shown that he was merely a repair technician.
3. He also claims that he gained complete exposure to Area 51.
a. He only made a few visits to the site between Nov 1988 and April 1989.
b. Those familiar with classified Gov. programs say such rapid exposure to a top secret project is unlikely.
B. He also claims to have seen nine flying saucers housed in a hangar built into a hill.
1. None of his claims can be verified.
a. People can’t just go to the alien hangars and check for space craft.
b. He took a lie detector test and the results were inconclusive.
c. There is no evidence that Lazar even visited Area 51.
1. Can be unofficially checked by former workers.
2. Unable to describe the arrival areas or what you see when you first arrive at Area 51.
C. The information about Lazar that can be checked is a lie.
1. He lied about his academic credentials
2. He lied about his status at Los Alamos Base.
3. He is not a reliable source.
II. The U-2 was the initial reason Area 51 was created, as stated in a timeline created by Tom Mahood, a respected Area 51 historian.
A. It was a secret spy plane created in the 1950s to get recon photos behind the Iron Curtain.
B. During the Cold War, it was used frequently to determine what kind of arsenal the USSR really had.
C. It needed an extremely long runway, because of the high speed it needed to take off.
1. Groom Lake provided the flattest, most secluded, and closest spot to other military bases.
III. The SR-71 Blackbird was the next generation of spy planes.
A. Created during Cold War to gather info on USSR
1. It was publicly announced by LBJ on Feb 29, 1964
2. The first flight took place on December 22, 1964.
B. Unlike U-2, the SR-71 could go over Mach 2.
1. According to the Augusta Chronicle, the SR-71 was tested by diving down from 50,000 feet and then swooping to a horizontal flight.
2. This maneuver is called a dipsy doodle
3. Occasionally, the exhaust turns green, giving it a UFO persona.
4. UFO sightings coincide with the coming and going of secret aircraft.
IV. The F-117A Stealth Fighter is perhaps the most well known aircraft tested at Groom Lake.
A. First plane in history to use low-observable stealth technology.
1. Work began in 1978, under Lockheed.
2. First one finished in 1982.
3. Last one rolled out in 1990.
B. It was kept so secret, nobody had any idea it existed until 1990, when they had stopped production of them.
1. Gov. used secret at Area 51 to hide all testing for over 10 years.
2. It is impossible to say how many other planes are currently being tested at Area 51, and nobody knows about them.
3. Silly to jump to conclusions and say that any unusual aircraft are aliens.
V. In Michael Haas’s Newsletter from Berkley University, the Aurora Aircraft is the latest craft being tested at Area 51.
A. It was created to replace the SR-71.
1. It can attain speed s of Mach 6-8 (4400 mph)
2. It is so secret, that nobody is sure what it looks like exactly.
3. By 1992, after 4 years of testing, it flies from Area 51 to an atoll in the Pacific, then to Scotland, where it refuels, and returns to Area 51.
4. As it lands, an F111 fighter flies down in close formation to mask the Aurora from any civilian radars.
5. Bill Sweetman in his article in Jane’s Defense Weekly “Mystery Contact May Be Aurora”, he states that when reaching speeds of Mach 6, the leading edge of the aircraft will glow bright red, giving it an alien look.
6. It also creates sonic booms as it flies by, which has been recorded by numerous seismological instruments, at regular intervals that correspond with testing schedules.
V. The prospect that UFOs are being tested at Area 51 simply has no backing.
A. There is no proof that UFOs are stored at Groom Lake.
1. The Government is very secretive about Area 51, but not because of UFOs.
2. Their secret military aircraft are very top secret.
3. The few people that have spoken out about experience from Area 51 have been proven discredible.
a. Bob Lazar was a complete liar about the information that is checkable.....why should we believe what he says about things that can’t be checked?
4. The UFO sightings can be easily explained by military aircraft that are being tested.
a. dispy doodle
b. green exhaust
c. Aurora sonic booms
d. glowing leading edge of Aurora
Just because the military doesn’t tell civilians about their aircraft does not mean that there must be alien intervention. It simply means that the government is trying to protect it new toys. They have every right to keep their top secret aircraft a secret.....that’s why it is called top secret, right? The government is like a little kid. How many of you when you were little wanted to share your new toys? I didn’t!
The creation of Area 51 began in April of 1955, when a Lockheed test pilot, Tony LeVier, searched for a remote site to test the U-2. Grooms Lake is chosen as the location for the runway. By August of 1955, the U-2 makes its first flight from Grooms Lake. That was only the beginning for test flights from Area 51. In April 1962, the first A-12 Blackbird was tested at Groom Lake. February 1982, the F-117A Stealth fighter takes off for the first time. All other test flights have not been released to the public, but that doesn’t mean they don’t occur. However, they are, in no way, shape or form, alien test flights. Nearly all of the evidence that supports the alien spacecraft theory, is without backing, or solid information. Also, the US government played on the UFO theories to hide their own testing plans. Today, Area 51 is the home to the latest top secret aircraft: the Aurora, among others Many of these aircraft, past and present, are able to perform incredible feats in the sky. Some so unbelievable, that they could be mistaken for alien spacecraft by fanatics of extra-terrestrials. However, based on the falsified eye-witness accounts of Area 51, and declassification of military spy planes like the U-2 and F-117A Stealth fighter, I am here to tell you that these flights are not alien crafts, but actually secret military aircraft.
I. According to Glenn Campbell, a leading researcher on Area 51, Bob Lazar provided the most incredible source for information supporting alien ships at Area 51, and also the most falsified.
A. He claims to have worked with alien spacecraft at an area called Area S-4, which is right next to Area 51.
1. He claims he worked there until 1988 as a senior researcher.
2. Government papers have shown that he was merely a repair technician.
3. He also claims that he gained complete exposure to Area 51.
a. He only made a few visits to the site between Nov 1988 and April 1989.
b. Those familiar with classified Gov. programs say such rapid exposure to a top secret project is unlikely.
B. He also claims to have seen nine flying saucers housed in a hangar built into a hill.
1. None of his claims can be verified.
a. People can’t just go to the alien hangars and check for space craft.
b. He took a lie detector test and the results were inconclusive.
c. There is no evidence that Lazar even visited Area 51.
1. Can be unofficially checked by former workers.
2. Unable to describe the arrival areas or what you see when you first arrive at Area 51.
C. The information about Lazar that can be checked is a lie.
1. He lied about his academic credentials
2. He lied about his status at Los Alamos Base.
3. He is not a reliable source.
II. The U-2 was the initial reason Area 51 was created, as stated in a timeline created by Tom Mahood, a respected Area 51 historian.
A. It was a secret spy plane created in the 1950s to get recon photos behind the Iron Curtain.
B. During the Cold War, it was used frequently to determine what kind of arsenal the USSR really had.
C. It needed an extremely long runway, because of the high speed it needed to take off.
1. Groom Lake provided the flattest, most secluded, and closest spot to other military bases.
III. The SR-71 Blackbird was the next generation of spy planes.
A. Created during Cold War to gather info on USSR
1. It was publicly announced by LBJ on Feb 29, 1964
2. The first flight took place on December 22, 1964.
B. Unlike U-2, the SR-71 could go over Mach 2.
1. According to the Augusta Chronicle, the SR-71 was tested by diving down from 50,000 feet and then swooping to a horizontal flight.
2. This maneuver is called a dipsy doodle
3. Occasionally, the exhaust turns green, giving it a UFO persona.
4. UFO sightings coincide with the coming and going of secret aircraft.
IV. The F-117A Stealth Fighter is perhaps the most well known aircraft tested at Groom Lake.
A. First plane in history to use low-observable stealth technology.
1. Work began in 1978, under Lockheed.
2. First one finished in 1982.
3. Last one rolled out in 1990.
B. It was kept so secret, nobody had any idea it existed until 1990, when they had stopped production of them.
1. Gov. used secret at Area 51 to hide all testing for over 10 years.
2. It is impossible to say how many other planes are currently being tested at Area 51, and nobody knows about them.
3. Silly to jump to conclusions and say that any unusual aircraft are aliens.
V. In Michael Haas’s Newsletter from Berkley University, the Aurora Aircraft is the latest craft being tested at Area 51.
A. It was created to replace the SR-71.
1. It can attain speed s of Mach 6-8 (4400 mph)
2. It is so secret, that nobody is sure what it looks like exactly.
3. By 1992, after 4 years of testing, it flies from Area 51 to an atoll in the Pacific, then to Scotland, where it refuels, and returns to Area 51.
4. As it lands, an F111 fighter flies down in close formation to mask the Aurora from any civilian radars.
5. Bill Sweetman in his article in Jane’s Defense Weekly “Mystery Contact May Be Aurora”, he states that when reaching speeds of Mach 6, the leading edge of the aircraft will glow bright red, giving it an alien look.
6. It also creates sonic booms as it flies by, which has been recorded by numerous seismological instruments, at regular intervals that correspond with testing schedules.
V. The prospect that UFOs are being tested at Area 51 simply has no backing.
A. There is no proof that UFOs are stored at Groom Lake.
1. The Government is very secretive about Area 51, but not because of UFOs.
2. Their secret military aircraft are very top secret.
3. The few people that have spoken out about experience from Area 51 have been proven discredible.
a. Bob Lazar was a complete liar about the information that is checkable.....why should we believe what he says about things that can’t be checked?
4. The UFO sightings can be easily explained by military aircraft that are being tested.
a. dispy doodle
b. green exhaust
c. Aurora sonic booms
d. glowing leading edge of Aurora
Just because the military doesn’t tell civilians about their aircraft does not mean that there must be alien intervention. It simply means that the government is trying to protect it new toys. They have every right to keep their top secret aircraft a secret.....that’s why it is called top secret, right? The government is like a little kid. How many of you when you were little wanted to share your new toys? I didn’t!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
