text string | id string | dump string | url string | file_path string | language string | language_score float64 | token_count int64 | score float64 | int_score int64 | embedding list | count int64 | Content string | Tokens int64 | Top_Lang string | Top_Conf float64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Written on: February 13th, 2019 in Blog Posts
Throughout Black History Month we are spotlighting African American leaders that influenced Delaware. This week, we are highlighting families who changed history: Mary Ann Shadd Cary and Abraham Doras Shadd, a father and daughter from the 1800s and Jane Mitchell and Littleton Mitchell a husband and wife from recent time. These families helped shape Delaware and the nation at large.
Mary Ann Shadd Cary was a Anti-slavery activist, journalist, publisher, teacher and lawyer. She was the first black woman publisher in North America and the first woman publisher in Canada. Cary advocated for the abolition of slavery, equality, and promoted full racial integration through education and self-reliance.
Cary was born in Wilmington, Delaware, on October 9, 1823 to a socially activist father. Her family moved to Pennsylvania for better educational opportunities for black children, and she attended a Quaker school.
In 1987 she was posthumously designated a Women’s History Month Honoree by the National Women’s History Project. She was also honored by Canada; named a Person of National Historic Significance. Mary Ann Shadd Cary’s former residence in the U Street Corridor in Washington D.C. was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1976.
Abraham Shadd was born in Millcreek Hundred in Delaware on March 2nd, 1801 and he spent most of his early life in Wilmington. Shadd went on to take over the shoe-making shop his father Jeremiah had created. He married Harriet Parnell in the early 1820’s, and in 1823 they had their first child Mary Ann Shadd (see above), who went on to become a historical figure in her own right.
By the 1830’s, Abraham Shadd started to become more prominent in the abolitionist movement. He used his homes in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and Wilmington, Delaware, to provide lodging for fleeing fugitive slaves.
Shadd joined other black activists to organize against the African Colonization Society whose members wanted to send African Americans to Liberia. Believing that the future for African Americans was in North America, he argued that education, thrift, and hard work would enable black men and women to achieve equality.
After the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 Abraham moved his family to Canada, and in 1859 he made his mark there by becoming the first black elected official in Canada.
Jane Mitchell was born in 1921. She went on to graduate from Howard High School Provident Hospital Nursing Program, then University of Delaware and she later earned a Master’s degree from Washington College. She was one of Delaware’s first African American nurses, spending her career at the Governor Bacon Health Center and later the Delaware Psychiatric Hospital, where she ultimately rose to director of Nursing Services.
She was an avid volunteer spending time with AARP, the American Cancer Society, Meals on Wheels, and the Henrietta Johnson Medical Center – a community health center located in Wilmington.
She was an NAACP member as well as a member of the National Nursing Honor Society, Sigma Theta Tau. Her awards include the UD Medal of Merit and the NAACP Unsung Heroine Award. Mrs. Mitchell also is a member of the Delaware Women’s Hall of Fame.
Littleton Mitchell was born in 1918. He attended Howard High School where he met his future wife Jane Mitchell. He enrolled at West Chester State College which would become West Chester University, but put his education on hold to enlist in the U. S. Army Air Corps during World War II. He became a member of Tuskegee Airmen, where he served as an instructor for instrument simulator training at Tuskegee Army Air Base.
After he finished his service, he and his wife moved back to Delaware and he completed his education graduating with a degree in Physical Education. He went on to work as a teacher and counselor at the Governor Bacon Health Center, a facility for emotionally troubled youth, where he became the first African American in Delaware to teach white students.
He was a lifelong member of the NAACP and went on to become the president of the Delaware State Branch in 1961. He held that position for thirty years. Through his work he advocated for fair housing, school desegregation, voting rights and growing educational and employment opportunities for African Americans.
Photos courtesy of the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs.
We want to hear from you. Got a great idea for a post or series of posts on our blog? Send your ideas to us… | <urn:uuid:3fce830b-14f4-45ac-a04e-7fd265d87046> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://firststate.blogs.delaware.gov/black-history-month-spotlight-on-mary-ann-shadd-cary-abraham-doras-shadd-jane-mitchell-and-littleton-mitchell/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250590107.3/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117180950-20200117204950-00277.warc.gz | en | 0.98401 | 933 | 3.71875 | 4 | [
-0.07125471532344818,
0.6802034974098206,
0.532171905040741,
0.031035041436553,
-0.012329140678048134,
0.4044850170612335,
0.0029320577159523964,
0.07187503576278687,
-0.4037049412727356,
-0.004861841909587383,
0.3463044762611389,
0.016746705397963524,
-0.07271434366703033,
0.0948290228843... | 3 | Written on: February 13th, 2019 in Blog Posts
Throughout Black History Month we are spotlighting African American leaders that influenced Delaware. This week, we are highlighting families who changed history: Mary Ann Shadd Cary and Abraham Doras Shadd, a father and daughter from the 1800s and Jane Mitchell and Littleton Mitchell a husband and wife from recent time. These families helped shape Delaware and the nation at large.
Mary Ann Shadd Cary was a Anti-slavery activist, journalist, publisher, teacher and lawyer. She was the first black woman publisher in North America and the first woman publisher in Canada. Cary advocated for the abolition of slavery, equality, and promoted full racial integration through education and self-reliance.
Cary was born in Wilmington, Delaware, on October 9, 1823 to a socially activist father. Her family moved to Pennsylvania for better educational opportunities for black children, and she attended a Quaker school.
In 1987 she was posthumously designated a Women’s History Month Honoree by the National Women’s History Project. She was also honored by Canada; named a Person of National Historic Significance. Mary Ann Shadd Cary’s former residence in the U Street Corridor in Washington D.C. was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1976.
Abraham Shadd was born in Millcreek Hundred in Delaware on March 2nd, 1801 and he spent most of his early life in Wilmington. Shadd went on to take over the shoe-making shop his father Jeremiah had created. He married Harriet Parnell in the early 1820’s, and in 1823 they had their first child Mary Ann Shadd (see above), who went on to become a historical figure in her own right.
By the 1830’s, Abraham Shadd started to become more prominent in the abolitionist movement. He used his homes in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and Wilmington, Delaware, to provide lodging for fleeing fugitive slaves.
Shadd joined other black activists to organize against the African Colonization Society whose members wanted to send African Americans to Liberia. Believing that the future for African Americans was in North America, he argued that education, thrift, and hard work would enable black men and women to achieve equality.
After the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 Abraham moved his family to Canada, and in 1859 he made his mark there by becoming the first black elected official in Canada.
Jane Mitchell was born in 1921. She went on to graduate from Howard High School Provident Hospital Nursing Program, then University of Delaware and she later earned a Master’s degree from Washington College. She was one of Delaware’s first African American nurses, spending her career at the Governor Bacon Health Center and later the Delaware Psychiatric Hospital, where she ultimately rose to director of Nursing Services.
She was an avid volunteer spending time with AARP, the American Cancer Society, Meals on Wheels, and the Henrietta Johnson Medical Center – a community health center located in Wilmington.
She was an NAACP member as well as a member of the National Nursing Honor Society, Sigma Theta Tau. Her awards include the UD Medal of Merit and the NAACP Unsung Heroine Award. Mrs. Mitchell also is a member of the Delaware Women’s Hall of Fame.
Littleton Mitchell was born in 1918. He attended Howard High School where he met his future wife Jane Mitchell. He enrolled at West Chester State College which would become West Chester University, but put his education on hold to enlist in the U. S. Army Air Corps during World War II. He became a member of Tuskegee Airmen, where he served as an instructor for instrument simulator training at Tuskegee Army Air Base.
After he finished his service, he and his wife moved back to Delaware and he completed his education graduating with a degree in Physical Education. He went on to work as a teacher and counselor at the Governor Bacon Health Center, a facility for emotionally troubled youth, where he became the first African American in Delaware to teach white students.
He was a lifelong member of the NAACP and went on to become the president of the Delaware State Branch in 1961. He held that position for thirty years. Through his work he advocated for fair housing, school desegregation, voting rights and growing educational and employment opportunities for African Americans.
Photos courtesy of the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs.
We want to hear from you. Got a great idea for a post or series of posts on our blog? Send your ideas to us… | 957 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Soon after longlining on Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) started in the Southern Ocean in the second half of the 1980’s, interactions of cetaceans with these fisheries became apparent. The two species primarily involved were orcas (killer whales) (Orcinus orca) and male sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Both species took substantial number of fish from the line primarily during day light hours. Catch rates of longliners declined to less than 50% when orcas occurred close to longline vessels while the loss to sperm whales was much less obvious. They were seen diving close to the line down to 400 m where they apparently took fish. Their impact on catch rates was much less notable. Sperm whales became frequently entangled in the line and part of the line was lost in a number of cases. Other cetaceans were rarely seen in the vicinity of longline vessels. They became entangled in the line only occasionally and one whale (presumably a minke whale) died. | <urn:uuid:1eafac9c-4346-4cd8-9282-3de8a7643a0e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.ccamlr.org/en/wg-fsa-05/11 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00362.warc.gz | en | 0.981913 | 212 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.040058787912130356,
-0.03045198693871498,
0.040811579674482346,
-0.16565242409706116,
-0.18515338003635406,
-0.28880876302719116,
0.13394786417484283,
0.23480543494224548,
0.07970208674669266,
-0.1410057693719864,
0.3793943524360657,
-0.6212576031684875,
0.18126808106899261,
0.210218891... | 7 | Soon after longlining on Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) started in the Southern Ocean in the second half of the 1980’s, interactions of cetaceans with these fisheries became apparent. The two species primarily involved were orcas (killer whales) (Orcinus orca) and male sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Both species took substantial number of fish from the line primarily during day light hours. Catch rates of longliners declined to less than 50% when orcas occurred close to longline vessels while the loss to sperm whales was much less obvious. They were seen diving close to the line down to 400 m where they apparently took fish. Their impact on catch rates was much less notable. Sperm whales became frequently entangled in the line and part of the line was lost in a number of cases. Other cetaceans were rarely seen in the vicinity of longline vessels. They became entangled in the line only occasionally and one whale (presumably a minke whale) died. | 223 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Even after the official end of World War I or the Great War, its far-reaching effects resounded in the world for decades in the forms of changing politics, economics and public opinion. In other words, the war accelerated the process of change. The United States was the world’s dominant economic power in the 1920’s, changed by the Great War from a debtor to a creditor nation. The loans the United States had made to its allies during the war troubled the nation’s relations with Europe throughout the decade. The many effects of World War I on the American soldiers who fought overseas and on the civilian population in the United States were evident.
On the home front, honest and law-abiding citizens were being terrorized and outraged in their rights by those sworn to uphold the laws and protect the rights of the people. People were unlawfully arrested, thrown into jail, and held incommunicado for days, only to be eventually discharged because the had not committed any sort of crime. Also, private residences were being invaded, loyal citizens of undoubted integrity and honesty were arrested, cross-examined, and the most sacred constitutional rights guaranteed to every American citizen were being violated. It seemed to those at home that the purpose of those that conducted this campaign was to throw the country into a state of terror, coerce public opinion, and suppress discussion of the great issues involved in the war. A feeling of disillusionment spread across the world as people bitterly decided that their governments in no way knew how to serve the best interests of the people.
Another problem people faced at home in the 1920’s was the change in prices and wages. Due to a scarcity of products, prices and wages dramatically increased. Farm product prices, food prices, clothing prices, fuel/lighting prices, house furnishing good prices, and weekly wages all went up. However, the rate of wages was still considerably lower than the rate of prices. From...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document | <urn:uuid:78c63891-55f0-45a4-853d-0cb698974015> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.studymode.com/essays/Effects-Of-Ww1-63636676.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250603761.28/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121103642-20200121132642-00091.warc.gz | en | 0.982188 | 406 | 4 | 4 | [
-0.238902285695076,
0.20976664125919342,
0.4638497233390808,
0.04514393210411072,
0.42379283905029297,
-0.10823513567447662,
-0.08373535424470901,
0.3522202968597412,
-0.031139591708779335,
-0.032362181693315506,
0.6464518904685974,
0.49757474660873413,
0.003311827778816223,
0.359750807285... | 1 | Even after the official end of World War I or the Great War, its far-reaching effects resounded in the world for decades in the forms of changing politics, economics and public opinion. In other words, the war accelerated the process of change. The United States was the world’s dominant economic power in the 1920’s, changed by the Great War from a debtor to a creditor nation. The loans the United States had made to its allies during the war troubled the nation’s relations with Europe throughout the decade. The many effects of World War I on the American soldiers who fought overseas and on the civilian population in the United States were evident.
On the home front, honest and law-abiding citizens were being terrorized and outraged in their rights by those sworn to uphold the laws and protect the rights of the people. People were unlawfully arrested, thrown into jail, and held incommunicado for days, only to be eventually discharged because the had not committed any sort of crime. Also, private residences were being invaded, loyal citizens of undoubted integrity and honesty were arrested, cross-examined, and the most sacred constitutional rights guaranteed to every American citizen were being violated. It seemed to those at home that the purpose of those that conducted this campaign was to throw the country into a state of terror, coerce public opinion, and suppress discussion of the great issues involved in the war. A feeling of disillusionment spread across the world as people bitterly decided that their governments in no way knew how to serve the best interests of the people.
Another problem people faced at home in the 1920’s was the change in prices and wages. Due to a scarcity of products, prices and wages dramatically increased. Farm product prices, food prices, clothing prices, fuel/lighting prices, house furnishing good prices, and weekly wages all went up. However, the rate of wages was still considerably lower than the rate of prices. From...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document | 400 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Even scientists change their minds! When you read this story, think about how the scientists involved used evidence to change their ideas.
The idea of atoms is very old. Philosophers in Ancient Greece imagined what would happen if you tried to cut something into smaller and smaller pieces. Eventually (they thought) the pieces would be so small that they couldn't be cut any more. Those tiny pieces were called atoms. In this model, every different thing had its own atom- atoms of wood, atoms of skin, atoms of rock, even atoms of colour and taste. Although atoms are tiny, most of the other parts of this model turned out to be wrong.
The next person to develop the idea of atoms was John Dalton. He was a chemist in England in the early 1800s. By looking at chemical reactions, he worked out that some chemicals were compounds; they were made by joining different types of element together. For example, there aren't atoms of water- instead, you make water by joining hydrogen and oxygen atoms together. Dalton knew that atoms were too small to be seen, so he imagined them as tiny solid spheres. Each element was a different sort of sphere.
Dalton's model was accepted for most of the 1800s. Then in 1897, a physicist called J.J. Thompson (his actual name was Joseph John, but everyone calls him J. J.) discovered a particle called the electron. When electric current moves through a wire, it's because electrons are moving. Thompson showed that these electrons came out of atoms. In other words, Dalton's model of atoms as solid spheres was wrong, because atoms could have electrons pulled out of them. Nobody had seen an atom yet, so Thompson imagined the electrons scattered around the atom-like pieces of fruit in a cake. Because of this, Thompson's model is called the plum pudding model.
The plum pudding model only lasted about ten years. In 1907, Ernest Rutherford (along with his students, Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden) did an experiment which had very surprising results. They fired a type of particle called an alpha particle (you'll learn more about those in some of the physics activities) at a thin sheet of gold. They expected the alpha particles to go straight through the gold sheet- and most did. But a few bounced off the sheet, which seemed impossible. Rutherford said, "It was almost as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell (a shell is a type of bullet) at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you."
The only way to make sense of the results of the alpha scattering experiment was if the plum pudding model was wrong. In Rutherford's model of the atom, all of the positive charge and most of the mass of the atom had to be squeezed into a tiny sphere at the centre of the atom. In Rutherford's nuclear model of the atom, there were positive protons in the nucleus at the centre of the atom, surrounded by a cloud of negative electrons flying around the rest of the atom.
The nuclear model of the atom explained the results of the alpha scattering experiment. Most alpha particles passed through the foil easily, because they passed through the gaps between nuclei. However, when an alpha particle hit a nucleus head-on, it bounced straight off it. Since only a few alpha particles bounced off the nucleus, the nucleus must be very small indeed. Unfortunately, there were problems with the nuclear model. It was hard to explain why the electrons weren't pulled in towards the nucleus. Later on, scientists discovered that atoms can give off (emit) and absorb light, but only of specific colours; that's why fluorescent lamp tubes are often a strange purply-white colour.
These problems were solved by Niels Bohr in 1913. Instead of electrons flying around freely, the Bohr atom trapped them in specific orbits, or "shells". Since the electrons were trapped in shells, they couldn't fall into the nucleus. The gaps between the shells explained the effects linked to light and colour. Better still, the idea of electrons in shells explained some patterns about chemical reactions which people knew about but hadn't been able to explain.
There was one final step in thinking about the structure of the atom. In 1932, James Chadwick found that not all the particles in the nucleus were protons. There was another type of particle, with similar size and mass, but no electric charge. These particles were called neutrons. So instead of just protons in the nucleus, there was a mixture of protons and neutrons.
Nobody has managed to make a direct picture of the structure of an atom- though some scientists think they they are very close to doing that. Everyone you've learned about in this activity had to use their imagination to think of a model of the atom which explained what they knew about what atoms do. When they found new information, they had to change their model to include the new information. That's OK because that's what scientists do. | <urn:uuid:6dfbc7cb-3df0-4b15-bc9c-4b40cfa4baf1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.edplace.com/worksheet_info/science/keystage4/year10/topic/753/5736/understand-the-history-of-the-atomic-model | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00252.warc.gz | en | 0.982891 | 1,013 | 4.03125 | 4 | [
-0.15602681040763855,
0.05758342891931534,
0.28043457865715027,
0.14363664388656616,
-0.08942742645740509,
-0.2155829668045044,
0.2997034192085266,
0.19247135519981384,
-0.1652527153491974,
0.017360078170895576,
0.34765303134918213,
-0.3504958748817444,
0.08009359240531921,
0.1444864273071... | 2 | Even scientists change their minds! When you read this story, think about how the scientists involved used evidence to change their ideas.
The idea of atoms is very old. Philosophers in Ancient Greece imagined what would happen if you tried to cut something into smaller and smaller pieces. Eventually (they thought) the pieces would be so small that they couldn't be cut any more. Those tiny pieces were called atoms. In this model, every different thing had its own atom- atoms of wood, atoms of skin, atoms of rock, even atoms of colour and taste. Although atoms are tiny, most of the other parts of this model turned out to be wrong.
The next person to develop the idea of atoms was John Dalton. He was a chemist in England in the early 1800s. By looking at chemical reactions, he worked out that some chemicals were compounds; they were made by joining different types of element together. For example, there aren't atoms of water- instead, you make water by joining hydrogen and oxygen atoms together. Dalton knew that atoms were too small to be seen, so he imagined them as tiny solid spheres. Each element was a different sort of sphere.
Dalton's model was accepted for most of the 1800s. Then in 1897, a physicist called J.J. Thompson (his actual name was Joseph John, but everyone calls him J. J.) discovered a particle called the electron. When electric current moves through a wire, it's because electrons are moving. Thompson showed that these electrons came out of atoms. In other words, Dalton's model of atoms as solid spheres was wrong, because atoms could have electrons pulled out of them. Nobody had seen an atom yet, so Thompson imagined the electrons scattered around the atom-like pieces of fruit in a cake. Because of this, Thompson's model is called the plum pudding model.
The plum pudding model only lasted about ten years. In 1907, Ernest Rutherford (along with his students, Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden) did an experiment which had very surprising results. They fired a type of particle called an alpha particle (you'll learn more about those in some of the physics activities) at a thin sheet of gold. They expected the alpha particles to go straight through the gold sheet- and most did. But a few bounced off the sheet, which seemed impossible. Rutherford said, "It was almost as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell (a shell is a type of bullet) at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you."
The only way to make sense of the results of the alpha scattering experiment was if the plum pudding model was wrong. In Rutherford's model of the atom, all of the positive charge and most of the mass of the atom had to be squeezed into a tiny sphere at the centre of the atom. In Rutherford's nuclear model of the atom, there were positive protons in the nucleus at the centre of the atom, surrounded by a cloud of negative electrons flying around the rest of the atom.
The nuclear model of the atom explained the results of the alpha scattering experiment. Most alpha particles passed through the foil easily, because they passed through the gaps between nuclei. However, when an alpha particle hit a nucleus head-on, it bounced straight off it. Since only a few alpha particles bounced off the nucleus, the nucleus must be very small indeed. Unfortunately, there were problems with the nuclear model. It was hard to explain why the electrons weren't pulled in towards the nucleus. Later on, scientists discovered that atoms can give off (emit) and absorb light, but only of specific colours; that's why fluorescent lamp tubes are often a strange purply-white colour.
These problems were solved by Niels Bohr in 1913. Instead of electrons flying around freely, the Bohr atom trapped them in specific orbits, or "shells". Since the electrons were trapped in shells, they couldn't fall into the nucleus. The gaps between the shells explained the effects linked to light and colour. Better still, the idea of electrons in shells explained some patterns about chemical reactions which people knew about but hadn't been able to explain.
There was one final step in thinking about the structure of the atom. In 1932, James Chadwick found that not all the particles in the nucleus were protons. There was another type of particle, with similar size and mass, but no electric charge. These particles were called neutrons. So instead of just protons in the nucleus, there was a mixture of protons and neutrons.
Nobody has managed to make a direct picture of the structure of an atom- though some scientists think they they are very close to doing that. Everyone you've learned about in this activity had to use their imagination to think of a model of the atom which explained what they knew about what atoms do. When they found new information, they had to change their model to include the new information. That's OK because that's what scientists do. | 1,027 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Definition of Sailboat A boat propelled by a sail. | (slang, card games) A playing card with the rank of four.
How to use Sailboat in Sentence?
- 1. One fork turned to the right, which led to where the sailboat had been secured. 🔊
- 2. An empty sailboat was moored to the end of the wharf, which facilitated our operations. 🔊
- 3. He had a little sailboat in which he would take the children, even in severe storms. 🔊
- 4. Capable of making a dozen miles an hour, she was already doing her best, and coming up with the sailboat hand over hand. 🔊
- 5. There was a channel among the reefs, which a small sailboat could pursue, if one were accurately acquainted with its windings. 🔊
- 6. There was a tiny sailboat with a little wooden sailor on deck; but Robin would always be dabbling in the water if he got that. 🔊
- 7. Jan brought in her dolls, and Ted his sailboat and other toys, and there the two children played for some little time. 🔊
- 8. With high-sounding words the Mohawks left by sailboat for the mouth of the Richelieu, to continue on south to their own country. 🔊
- 9. And I'd make a sailboat scooting along, tipped 'way over on her side toward you, with just a slip of an eager-faced girl in it. 🔊
- 10. The gangway and the sailboat were soon filled by a chilly cold wind, which tried to blow it offshore and which nothing could restrain. 🔊
- 11. It was early that same evening, while the boys were at tea, that Squire Brackett stepped ashore from his sailboat in a perfect fever of excitement. 🔊
- 12. The sailboat crept slowly out into the middle of the river, the breeze being so light that only a faint rippling was heard at the bow, and the craft hardly answered her helm. 🔊 | <urn:uuid:6a92b67d-9764-4a51-b470-667c640fd864> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://searchsentences.com/words/sailboat-in-a-sentence | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00357.warc.gz | en | 0.989573 | 452 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
0.13136781752109528,
-0.07641731202602386,
-0.11482943594455719,
-0.3529635965824127,
-0.5868561267852783,
-0.024679183959960938,
0.47792771458625793,
0.1942894011735916,
0.2971824109554291,
0.07149708271026611,
0.26282739639282227,
-0.24800080060958862,
-0.31947290897369385,
0.07316949218... | 1 | Definition of Sailboat A boat propelled by a sail. | (slang, card games) A playing card with the rank of four.
How to use Sailboat in Sentence?
- 1. One fork turned to the right, which led to where the sailboat had been secured. 🔊
- 2. An empty sailboat was moored to the end of the wharf, which facilitated our operations. 🔊
- 3. He had a little sailboat in which he would take the children, even in severe storms. 🔊
- 4. Capable of making a dozen miles an hour, she was already doing her best, and coming up with the sailboat hand over hand. 🔊
- 5. There was a channel among the reefs, which a small sailboat could pursue, if one were accurately acquainted with its windings. 🔊
- 6. There was a tiny sailboat with a little wooden sailor on deck; but Robin would always be dabbling in the water if he got that. 🔊
- 7. Jan brought in her dolls, and Ted his sailboat and other toys, and there the two children played for some little time. 🔊
- 8. With high-sounding words the Mohawks left by sailboat for the mouth of the Richelieu, to continue on south to their own country. 🔊
- 9. And I'd make a sailboat scooting along, tipped 'way over on her side toward you, with just a slip of an eager-faced girl in it. 🔊
- 10. The gangway and the sailboat were soon filled by a chilly cold wind, which tried to blow it offshore and which nothing could restrain. 🔊
- 11. It was early that same evening, while the boys were at tea, that Squire Brackett stepped ashore from his sailboat in a perfect fever of excitement. 🔊
- 12. The sailboat crept slowly out into the middle of the river, the breeze being so light that only a faint rippling was heard at the bow, and the craft hardly answered her helm. 🔊 | 451 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What was the weather like yesterday? That’s what participants were asked at the start of this thought provoking workshop on understanding history and helping students develop tolerance.
Everyone in the room had their own take on the weather, some thought it was warm, whilst others thought it was cold. Some said dry and a few said wet. We had 30 eyewitness accounts yet not one person had exactly the same reflection on the weather. This is what is known as “multi-perspectivity” which formed the crux of the workshop on exploring different sides of a story. It was a simple question and we all witnessed it, yet it was very hard to establish the truth.
This is like history. History can be taught from a very much “Us” and “Them” perspective. Two pillars of this doctrine are pride and pain. We learn how great explorers or inventors from our country helped shape human destiny whilst we learn the pain and suffering we had to endure along the way at the hands of “them”. It can be very politically charged. What we tend to lack is the responsibility aspect, the war crimes, the occupations or other terrible acts.
This workshop was run by Jonathan Even-Zohar Director of EuroClio and Jacek Staniszewski history teacher and member of EuroClio. After this compelling introduction Jonathan outlined the Manifesto for high quality history heritage and citizenship education.
History cannot be neutral, the narrative reflects our values, what stories we are driven to tell and what questions we are lead to ask. Unfortunately, it all too often becomes abused as a political tool.
The group split off to perform a practical exercise and analysed postcards from World War 1, from both sides. They were asked to describe keywords describing how “us” and “them” were portrayed in the cards. We (us) were always innocent, gallant, brave and good but they (them) were evil, conniving and downright rotten. Does this sound familiar?
Oh and the weather? Turned out it was wet and cold in the morning and dry and warm in the afternoon, we were in Belgium after all!
Reporting by: Bill Griffin (CSS)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. | <urn:uuid:eee08580-fee4-4f42-a860-6821e88ca545> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://conference10.etwinning.net/2015/11/09/understanding-history-developing-tolerance/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00117.warc.gz | en | 0.980032 | 471 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.3262598216533661,
0.27763453125953674,
0.40109363198280334,
0.3190603256225586,
0.3143094778060913,
-0.035001128911972046,
0.07402075827121735,
-0.10085596889257431,
-0.20831109583377838,
-0.06989196687936783,
-0.24409452080726624,
-0.2355276197195053,
0.22259441018104553,
0.54963070154... | 8 | What was the weather like yesterday? That’s what participants were asked at the start of this thought provoking workshop on understanding history and helping students develop tolerance.
Everyone in the room had their own take on the weather, some thought it was warm, whilst others thought it was cold. Some said dry and a few said wet. We had 30 eyewitness accounts yet not one person had exactly the same reflection on the weather. This is what is known as “multi-perspectivity” which formed the crux of the workshop on exploring different sides of a story. It was a simple question and we all witnessed it, yet it was very hard to establish the truth.
This is like history. History can be taught from a very much “Us” and “Them” perspective. Two pillars of this doctrine are pride and pain. We learn how great explorers or inventors from our country helped shape human destiny whilst we learn the pain and suffering we had to endure along the way at the hands of “them”. It can be very politically charged. What we tend to lack is the responsibility aspect, the war crimes, the occupations or other terrible acts.
This workshop was run by Jonathan Even-Zohar Director of EuroClio and Jacek Staniszewski history teacher and member of EuroClio. After this compelling introduction Jonathan outlined the Manifesto for high quality history heritage and citizenship education.
History cannot be neutral, the narrative reflects our values, what stories we are driven to tell and what questions we are lead to ask. Unfortunately, it all too often becomes abused as a political tool.
The group split off to perform a practical exercise and analysed postcards from World War 1, from both sides. They were asked to describe keywords describing how “us” and “them” were portrayed in the cards. We (us) were always innocent, gallant, brave and good but they (them) were evil, conniving and downright rotten. Does this sound familiar?
Oh and the weather? Turned out it was wet and cold in the morning and dry and warm in the afternoon, we were in Belgium after all!
Reporting by: Bill Griffin (CSS)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. | 452 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Faithfulness or devotion to a person, a cause, obligations, or duties
In August 1296 Bruce and his father swore fealty to Edward I.
Hostages were given, oaths of fealty renewed, while many accepted Christianity, and the rudiments of an ecclesiastical system were established.
The Moslem inhabitants are mainly of Turkoman origin, and used to owe fealty to chieftains of the family of Chapan Oglu, whose headquarters were at Yuzgat in Cappadocia.
The Bruce party took up arms, and from the terms of their " band," or agreement, obviously contemplated resistance to the rights of the Maid of Norway, while declaring their fealty to Edward.
His election in preference to Frederick was possibly due to the fact that owing to his absence from Germany he had not taken the oath of fealty to the new king. | <urn:uuid:eb23216d-6a83-4656-bee6-45f378b4c961> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/fealty | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00446.warc.gz | en | 0.983118 | 180 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.255322128534317,
0.5465136170387268,
-0.2616713345050812,
-0.19314570724964142,
-0.1302528977394104,
-0.1017051413655281,
0.5426959991455078,
-0.2450856864452362,
-0.46345385909080505,
-0.08927188068628311,
-0.19017979502677917,
-0.4799889028072357,
0.27938419580459595,
-0.0461000055074... | 1 | Faithfulness or devotion to a person, a cause, obligations, or duties
In August 1296 Bruce and his father swore fealty to Edward I.
Hostages were given, oaths of fealty renewed, while many accepted Christianity, and the rudiments of an ecclesiastical system were established.
The Moslem inhabitants are mainly of Turkoman origin, and used to owe fealty to chieftains of the family of Chapan Oglu, whose headquarters were at Yuzgat in Cappadocia.
The Bruce party took up arms, and from the terms of their " band," or agreement, obviously contemplated resistance to the rights of the Maid of Norway, while declaring their fealty to Edward.
His election in preference to Frederick was possibly due to the fact that owing to his absence from Germany he had not taken the oath of fealty to the new king. | 185 | ENGLISH | 1 |
After the disastrous Great Depression struck in 1929, the country was in frantic need of a leader who would stabilize the economy and improve the declining situations of the U.S public. Elected in 1932, Democratic Presidential candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt was the answer to America's economic and social issues. Roosevelt had a concrete plan to end the spread of poverty and create opportunities for the unemployed and disadvantaged. His new policy, "New Deal" was founded on the ideas of recovery, reform and relief. With a supportive Democratic Congress, he was able to pass 15 major legislative acts in the first 100 days in office. Roosevelt's plans were unique in many ways, especially because they called for excessive government spending and involvement. Although Roosevelt's programs were in some cases controversial and unorthodox, he responded appropriately to the disaster. His programs proved to be relatively effective in accomplishing their goals of reviving the economy and helping the people get back on their feet. .
Among all of Roosevelt's many reforms, the most popular were those that gave immediate satisfaction to the unemployed. There were several approaches the New Deal took when helping the jobless. The most obvious of these methods was to create jobs. Roosevelt did this by encouraging the construction of public works as well as work providing organizations. The Civilian Conservation Corps, a relief agency, was created in 1933 when its legislative bill was passed by congress. This bill provided work for young men in order to help them, and even their families. The men's earned wage was split between themselves and their families back home. These men lived and worked in camp, military like, units. They did work which included planting forests and clearing fire breaks. In addition to these corps, the Public Works Administration was created in 1933 under the guidance of Harold Ickes, Secretary of Interior. | <urn:uuid:ad0c229d-fce1-454e-8d2b-88c2f1e0d71f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/216337.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595787.7/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119234426-20200120022426-00030.warc.gz | en | 0.987461 | 360 | 4.125 | 4 | [
-0.6101058125495911,
0.27607303857803345,
0.33354103565216064,
-0.10469339787960052,
0.108803890645504,
0.270993173122406,
-0.4097287654876709,
0.17273488640785217,
-0.3884357511997223,
-0.31271663308143616,
0.682459831237793,
0.4638669490814209,
0.25144731998443604,
0.12117203325033188,
... | 5 | After the disastrous Great Depression struck in 1929, the country was in frantic need of a leader who would stabilize the economy and improve the declining situations of the U.S public. Elected in 1932, Democratic Presidential candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt was the answer to America's economic and social issues. Roosevelt had a concrete plan to end the spread of poverty and create opportunities for the unemployed and disadvantaged. His new policy, "New Deal" was founded on the ideas of recovery, reform and relief. With a supportive Democratic Congress, he was able to pass 15 major legislative acts in the first 100 days in office. Roosevelt's plans were unique in many ways, especially because they called for excessive government spending and involvement. Although Roosevelt's programs were in some cases controversial and unorthodox, he responded appropriately to the disaster. His programs proved to be relatively effective in accomplishing their goals of reviving the economy and helping the people get back on their feet. .
Among all of Roosevelt's many reforms, the most popular were those that gave immediate satisfaction to the unemployed. There were several approaches the New Deal took when helping the jobless. The most obvious of these methods was to create jobs. Roosevelt did this by encouraging the construction of public works as well as work providing organizations. The Civilian Conservation Corps, a relief agency, was created in 1933 when its legislative bill was passed by congress. This bill provided work for young men in order to help them, and even their families. The men's earned wage was split between themselves and their families back home. These men lived and worked in camp, military like, units. They did work which included planting forests and clearing fire breaks. In addition to these corps, the Public Works Administration was created in 1933 under the guidance of Harold Ickes, Secretary of Interior. | 381 | ENGLISH | 1 |
2. There were many factors involved in the possibility of producing wine in Greece. Wines main use was religious. Its value made it worthy for consumption by the gods. Wine was very exclusive, only the elite could afford to drink it. Ashurnasirpal had a vineyard in his own garden so therefore, the wine that didn’t come from distant regions, literally came from his trees. (46)
3. Wine became an important drink throughout the Near East and the eastern Mediterranean. Wine soon became known as not just as social beverage, but as a religious beverage as well. Wines availability grew into two values. First, wine production boosted, also quantity of wine being traded over sea, making wine accessible over larger geographic areas. Second, as quantity grew prices fell, wine became available to an immense division of society.
4. The root of Western civilization can be followed back to the golden age of ancient Greece. The Greeks approach was to seek logical inquiry through opposing discussion. This approach underpins the modern Western style of life, in which politics, commerce science, and law are all fixed in regulated competition. (51)
5. The Greeks determined how cultured a person was by their drink of wine. What type of wine you drank and the age of the wine were the two main indicators. Wine drinking was compatible with civilization and elegance. One of the factors that were more significant than the choice of wine was how you drank it. It declared your innermost nature. (56)
6. The symposia were scenes for frisky but opposing discussion in which drinkers would try to outdo each other in humor, poetry, or rhetoric. The ambience of the symposion prompted the Greeks how civilized they were, in comparison with the barbarians. Cultured competition and Greece’s believed dominance over foreigners were evident in the Greek love of wine. (52)
7. What most distinguished Greece from other cultures was the practice of mixing wine with water before consumption. The preparation of mixing wine and water was a neutral ground between barbarians who overdrink and those who did not drink at all. The combination of water and wine consumed in the symposion supplied arable metaphorical ground for Greek philosophers, who compared it to the combination of the good and bad in human nature. (56-62)
8. Plato had a different view of democracy than others. He was “suspicious” of democracy. He thought it meddled with the raw order of things. Plato confirmed that the good could counterbalance the bad in the symposion. After a day of… | <urn:uuid:5a32569c-a2e1-4a0f-bebb-3d577679ad78> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.majortests.com/essay/No-Thank-You-553842.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00104.warc.gz | en | 0.985527 | 532 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
0.3768773376941681,
0.40616941452026367,
-0.019085431471467018,
-0.7700643539428711,
0.08597245812416077,
-0.3146125376224518,
0.02489556185901165,
0.7417483329772949,
0.016487978398799896,
0.05241693556308746,
-0.6663309335708618,
-0.3887844383716583,
-0.27455371618270874,
-0.055177487432... | 1 | 2. There were many factors involved in the possibility of producing wine in Greece. Wines main use was religious. Its value made it worthy for consumption by the gods. Wine was very exclusive, only the elite could afford to drink it. Ashurnasirpal had a vineyard in his own garden so therefore, the wine that didn’t come from distant regions, literally came from his trees. (46)
3. Wine became an important drink throughout the Near East and the eastern Mediterranean. Wine soon became known as not just as social beverage, but as a religious beverage as well. Wines availability grew into two values. First, wine production boosted, also quantity of wine being traded over sea, making wine accessible over larger geographic areas. Second, as quantity grew prices fell, wine became available to an immense division of society.
4. The root of Western civilization can be followed back to the golden age of ancient Greece. The Greeks approach was to seek logical inquiry through opposing discussion. This approach underpins the modern Western style of life, in which politics, commerce science, and law are all fixed in regulated competition. (51)
5. The Greeks determined how cultured a person was by their drink of wine. What type of wine you drank and the age of the wine were the two main indicators. Wine drinking was compatible with civilization and elegance. One of the factors that were more significant than the choice of wine was how you drank it. It declared your innermost nature. (56)
6. The symposia were scenes for frisky but opposing discussion in which drinkers would try to outdo each other in humor, poetry, or rhetoric. The ambience of the symposion prompted the Greeks how civilized they were, in comparison with the barbarians. Cultured competition and Greece’s believed dominance over foreigners were evident in the Greek love of wine. (52)
7. What most distinguished Greece from other cultures was the practice of mixing wine with water before consumption. The preparation of mixing wine and water was a neutral ground between barbarians who overdrink and those who did not drink at all. The combination of water and wine consumed in the symposion supplied arable metaphorical ground for Greek philosophers, who compared it to the combination of the good and bad in human nature. (56-62)
8. Plato had a different view of democracy than others. He was “suspicious” of democracy. He thought it meddled with the raw order of things. Plato confirmed that the good could counterbalance the bad in the symposion. After a day of… | 527 | ENGLISH | 1 |
While the older children joined the search for the Dragon of SUD and thought of ways to tame him, the younger ones played. They drew his picture. They told his story. They acted out how they would battle with him. They shaped him out of mud they found by the stream. And, they built towers out of rocks and sticks: THIS is where they could keep him, once he had been captured!
Fairytale Magic in the Classroom
It’s one thing to know that resilience is important, but quite another to know how to nurture it in the busy early childhood classroom! Juggling standards, curriculum, routines, and children who just need a hug is a challenge! Fairytales to the rescue! Suggestions for ways to use these age-old tales to promote resilience while you are providing rich literacy experiences are a click away! | <urn:uuid:b22acb04-009d-4bdf-8d3e-38e0e3756ec9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://imaginationonthemove.com/fairytale-classroom_magic/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00495.warc.gz | en | 0.986283 | 174 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.4537338614463806,
-0.08958668261766434,
0.20909324288368225,
-0.2069460153579712,
-0.23047195374965668,
0.28852948546409607,
-0.06238161772489548,
0.1879206895828247,
-0.557206392288208,
-0.2707924246788025,
-0.10627797245979309,
0.14724957942962646,
0.5622302293777466,
0.37864878773689... | 11 | While the older children joined the search for the Dragon of SUD and thought of ways to tame him, the younger ones played. They drew his picture. They told his story. They acted out how they would battle with him. They shaped him out of mud they found by the stream. And, they built towers out of rocks and sticks: THIS is where they could keep him, once he had been captured!
Fairytale Magic in the Classroom
It’s one thing to know that resilience is important, but quite another to know how to nurture it in the busy early childhood classroom! Juggling standards, curriculum, routines, and children who just need a hug is a challenge! Fairytales to the rescue! Suggestions for ways to use these age-old tales to promote resilience while you are providing rich literacy experiences are a click away! | 168 | ENGLISH | 1 |
US History/Nixon and Indochina
- 1 Violence and the Election of 1968
- 2 Foreign Policy
- 3 The Women's Movement
- 4 Roe v. Wade
- 5 Watergate and the Election of 1972
- 6 President Carter
- 7 References
Violence and the Election of 1968Edit
There were 3 major assassinations in the 60s, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. All were suspected of "governmental" influence. Strong conspiracy theories still exist, which had a profound effect on how some Americans viewed their government. Some were very distrustful and some were very status quo. So it divided America in a way we hadn't seen since the Civil War. After the assassination of Dr. King in Memphis, riots broke out in over 100 cities. Troops were called in to control the mobs of people. Stunned and saddened by Dr. King's death, the nation worried about renewed homeland violence.
The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a number of significant mobilizations against racism. The first sizable demonstration of Asians took place in 1972 over yet more anti-immigration laws. There were increasing numbers of protests against the National Front (NF), which was slowly building support by 1974. There was also a host of protests and campaigns against police harassment and racist educational policies. It was the concentration of anti-racist forces in a campaign against the NF, led by the Anti Nazi League (ANL), that shattered the upsurge of racism. In alliance with Rock Against Racism it was able to put on not just two huge carnivals, but countless events that drew black and white young people together.
Robert Kennedy is AssassinatedEdit
In the race for the Democratic nomination, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, and Robert Francis Kennedy (brother of John F.) were competing in a close match. In most primaries, Kennedy edged out McCarthy, and meanwhile, Humphrey garnered the support of Democratic party leaders, who chose the delegates to the national convention. In June 1968, Kennedy won the primary in California, the state with the most delegates to the convention.Bobby Kennedy was trying to become president and follow in his brother's foot steps. At a celebration rally on the night of the victory, Kennedy was shot and killed by Sirhan B. Sirhan, who claimed that he did not remember shooting Bobby Kennedy. Sirhan shot Kennedy with .22 pistol. Kennedy was hit multiple times and five others were wounded. The nation was sent reeling into another shock from the new violence. Kennedy's body lay in repose at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York for two days before a funeral mass was held on June 8. His body was interred near his brother John at Arlington National Cemetery. His death prompted the protection of presidential candidates by the United States Secret Service. Hubert Humphrey went on to win the Democratic nomination for the presidency, but ultimately narrowly lost the election to Richard Nixon.
The Democratic ConventionEdit
Because of his support among leaders and delegates from the Democratic Party, it appeared that Humphrey had enough votes to win the nomination at the convention in Chicago. Humphrey, however, was a supporter of Johnson's policy in Vietnam, so he was perceived as a war supporter.
Anti-war Democrats, most of whom had supported Kennedy, felt left out of the convention. Angry, they flocked to Chicago to protest Humphrey's nomination. On the first and second nights of the convention, the protesters were generally subdued and the Chicago police made few arrests. On the third night, however, protesters planned to march to the convention site to protest.
Fearing another outbreak of violence, the mayor of Chicago made the police block the protesters at the hall. When they tried a different route, protesters were blocked again. Outraged, protesters started throwing objects at the police. The police threw tear gas into the crowd and charged the protesters, beating some and taking others into custody.
Humphrey won the nomination, but the violence hurt his campaign. The nation saw all the anger and outrage on television. It seemed that Democrats could not control their own party.
Nixon, the former Vice President, had quietly been nominated by the Republicans as their candidate. Nixon claimed to represent the "silent majority" in America; that is, those that had begun to take on a more conservative approach to politics and disliked the "hippie" and civil rights movements. Nixon also promised to end the war in Vietnam, although he never said he would win it.
Because of his promises about Vietnam, Nixon was able to gain support from antiwar Democrats and Republicans alike. In a huge political comeback (Nixon was defeated in the election of 1960 and lost the race for the governor of California in 1962), Nixon barely won the popular vote, gaining only 500,000 more votes than Humphrey. He won by a larger margin in the electoral college, gaining 301 votes, while Humphrey only had 191.
Also note that Nixon made the statement on November 3rd 1969, almost a year after his election. He cribbed it from a speech his vice president, Spiro Agnew, had made on May 9th of that year. Agnew's writers may have been taking it from President Kennedy's 1956 book Profiles in Courage. The original phrase goes back to Edward Young's 1721 poem "The Revenge":
"Life is the desert, life the solitude;
Death joins us to the great majority."
It became an in-joke among Democrats and protesters to hear Agnew and Nixon claim to represent the dead, perhaps as envoys of the Undead. This was only two years after Caesar Romero's Night of the Living Dead came out.
Nixon, in an attempt to bring stability to the nation, made many changes in foreign policy. He appointed Henry Kissinger as his national security advisor and later as his Secretary of State. Both believed in the philosophy of realpolitik, which put national interests in front of leaders' political ideologies and reasoned that peace could only come from negotiations, not war. During Nixon's presidency, he and Kissinger would work to try to ease the cold war.
Nixon promised to ease the United States out of the Vietnam war, and for the most part, he kept his promise. He and Kissinger called their plan to hand the war over to the South Vietnamese: Vietnamization. By the end of 1970, the number of troops in Vietnam had fallen from 540,000 in the beginning of 1969 to 335,000. By January of 1970, the Vietnam conflict had become the longest in American history and, with 40,000 killed and over 250,000 wounded, the third most costly foreign war in the nation's experience. In 1971 there were only 60,000 troops in Vietnam.
In order to compensate for the loss of troops in Vietnam, Nixon hiked up the bombing campaign. The Ho Chi Minh Trail, which bordered and sometimes ran into the countries of Laos and Cambodia, was bombed. Nixon wanted to keep his public image as a peace President, so the bombing of Cambodia was kept a secret. The Vietnam War was one of the first wars to be publicized on television. This raised awareness to Americans around the country because they were more aware of the inhumane acts of war.
The war seemed to be fought both over in Asia and back in the states. Thousands of protesters mostly young college students were against the war and were beginning to get war weariness during the later years of the war. Many of the youth were drafted to fight overseas during this war, the lucky ones were able to escape if they could afford a college education.
The Vietnam War polarized opinion in the United States. Some people believed the war was immoral, others that it would not serve US interests while some felt it was necessary to stop the advance (as they saw it) of communism.
The Vietnam war brought both violence but also opened up many job opportunities as well both at home and overseas. The draft was issued and thousands of men were sent to go fight in Vietnam along with thousands of other volunteer soldiers. With all these men fighting overseas many small businesses and factories were in need of employing new workers which opened up many job opportunities for other Americans at this time.
Outrage and TragedyEdit
Nixon tried to end the war through peace talks with North Vietnam, but generally, these stalled because the North Vietnamese had a wait and see attitude towards the war. They believed that opposition to the war within America would eventually grow so strong that Nixon would be forced to remove American troops from the country.
Nixon tried to appeal to his "silent majority" and renew support for the war, but then, Cambodia fell into a civil war between Communist and non-Communist forces. Nixon decided to send troops into Cambodia to destroy Communist strongholds, and Americans were outraged that their leader, who had strived for an end to the war, had attacked a neutral country. Opposition, especially in colleges, grew stronger.
This was especially true in Kent State University in Ohio. When students burned down a military complex on the Kent State campus, the Ohio governor declared martial law, or emergency military rule. The students were furious. On May 4th, they staged a protest on the campus lawn, but the National Guard troops told the students to disband, and that they had no right to assemble. The troops shot tear gas into the crowd, and the students ran. Some troops cornered a group between two buildings and suddenly, for unknown reasons, opened fire. Four students were killed and thirteen others were wounded.
Violence again struck at Jackson State in Mississippi. After a night of campus violence, police were called in to control the students, but eventually police opened fire on the students and two were killed. Witnesses recalled the police recklessly blasting the school's residence hall with their guns. The police claimed to be defending themselves from snipers.
The End of the WarEdit
In the fall of 1972, it seemed that peace was at hand. But at the last minute, the negotiations fell through because the South Vietnamese refused to have North Vietnamese forces in their country. Nixon decided to launch a last aggressive bombing campaign to try to scare the North Vietnamese into stopping the war, but they were persistent and continued to fight. In the beginning of 1975, the North Vietnamese launched a final major offensive. The South Vietnamese army collapsed, and soon, Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, was in the Vietcong's grasp. Americans scrambled to evacuate from the country, and on April 29, Americans were evacuating by helicopter off the roof of the American embassy. In the early hours of April 30, 1975, Saigon fell to the Vietcong. Soon after, South Vietnam surrendered.
Upon return, the American troops had no welcome. Many Americans, angered at the outcome of the war or just angry that the war ever had to happen, just wanted to forget the ordeal. Vietnam lay in ruins, and almost 1.4 million Vietnamese lives (on either side) were claimed. Also, 58,000 Americans had died, 300,000 were wounded, and the U.S. had wasted $150 billion on the war. Because people's homes and fields were destroyed in the war in Vietnam, thousands of refugees flooded out of the country on boats. Many came to the United States, but they weren't met with open arms by most Americans.
In 1969, Nixon wanted to ease the tensions of the Cold War to help the nation heal from the tragedy of Vietnam. He and Kissinger used realpolitik, the practice of basing decisions on the interests of the nation rather than the leaders' beliefs, to shape a new foreign policy. Nixon formed a foreign policy plan of détente, a plan of relaxing international tensions. Nixon's ultimate goal in his new plan was to achieve a so-called "balance of power" between the U.S., Europe, Soviet Union, China, and Japan so that no one nation could grow too strong.
To kick off his new plan, Nixon began to express friendliness to the People's Republic of China. The United States had severed ties with China after communists took control of the government in a political coup d'etat (a sudden change of government by force) in 1949. In 1970, Nixon began hinting at new relations with China, and he stopped referring to the country as "Red China," which was an offensive term for the nation. By increasing relations with China, Nixon hoped that the Soviets would become more cooperative in talks with the U.S. because it would fear a U.S.-China alliance.
Realizing the change in U.S. sentiment, China invited a U.S. table tennis team to visit the country in April 1971, and a week later, the U.S. opened trade between the two countries. After sending Kissinger on a secret visit to China, Nixon announced that he would go to Beijing, the Chinese capital. In February 1972, Nixon finally came to Beijing. Pictures of him at the Great Wall and attending Chinese banquets were in international news. In another seven years, Chinese relations would be fully restored.
The Soviet UnionEdit
Nixon was right about the Soviet Union. Fearing a Chinese alliance with America, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev agreed to meet with Nixon in Moscow in May of 1972. Again, pictures of Nixon with communist leaders filled the news. While in Moscow, Nixon signed the SALT I Treaty, or the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. The treaty limited the number of nuclear arms that the Soviet Union and the U.S. could possess.
Feeling that the Soviet Union was in scientific decline, Brezhnev agreed with the U.S. to work with it in trade and information. This way, the Soviet Union could also gain access to desperately needed American grain. As a result of the talk, the Arms Race slowed and international tensions eased.
The Women's MovementEdit
In the 1970s, women in “The Women’s Movement” claimed that they had achieved a great deal through all their efforts in the past decades. These achievements consisted of: married women receiving the right to have their own credit in their own name instead of just in their husband’s name, unmarried women receiving the right to get birth control, women receiving the right to serve on a jury panel, and women receiving the right to list their help wanted ads alongside men’s help wanted ads.
One of the goals these feminists had set was to change the view and laws on rape. Before this time, psychiatrists would claim that “A woman sometimes plays a big part in provoking her attacker by . . . her overall attitude and appearance.” Statements and beliefs like this made it easy for people to have a less sympathetic view towards victims of rape. However, by the end of the 1970s, activists worked on state levels to create crisis centers for rape victims, educate people such as police and hospital security about how to handle and take care of women who have been raped. These women even succeeded in changing some laws.
Roe v. WadeEdit
In March 1970, a Texas woman by the name of Norma McCorvey, unmarried and pregnant, decided to sue the state of Texas by the recommendation of Sarah Weddington, a young attorney. At the time, the vast majority of the other states had similar laws. At the time, Texas had a law in place that banned abortion in women, with the exception of women with life-threatening pregnancies. As part of standard court procedure, McCorvey was renamed Jane Roe, because she did not want her identity to be known by the court.
With rulings favoring both Roe and Dallas Country district attorney Henry Wade in various levels of the courts, the case eventually landed in the Supreme Court. Argued first on December 13, 1971 and again on October 11, 1972 (at the court's request), Weddington contended that the Texas law (and therefore all abortion banning laws) were in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which gave a citizen the right to privacy, and that abortion laws violated the privacy of women.
The case was decided on January 22, 1973, with Harry Blackmun writing the ruling. With a 7-2 majority, the Court ruled that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments did indeed collectively give a citizen the right to privacy, and that abortion laws did indeed violate the right to privacy of women.
Having recently appointed Warren Burger (the Chief Justice), Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist, Nixon was disappointed in the ruling. All of them Republicans, Nixon had presumed that the judges would rule conservatively. Only Rehnquist would dissent with the majority. The other dissenting vote was Byron White, who had been appointed by John F. Kennedy.
The ruling continued the abortion divide that still exists today. It gave the general pro-choice sentiment among the more liberal and progressive Democratic Party and the pro-life sentiment among more conservative and religious Republican Party. The case was reopened in 1992, only to reaffirm the ruling. Norma McCorvey would go on later to become a pro-life advocate.
Roe vs Wade was a turning point in planned parenthood. It was another form of birth control that became legal. Some women viewed this as a sign of liberation and freedom because women could control how many children they had. Other people however thought abortion was immoral. The question that is commonly asked is "is this murder or not?". Their are continuing arguments to this day that abortion is violating the sanctity of life.
Roe v. Wade was decided primarily on the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights. The Court's decision in this case was that the Ninth Amendment, in stating that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," protected a person's right to privacy.
Watergate and the Election of 1972Edit
In 1971, Nixon had many doubts about the 1972 election. But this was before Nixon and Kissinger had vastly improved relations with the Soviet Union and China. By the time those tasks had been accomplished, much of the nation approved of Nixon. Even more in his favor was the Democratic disunity and the nomination of the radically liberal George McGovern. Some voters found his views disturbing.
Even so, Nixon's paranoia and the stress of the presidential campaign would conspire to send the nation reeling and his administration into crisis. Much later, it would be found that Nixon's campaign would stretch the truth, the law, and ethics.
To start his campaign, Nixon asked a group of only the most loyal aides to create an "enemies list," a list of political opponents to the Nixon administration. Then, Nixon asked the IRS and the FBI to investigate those on the enemies list, and justified his actions by saying that he believed that those investigated were a threat to national security. Nixon was slowly changing his campaign from a campaign for the presidency to a campaign against enemies. Nixon was the renominated Republican nominee running with Sprio T. Agnew. They were running against the democratic nominee, Senator George McGovern of South Dakota. McGovern was running with Senator Thomas Eagleton for vice president. Eagleton was shortly replaced with Sargent Shriver after the press discovering Eagleton had been treated for psychological problems. Nixon was also running against longtime segregationist, George Wallace. On May 15, 1972, Wallace became a victim of an assassination attempt that left him paralyzed from the waist down. Wallace was shot by twenty-one year old, Arthur Bremer. Bremer had also shot three others and was sentenced to 63 years in prison.
Using some of the money allotted for his campaign, Nixon funded a secret group of "plumbers," who "plugged" information leaks that were damaging to the administration. Money also funded dirty tricks against Nixon's Democratic opponents.
In November of 1972, an unknowing public headed to the polls to cast votes for the President. Nixon won the election by a landslide, with almost 61 percent of the popular vote and 520 out of 537 electoral votes.
Things were quiet for a while after the election. In late 1973, countries in the Middle East imposed an embargo, or refusal to trade, on oil to the U.S. after the U.S. supported Israel in a short war against Egypt (the most powerful country in the region) and Syria. Prices for gas shot up in the U.S. and stations had to ration the gas, putting restrictions like "ten gallons per customer." Many people were laid off. Nixon worked to help relations with the Middle East, and in March 1974, the embargo was lifted. He was also able to get the U.S. out of Vietnam. Because of his work, Americans generally approved of Nixon.
Voters did not know that a little while after midnight on June 17, 1972, a security guard named Frank Wills had been patrolling in the parking garage of the Wartergate complex, the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and found tape on the locks to doors leading into the building. He removed the tape and thought little of it, but an hour later, he would find it replaced. He would call the police, and they would arrest five robbers inside the complex.
The subsequent arrests of "plumbers" Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt would slowly but surely send tremors through the presidency. Initially, the Nixon administration denied that it had anything to do with the two plumbers or the bugs that the five men were trying to plant in the telephones of the Democratic headquarters (bugs are telephone listening devices, commonly used by spies and others in the field of espionage) when investigators gathered info that suggested it did. Ronald Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary, decried the break-in a "third rate burglary."
Hearing of the incident at the Watergate complex, the Washington Post, a prominent Washington D.C. newspaper with a national circulation, started publishing a series of articles linking Nixon to the burglary. Also, after questioning, one of the burglars confessed that the White House lied about its involvement in the break-in. Still, only about half of Americans had even heard of the robbery.
In early 1973, the Senate voted to hold hearings on the Watergate break-in. They asked the Department of Justice to hire a special prosecutor outside of the Nixon-influenced department to investigate Watergate. Slowly, Cox and Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina would reveal the massive scandal going on in the White house. In May, former deputy White House counsel John Dean, a source close to Nixon, would testify that there indeed had been a cover up and that it had been directed by Nixon himself.
The extent of Nixon's desperation would become evident in October 1973 when Cox ordered that Nixon hand over tapes from a secret taping system that recorded conversations in the President's office. He refused on executive privilege grounds, contending that the release of the tapes would compromise national security.
When Cox tried to get an injunction for the release of the tapes, Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson, the attorney general, to fire Cox (after all, it was the Justice Department that had hired Cox), but Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Rickelshaus to fire Cox, but he, like Richardson, refused and resigned. Finally, Nixon got a minor Justice Department official, Solicitor General Robert Bork, to fire Cox. The series of resignations and the firing of Cox became known as the Saturday Night Massacre. The public was outraged.
At the height of the Watergate scandal, the Department of Justice uncovered another: Vice President Spiro Agnew had accepted bribes as the governor of Maryland. He resigned on October 10, 1973. Nixon nominated Michigan congressman Gerald Ford as his Vice President, who was quickly confirmed.
The House of Representatives decided to initiate the impeachment process as public outrage mounted over the Saturday Night Massacre. If a majority voted to charge the President of high crimes and misdemeanors, he would be tried by the Senate and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the trial. If 67 of the 100 senators voted to find Nixon guilty, he would be expelled from office.
In April of 1974, Nixon decided to release heavily edited transcripts of the tapes to try to improve his image. This only led to more public protest, and the Supreme Court eventually ruled that Nixon had to hand over the tapes. After a conversation on one of the tapes revealed that Nixon had ordered a cover up of the robbery, the public was stunned and the House mulled impeachment. Before any more damage could be done, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. He would be the first and (so far) only president to resign and Gerald Ford would become the only president not elected to the office of president or vice president.
The impact of the scandal was wide and far-reaching. Among other things, Congress passed a series of laws sharply limiting a president's power to wage undeclared war, limiting campaign spending and strengthening public access to government information. Also, it proved that the Constitution's system of checks and balances could work to bring an abusive or tyrannical president out of power. But by far the biggest impact of the crisis was the loss of the public's faith and trust in politicians and elected officials; cynicism concerning the ethics, behavior, and motives of elected officials would be deep and lasting. Because of Nixon's party affiliation and the outrage over a preemptive pardon that Ford granted Nixon after he became president, people associated corruption with the Republican party. Decades of gerrymandering by New Dealers and their successors had assured nearly-impregnable overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress since the 1930s. Fallout from Watergate assured that this trend would continue in the midterm elections of November 1974. The Republicans would pay the ultimate price for Watergate in 1976, with Ford losing the White House to a relative political newcomer.
Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter, Jr.), the thirty-ninth president of the United States, was born Oct. 1, 1924, in the small farming town of Plains, Ga., and grew up in the nearby community of Archery. His father, James Earl Carter, Sr., was a farmer and businessman; his mother, Lillian Gordy Carter, a registered nurse.
He was educated in the public school of Plains, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a bachelor of science degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. In the Navy, he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. In 2002 President Carter was given the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the only American president to ever get a Nobel Peace Prize after his presidency. Carter was also against the death penalty in the United States. His thoughts on it were to replace the death penalty with life in prison which was not heard of at the time.
James Earl Carter, Jr., was born on October 1, 1924 in the tiny southwest Georgia city of Plains, near Americus. The first president born in a hospital, he is the eldest of four children of James Earl Carter and Bessie Lillian Gordy. Carter's father was a prominent business owner in the community and his mother was a registered nurse. The Carter family had come from southern England (Carter's paternal ancestor arrived in the American Colonies in 1635), and had lived in the state of Georgia for several generations. Carter has documented ancestors who fought in the American Revolution, and he is a member of the Sons of the American Revolution. Carter's great-grandfather, Private L.B. Walker Carter (1832–1874), served in the Confederate States Army.
James Earl Carter ran in the 1976 election. He was formerly the Governor of Georgia and was elected to run as the democratic nominee. Carter ran with Senator Walter Mondale of Minnesota as his vice presidential candidate. Carter ran for president against Gerald Ford who had won the Republican nomination against Ronald Reagan by a slim margin. Carter defeated Ford in the election of 1976. During his presidency, Carter sought to conduct the presidency on democratic and moral principles. He approached economic problems inconsistently and he offered amnesty to Americans who had fled the draft and gone to other countries during the Vietnam War.
- Mary Beth Norton, et al, "A People and A Nation:Eighth Edition", 902-903
- "Super Reviewm; United States History"
- "Super Review; United States History" | <urn:uuid:13a068f5-36b0-4508-a64c-e8cb08ce2c5c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_History/Nixon_and_Indochina | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00298.warc.gz | en | 0.981323 | 5,847 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.12432712316513062,
0.1363375186920166,
0.13844192028045654,
0.06496750563383102,
0.10984719544649124,
1.067878246307373,
0.024581650272011757,
-0.10720296204090118,
0.1850583255290985,
0.0634789690375328,
0.22459271550178528,
0.45383110642433167,
0.02148342691361904,
0.1681273728609085,... | 1 | US History/Nixon and Indochina
- 1 Violence and the Election of 1968
- 2 Foreign Policy
- 3 The Women's Movement
- 4 Roe v. Wade
- 5 Watergate and the Election of 1972
- 6 President Carter
- 7 References
Violence and the Election of 1968Edit
There were 3 major assassinations in the 60s, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. All were suspected of "governmental" influence. Strong conspiracy theories still exist, which had a profound effect on how some Americans viewed their government. Some were very distrustful and some were very status quo. So it divided America in a way we hadn't seen since the Civil War. After the assassination of Dr. King in Memphis, riots broke out in over 100 cities. Troops were called in to control the mobs of people. Stunned and saddened by Dr. King's death, the nation worried about renewed homeland violence.
The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a number of significant mobilizations against racism. The first sizable demonstration of Asians took place in 1972 over yet more anti-immigration laws. There were increasing numbers of protests against the National Front (NF), which was slowly building support by 1974. There was also a host of protests and campaigns against police harassment and racist educational policies. It was the concentration of anti-racist forces in a campaign against the NF, led by the Anti Nazi League (ANL), that shattered the upsurge of racism. In alliance with Rock Against Racism it was able to put on not just two huge carnivals, but countless events that drew black and white young people together.
Robert Kennedy is AssassinatedEdit
In the race for the Democratic nomination, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, and Robert Francis Kennedy (brother of John F.) were competing in a close match. In most primaries, Kennedy edged out McCarthy, and meanwhile, Humphrey garnered the support of Democratic party leaders, who chose the delegates to the national convention. In June 1968, Kennedy won the primary in California, the state with the most delegates to the convention.Bobby Kennedy was trying to become president and follow in his brother's foot steps. At a celebration rally on the night of the victory, Kennedy was shot and killed by Sirhan B. Sirhan, who claimed that he did not remember shooting Bobby Kennedy. Sirhan shot Kennedy with .22 pistol. Kennedy was hit multiple times and five others were wounded. The nation was sent reeling into another shock from the new violence. Kennedy's body lay in repose at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York for two days before a funeral mass was held on June 8. His body was interred near his brother John at Arlington National Cemetery. His death prompted the protection of presidential candidates by the United States Secret Service. Hubert Humphrey went on to win the Democratic nomination for the presidency, but ultimately narrowly lost the election to Richard Nixon.
The Democratic ConventionEdit
Because of his support among leaders and delegates from the Democratic Party, it appeared that Humphrey had enough votes to win the nomination at the convention in Chicago. Humphrey, however, was a supporter of Johnson's policy in Vietnam, so he was perceived as a war supporter.
Anti-war Democrats, most of whom had supported Kennedy, felt left out of the convention. Angry, they flocked to Chicago to protest Humphrey's nomination. On the first and second nights of the convention, the protesters were generally subdued and the Chicago police made few arrests. On the third night, however, protesters planned to march to the convention site to protest.
Fearing another outbreak of violence, the mayor of Chicago made the police block the protesters at the hall. When they tried a different route, protesters were blocked again. Outraged, protesters started throwing objects at the police. The police threw tear gas into the crowd and charged the protesters, beating some and taking others into custody.
Humphrey won the nomination, but the violence hurt his campaign. The nation saw all the anger and outrage on television. It seemed that Democrats could not control their own party.
Nixon, the former Vice President, had quietly been nominated by the Republicans as their candidate. Nixon claimed to represent the "silent majority" in America; that is, those that had begun to take on a more conservative approach to politics and disliked the "hippie" and civil rights movements. Nixon also promised to end the war in Vietnam, although he never said he would win it.
Because of his promises about Vietnam, Nixon was able to gain support from antiwar Democrats and Republicans alike. In a huge political comeback (Nixon was defeated in the election of 1960 and lost the race for the governor of California in 1962), Nixon barely won the popular vote, gaining only 500,000 more votes than Humphrey. He won by a larger margin in the electoral college, gaining 301 votes, while Humphrey only had 191.
Also note that Nixon made the statement on November 3rd 1969, almost a year after his election. He cribbed it from a speech his vice president, Spiro Agnew, had made on May 9th of that year. Agnew's writers may have been taking it from President Kennedy's 1956 book Profiles in Courage. The original phrase goes back to Edward Young's 1721 poem "The Revenge":
"Life is the desert, life the solitude;
Death joins us to the great majority."
It became an in-joke among Democrats and protesters to hear Agnew and Nixon claim to represent the dead, perhaps as envoys of the Undead. This was only two years after Caesar Romero's Night of the Living Dead came out.
Nixon, in an attempt to bring stability to the nation, made many changes in foreign policy. He appointed Henry Kissinger as his national security advisor and later as his Secretary of State. Both believed in the philosophy of realpolitik, which put national interests in front of leaders' political ideologies and reasoned that peace could only come from negotiations, not war. During Nixon's presidency, he and Kissinger would work to try to ease the cold war.
Nixon promised to ease the United States out of the Vietnam war, and for the most part, he kept his promise. He and Kissinger called their plan to hand the war over to the South Vietnamese: Vietnamization. By the end of 1970, the number of troops in Vietnam had fallen from 540,000 in the beginning of 1969 to 335,000. By January of 1970, the Vietnam conflict had become the longest in American history and, with 40,000 killed and over 250,000 wounded, the third most costly foreign war in the nation's experience. In 1971 there were only 60,000 troops in Vietnam.
In order to compensate for the loss of troops in Vietnam, Nixon hiked up the bombing campaign. The Ho Chi Minh Trail, which bordered and sometimes ran into the countries of Laos and Cambodia, was bombed. Nixon wanted to keep his public image as a peace President, so the bombing of Cambodia was kept a secret. The Vietnam War was one of the first wars to be publicized on television. This raised awareness to Americans around the country because they were more aware of the inhumane acts of war.
The war seemed to be fought both over in Asia and back in the states. Thousands of protesters mostly young college students were against the war and were beginning to get war weariness during the later years of the war. Many of the youth were drafted to fight overseas during this war, the lucky ones were able to escape if they could afford a college education.
The Vietnam War polarized opinion in the United States. Some people believed the war was immoral, others that it would not serve US interests while some felt it was necessary to stop the advance (as they saw it) of communism.
The Vietnam war brought both violence but also opened up many job opportunities as well both at home and overseas. The draft was issued and thousands of men were sent to go fight in Vietnam along with thousands of other volunteer soldiers. With all these men fighting overseas many small businesses and factories were in need of employing new workers which opened up many job opportunities for other Americans at this time.
Outrage and TragedyEdit
Nixon tried to end the war through peace talks with North Vietnam, but generally, these stalled because the North Vietnamese had a wait and see attitude towards the war. They believed that opposition to the war within America would eventually grow so strong that Nixon would be forced to remove American troops from the country.
Nixon tried to appeal to his "silent majority" and renew support for the war, but then, Cambodia fell into a civil war between Communist and non-Communist forces. Nixon decided to send troops into Cambodia to destroy Communist strongholds, and Americans were outraged that their leader, who had strived for an end to the war, had attacked a neutral country. Opposition, especially in colleges, grew stronger.
This was especially true in Kent State University in Ohio. When students burned down a military complex on the Kent State campus, the Ohio governor declared martial law, or emergency military rule. The students were furious. On May 4th, they staged a protest on the campus lawn, but the National Guard troops told the students to disband, and that they had no right to assemble. The troops shot tear gas into the crowd, and the students ran. Some troops cornered a group between two buildings and suddenly, for unknown reasons, opened fire. Four students were killed and thirteen others were wounded.
Violence again struck at Jackson State in Mississippi. After a night of campus violence, police were called in to control the students, but eventually police opened fire on the students and two were killed. Witnesses recalled the police recklessly blasting the school's residence hall with their guns. The police claimed to be defending themselves from snipers.
The End of the WarEdit
In the fall of 1972, it seemed that peace was at hand. But at the last minute, the negotiations fell through because the South Vietnamese refused to have North Vietnamese forces in their country. Nixon decided to launch a last aggressive bombing campaign to try to scare the North Vietnamese into stopping the war, but they were persistent and continued to fight. In the beginning of 1975, the North Vietnamese launched a final major offensive. The South Vietnamese army collapsed, and soon, Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, was in the Vietcong's grasp. Americans scrambled to evacuate from the country, and on April 29, Americans were evacuating by helicopter off the roof of the American embassy. In the early hours of April 30, 1975, Saigon fell to the Vietcong. Soon after, South Vietnam surrendered.
Upon return, the American troops had no welcome. Many Americans, angered at the outcome of the war or just angry that the war ever had to happen, just wanted to forget the ordeal. Vietnam lay in ruins, and almost 1.4 million Vietnamese lives (on either side) were claimed. Also, 58,000 Americans had died, 300,000 were wounded, and the U.S. had wasted $150 billion on the war. Because people's homes and fields were destroyed in the war in Vietnam, thousands of refugees flooded out of the country on boats. Many came to the United States, but they weren't met with open arms by most Americans.
In 1969, Nixon wanted to ease the tensions of the Cold War to help the nation heal from the tragedy of Vietnam. He and Kissinger used realpolitik, the practice of basing decisions on the interests of the nation rather than the leaders' beliefs, to shape a new foreign policy. Nixon formed a foreign policy plan of détente, a plan of relaxing international tensions. Nixon's ultimate goal in his new plan was to achieve a so-called "balance of power" between the U.S., Europe, Soviet Union, China, and Japan so that no one nation could grow too strong.
To kick off his new plan, Nixon began to express friendliness to the People's Republic of China. The United States had severed ties with China after communists took control of the government in a political coup d'etat (a sudden change of government by force) in 1949. In 1970, Nixon began hinting at new relations with China, and he stopped referring to the country as "Red China," which was an offensive term for the nation. By increasing relations with China, Nixon hoped that the Soviets would become more cooperative in talks with the U.S. because it would fear a U.S.-China alliance.
Realizing the change in U.S. sentiment, China invited a U.S. table tennis team to visit the country in April 1971, and a week later, the U.S. opened trade between the two countries. After sending Kissinger on a secret visit to China, Nixon announced that he would go to Beijing, the Chinese capital. In February 1972, Nixon finally came to Beijing. Pictures of him at the Great Wall and attending Chinese banquets were in international news. In another seven years, Chinese relations would be fully restored.
The Soviet UnionEdit
Nixon was right about the Soviet Union. Fearing a Chinese alliance with America, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev agreed to meet with Nixon in Moscow in May of 1972. Again, pictures of Nixon with communist leaders filled the news. While in Moscow, Nixon signed the SALT I Treaty, or the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. The treaty limited the number of nuclear arms that the Soviet Union and the U.S. could possess.
Feeling that the Soviet Union was in scientific decline, Brezhnev agreed with the U.S. to work with it in trade and information. This way, the Soviet Union could also gain access to desperately needed American grain. As a result of the talk, the Arms Race slowed and international tensions eased.
The Women's MovementEdit
In the 1970s, women in “The Women’s Movement” claimed that they had achieved a great deal through all their efforts in the past decades. These achievements consisted of: married women receiving the right to have their own credit in their own name instead of just in their husband’s name, unmarried women receiving the right to get birth control, women receiving the right to serve on a jury panel, and women receiving the right to list their help wanted ads alongside men’s help wanted ads.
One of the goals these feminists had set was to change the view and laws on rape. Before this time, psychiatrists would claim that “A woman sometimes plays a big part in provoking her attacker by . . . her overall attitude and appearance.” Statements and beliefs like this made it easy for people to have a less sympathetic view towards victims of rape. However, by the end of the 1970s, activists worked on state levels to create crisis centers for rape victims, educate people such as police and hospital security about how to handle and take care of women who have been raped. These women even succeeded in changing some laws.
Roe v. WadeEdit
In March 1970, a Texas woman by the name of Norma McCorvey, unmarried and pregnant, decided to sue the state of Texas by the recommendation of Sarah Weddington, a young attorney. At the time, the vast majority of the other states had similar laws. At the time, Texas had a law in place that banned abortion in women, with the exception of women with life-threatening pregnancies. As part of standard court procedure, McCorvey was renamed Jane Roe, because she did not want her identity to be known by the court.
With rulings favoring both Roe and Dallas Country district attorney Henry Wade in various levels of the courts, the case eventually landed in the Supreme Court. Argued first on December 13, 1971 and again on October 11, 1972 (at the court's request), Weddington contended that the Texas law (and therefore all abortion banning laws) were in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which gave a citizen the right to privacy, and that abortion laws violated the privacy of women.
The case was decided on January 22, 1973, with Harry Blackmun writing the ruling. With a 7-2 majority, the Court ruled that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments did indeed collectively give a citizen the right to privacy, and that abortion laws did indeed violate the right to privacy of women.
Having recently appointed Warren Burger (the Chief Justice), Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist, Nixon was disappointed in the ruling. All of them Republicans, Nixon had presumed that the judges would rule conservatively. Only Rehnquist would dissent with the majority. The other dissenting vote was Byron White, who had been appointed by John F. Kennedy.
The ruling continued the abortion divide that still exists today. It gave the general pro-choice sentiment among the more liberal and progressive Democratic Party and the pro-life sentiment among more conservative and religious Republican Party. The case was reopened in 1992, only to reaffirm the ruling. Norma McCorvey would go on later to become a pro-life advocate.
Roe vs Wade was a turning point in planned parenthood. It was another form of birth control that became legal. Some women viewed this as a sign of liberation and freedom because women could control how many children they had. Other people however thought abortion was immoral. The question that is commonly asked is "is this murder or not?". Their are continuing arguments to this day that abortion is violating the sanctity of life.
Roe v. Wade was decided primarily on the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights. The Court's decision in this case was that the Ninth Amendment, in stating that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," protected a person's right to privacy.
Watergate and the Election of 1972Edit
In 1971, Nixon had many doubts about the 1972 election. But this was before Nixon and Kissinger had vastly improved relations with the Soviet Union and China. By the time those tasks had been accomplished, much of the nation approved of Nixon. Even more in his favor was the Democratic disunity and the nomination of the radically liberal George McGovern. Some voters found his views disturbing.
Even so, Nixon's paranoia and the stress of the presidential campaign would conspire to send the nation reeling and his administration into crisis. Much later, it would be found that Nixon's campaign would stretch the truth, the law, and ethics.
To start his campaign, Nixon asked a group of only the most loyal aides to create an "enemies list," a list of political opponents to the Nixon administration. Then, Nixon asked the IRS and the FBI to investigate those on the enemies list, and justified his actions by saying that he believed that those investigated were a threat to national security. Nixon was slowly changing his campaign from a campaign for the presidency to a campaign against enemies. Nixon was the renominated Republican nominee running with Sprio T. Agnew. They were running against the democratic nominee, Senator George McGovern of South Dakota. McGovern was running with Senator Thomas Eagleton for vice president. Eagleton was shortly replaced with Sargent Shriver after the press discovering Eagleton had been treated for psychological problems. Nixon was also running against longtime segregationist, George Wallace. On May 15, 1972, Wallace became a victim of an assassination attempt that left him paralyzed from the waist down. Wallace was shot by twenty-one year old, Arthur Bremer. Bremer had also shot three others and was sentenced to 63 years in prison.
Using some of the money allotted for his campaign, Nixon funded a secret group of "plumbers," who "plugged" information leaks that were damaging to the administration. Money also funded dirty tricks against Nixon's Democratic opponents.
In November of 1972, an unknowing public headed to the polls to cast votes for the President. Nixon won the election by a landslide, with almost 61 percent of the popular vote and 520 out of 537 electoral votes.
Things were quiet for a while after the election. In late 1973, countries in the Middle East imposed an embargo, or refusal to trade, on oil to the U.S. after the U.S. supported Israel in a short war against Egypt (the most powerful country in the region) and Syria. Prices for gas shot up in the U.S. and stations had to ration the gas, putting restrictions like "ten gallons per customer." Many people were laid off. Nixon worked to help relations with the Middle East, and in March 1974, the embargo was lifted. He was also able to get the U.S. out of Vietnam. Because of his work, Americans generally approved of Nixon.
Voters did not know that a little while after midnight on June 17, 1972, a security guard named Frank Wills had been patrolling in the parking garage of the Wartergate complex, the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and found tape on the locks to doors leading into the building. He removed the tape and thought little of it, but an hour later, he would find it replaced. He would call the police, and they would arrest five robbers inside the complex.
The subsequent arrests of "plumbers" Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt would slowly but surely send tremors through the presidency. Initially, the Nixon administration denied that it had anything to do with the two plumbers or the bugs that the five men were trying to plant in the telephones of the Democratic headquarters (bugs are telephone listening devices, commonly used by spies and others in the field of espionage) when investigators gathered info that suggested it did. Ronald Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary, decried the break-in a "third rate burglary."
Hearing of the incident at the Watergate complex, the Washington Post, a prominent Washington D.C. newspaper with a national circulation, started publishing a series of articles linking Nixon to the burglary. Also, after questioning, one of the burglars confessed that the White House lied about its involvement in the break-in. Still, only about half of Americans had even heard of the robbery.
In early 1973, the Senate voted to hold hearings on the Watergate break-in. They asked the Department of Justice to hire a special prosecutor outside of the Nixon-influenced department to investigate Watergate. Slowly, Cox and Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina would reveal the massive scandal going on in the White house. In May, former deputy White House counsel John Dean, a source close to Nixon, would testify that there indeed had been a cover up and that it had been directed by Nixon himself.
The extent of Nixon's desperation would become evident in October 1973 when Cox ordered that Nixon hand over tapes from a secret taping system that recorded conversations in the President's office. He refused on executive privilege grounds, contending that the release of the tapes would compromise national security.
When Cox tried to get an injunction for the release of the tapes, Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson, the attorney general, to fire Cox (after all, it was the Justice Department that had hired Cox), but Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Rickelshaus to fire Cox, but he, like Richardson, refused and resigned. Finally, Nixon got a minor Justice Department official, Solicitor General Robert Bork, to fire Cox. The series of resignations and the firing of Cox became known as the Saturday Night Massacre. The public was outraged.
At the height of the Watergate scandal, the Department of Justice uncovered another: Vice President Spiro Agnew had accepted bribes as the governor of Maryland. He resigned on October 10, 1973. Nixon nominated Michigan congressman Gerald Ford as his Vice President, who was quickly confirmed.
The House of Representatives decided to initiate the impeachment process as public outrage mounted over the Saturday Night Massacre. If a majority voted to charge the President of high crimes and misdemeanors, he would be tried by the Senate and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the trial. If 67 of the 100 senators voted to find Nixon guilty, he would be expelled from office.
In April of 1974, Nixon decided to release heavily edited transcripts of the tapes to try to improve his image. This only led to more public protest, and the Supreme Court eventually ruled that Nixon had to hand over the tapes. After a conversation on one of the tapes revealed that Nixon had ordered a cover up of the robbery, the public was stunned and the House mulled impeachment. Before any more damage could be done, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. He would be the first and (so far) only president to resign and Gerald Ford would become the only president not elected to the office of president or vice president.
The impact of the scandal was wide and far-reaching. Among other things, Congress passed a series of laws sharply limiting a president's power to wage undeclared war, limiting campaign spending and strengthening public access to government information. Also, it proved that the Constitution's system of checks and balances could work to bring an abusive or tyrannical president out of power. But by far the biggest impact of the crisis was the loss of the public's faith and trust in politicians and elected officials; cynicism concerning the ethics, behavior, and motives of elected officials would be deep and lasting. Because of Nixon's party affiliation and the outrage over a preemptive pardon that Ford granted Nixon after he became president, people associated corruption with the Republican party. Decades of gerrymandering by New Dealers and their successors had assured nearly-impregnable overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress since the 1930s. Fallout from Watergate assured that this trend would continue in the midterm elections of November 1974. The Republicans would pay the ultimate price for Watergate in 1976, with Ford losing the White House to a relative political newcomer.
Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter, Jr.), the thirty-ninth president of the United States, was born Oct. 1, 1924, in the small farming town of Plains, Ga., and grew up in the nearby community of Archery. His father, James Earl Carter, Sr., was a farmer and businessman; his mother, Lillian Gordy Carter, a registered nurse.
He was educated in the public school of Plains, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a bachelor of science degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. In the Navy, he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. In 2002 President Carter was given the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the only American president to ever get a Nobel Peace Prize after his presidency. Carter was also against the death penalty in the United States. His thoughts on it were to replace the death penalty with life in prison which was not heard of at the time.
James Earl Carter, Jr., was born on October 1, 1924 in the tiny southwest Georgia city of Plains, near Americus. The first president born in a hospital, he is the eldest of four children of James Earl Carter and Bessie Lillian Gordy. Carter's father was a prominent business owner in the community and his mother was a registered nurse. The Carter family had come from southern England (Carter's paternal ancestor arrived in the American Colonies in 1635), and had lived in the state of Georgia for several generations. Carter has documented ancestors who fought in the American Revolution, and he is a member of the Sons of the American Revolution. Carter's great-grandfather, Private L.B. Walker Carter (1832–1874), served in the Confederate States Army.
James Earl Carter ran in the 1976 election. He was formerly the Governor of Georgia and was elected to run as the democratic nominee. Carter ran with Senator Walter Mondale of Minnesota as his vice presidential candidate. Carter ran for president against Gerald Ford who had won the Republican nomination against Ronald Reagan by a slim margin. Carter defeated Ford in the election of 1976. During his presidency, Carter sought to conduct the presidency on democratic and moral principles. He approached economic problems inconsistently and he offered amnesty to Americans who had fled the draft and gone to other countries during the Vietnam War.
- Mary Beth Norton, et al, "A People and A Nation:Eighth Edition", 902-903
- "Super Reviewm; United States History"
- "Super Review; United States History" | 6,100 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The right answer is "D.The number of lives lost was over twenty million."
The Taiping Rebellion (1851-1864) was one of the bloodiest conflicts in history, a confrontation between Imperial Chinese forces and a group inspired by a self-proclaimed mystic named Hong Xiuquan (or Hung Hsiu-ch'uan) (1813-1864) ), who claimed to be a Christian and also called himself the brother of Jesus Christ. His aim was to create a new culture, replacing the Confucian and Buddhist tradition with something "new" - shaped according to his ideas.
It is estimated that between 30 and 50 million people died as a direct consequence of the conflict. Moreover, in the period between 1850 and 1873, China's population was reduced by more than 60 million people as a result of rebellions, wars, drought and famine. | <urn:uuid:c34c299b-b399-48e9-b579-256343dbc8b5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://assignmentgrade.com/which-of-the-following-best-states-why-reconstruction-was-considered-by-some-people-to-be-a-failure-african-americans-could-not-take-part-in-governme-199940/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251728207.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127205148-20200127235148-00028.warc.gz | en | 0.982644 | 180 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
-0.36812731623649597,
0.2491743117570877,
0.2533205449581146,
-0.1387311816215515,
0.10383051633834839,
0.1696372628211975,
0.15904885530471802,
0.05761637166142464,
0.24031561613082886,
0.16377942264080048,
0.4216274321079254,
-0.4187455475330353,
0.5489863753318787,
0.291180282831192,
... | 1 | The right answer is "D.The number of lives lost was over twenty million."
The Taiping Rebellion (1851-1864) was one of the bloodiest conflicts in history, a confrontation between Imperial Chinese forces and a group inspired by a self-proclaimed mystic named Hong Xiuquan (or Hung Hsiu-ch'uan) (1813-1864) ), who claimed to be a Christian and also called himself the brother of Jesus Christ. His aim was to create a new culture, replacing the Confucian and Buddhist tradition with something "new" - shaped according to his ideas.
It is estimated that between 30 and 50 million people died as a direct consequence of the conflict. Moreover, in the period between 1850 and 1873, China's population was reduced by more than 60 million people as a result of rebellions, wars, drought and famine. | 197 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Death of Mary of Burgundy
On this day in 1482, Mary of Burgundy died from injuries she suffered after a fall from her horse. Her early death was the last tragedy of a life that had suffered many such encounters.
Mary of Burgundy was born in February 1457. Her father, Charles the Bold, was the Duke of the wealthy duchy of Burgundy, while her mother was Isabella of Bourbon. Her mother died in 1465, leaving Charles with Mary as his only heir. The general view at the time was that a girl couldn't possibly rule, and therefore Charles decided to remarry. In 1468 Mary acquired a step-mother, Margaret of Burgundy, the sister of King Edward IV (and later, Richard III) of England. Margaret and Charles never had a child, but Mary became close to her step-mother, and it was Margaret who guided Mary's steps when tragedy struck again in 1477, when Charles died in the Battle of Nancy.
Charles had spent most of his life fighting against the French, and King Louis XI wasn't about to let sympathy for an orphaned girl stop him taking advantage of the situation. Luckily for Mary her step-mother was still alive, and she advised Mary to follow the marriage plans her father had set in place before his death. In August 1477, eight months after her father's death, Mary married Maximilian of Austria. They became co-rulers, with Margaret assisting in the background as both a mother figure to Mary and a popular Dowager Duchess to the people.
In July 1478 Mary gave birth to a son, named Philip, thereby ensuring the succession for her family. A daughter named Margaret followed in 1480, and another son called Francis in 1481, who died within a few months. Philip and Margaret would go on to have a double marriage with Infanta Juana and Infante Juan of Spain, the sister and brother of Catherine of Aragon.
Sadly though, Mary would never see her children's marriages. While out hunting in March 1482, Mary's horse fell, throwing her from the saddle, the resulting injuries left her in agony for several days before she died on the 27th March, aged just 25. Philip and Margaret were 4 and 2 years old respectively, and had to learn to rule Burgundy without their mother's advice. | <urn:uuid:a90e2166-0cd6-4ef1-ae62-26fd8eec4a62> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.creativehistorian.co.uk/blog/read_126094/death-of-mary-of-burgundy.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00165.warc.gz | en | 0.991404 | 481 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.3894522786140442,
0.14966540038585663,
0.4657329022884369,
-0.42805182933807373,
-0.2734535038471222,
-0.03892706707119942,
-0.374121755361557,
0.2339000254869461,
0.4914310872554779,
0.05921653285622597,
-0.0646011158823967,
-0.36231979727745056,
-0.05079697072505951,
-0.04433998465538... | 3 | Death of Mary of Burgundy
On this day in 1482, Mary of Burgundy died from injuries she suffered after a fall from her horse. Her early death was the last tragedy of a life that had suffered many such encounters.
Mary of Burgundy was born in February 1457. Her father, Charles the Bold, was the Duke of the wealthy duchy of Burgundy, while her mother was Isabella of Bourbon. Her mother died in 1465, leaving Charles with Mary as his only heir. The general view at the time was that a girl couldn't possibly rule, and therefore Charles decided to remarry. In 1468 Mary acquired a step-mother, Margaret of Burgundy, the sister of King Edward IV (and later, Richard III) of England. Margaret and Charles never had a child, but Mary became close to her step-mother, and it was Margaret who guided Mary's steps when tragedy struck again in 1477, when Charles died in the Battle of Nancy.
Charles had spent most of his life fighting against the French, and King Louis XI wasn't about to let sympathy for an orphaned girl stop him taking advantage of the situation. Luckily for Mary her step-mother was still alive, and she advised Mary to follow the marriage plans her father had set in place before his death. In August 1477, eight months after her father's death, Mary married Maximilian of Austria. They became co-rulers, with Margaret assisting in the background as both a mother figure to Mary and a popular Dowager Duchess to the people.
In July 1478 Mary gave birth to a son, named Philip, thereby ensuring the succession for her family. A daughter named Margaret followed in 1480, and another son called Francis in 1481, who died within a few months. Philip and Margaret would go on to have a double marriage with Infanta Juana and Infante Juan of Spain, the sister and brother of Catherine of Aragon.
Sadly though, Mary would never see her children's marriages. While out hunting in March 1482, Mary's horse fell, throwing her from the saddle, the resulting injuries left her in agony for several days before she died on the 27th March, aged just 25. Philip and Margaret were 4 and 2 years old respectively, and had to learn to rule Burgundy without their mother's advice. | 510 | ENGLISH | 1 |
George Washington’s name is a foundation of American history. His figure serves as political, military and even moral leader for different generations of American people. He is the first president of the U.S., who shaped and implemented the basic principles of this state. His presidency lasted from 1789 till 1787, and these years became crucial for entire world. He headed four key battles that provided the success of American forces. This paper is aimed to explore the significance of George Washington, which is rooted in his successful battles and policies during the Revolutionary war.
George Washington’s main contribution is successful commandership, as he made his army win the war. As soon as the Revolutionary War started, Washington became commander –in-chief of the Continental army. The American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 was an armed conflict between Great Britain and its thirteen colonies located in the North America. The war began with Americans’ refusal to pay unconstitutional taxes imposed by the British Parliament. A variety of protests and boycotts headed by the American patriots demonstrated absence of Americans’ trust to British authorities. The most famous boycott is the Boston Tea Party that became the cause for further opposition. The Royal punish the protestors by removing self-government and closing the port of Boston. Nevertheless, these troubles have accelerated the protestors’ enthusiasm instead of suppressing it. To coordinate resistance, the protestors from different colonies created a Continental Congress. In addition, this Congress was aimed to seize power effectively and to make military decisions. Soon, in 1775 there was a fighting between British regulars and Massachusetts militia. In spring of 1776 the Congress appointed General George Washington to head militia units in Boston. Though the war was supervised by the Congress, Washington was given sufficient trust and responsibilities such as command of the new Continental Army. The above-mentioned events are the origins and the core of the Revolutionary War and may be considered its ‘first phase’.
The Battle at Lexington and Concord fought on April the 19, 1775 is the first military engagement of the Americans in the Revolutionary War. It is imparted because it begun a series of further military conflicts and made the Revolution approach to its military phase. British regulars were appointed to capture and to destroy the supplies that were stored at Concord. However, the Patriot colonists knew about this plans, so that they removed the supplies to safety. The battle was spent on the open territory, and the British troops did not implement quick and secret operation, though some of the supplies were destroyed.
The next important battle is Bunker Hill fought in the June of 1775. The British troops were believed to win it, which proved that there will not be quick and predictable outcome of the war. The Royal government believed that this was the last battle that will end with the victory of British troops, however, this battle made the opposition even harder. This battle is important because it showed that the war would be long and complicated, and that American troops are able to resist traditional British warfare
The Battle of Long Island fought on August, the 27th, 1776 was headed by George Washington. He realized the strategic importance of New York ,therefore he directed his troops there. He waited for the arrival of the British troops on the west of long Island. This battle begun on the 22nd of April, and its outcomes were negative for the American forces. When Washington joined the war, he did not blame the commanders of the troops, who lost the battle. He was cool, confident and calm because he oversaw his unfavorable position. His troops were on the open territory, so that he had to withdraw them as soon as possible. This situation does not demonstrate bravery and heroism, but rather calm and well-considered decision-making process of the politicians.
The Battle of Princeton of 1776 proved that Washington was a great leader capable of right decision-making in the critical time. His troops were not in advanced condition to fight appropriately. Nevertheless, he ,managed to inspire the soldiers and to ask them to stay one month long. Washington was capable of communicating great ideas to people, so that people wanted to implement the ideas and follow the interests of their country despite any difficulties. That was the time when patriotism was accepted and supported, and when the value of own independent state was articulated.
The Battle of Bennington fought in 1777, August may be considered a sufficient victory of American forces because it led to great losses of the British troops. For example, total losses of British and German troops were reported to have around 200 dead and 700 captured, while American troops lose 30 soldiers. During this battle the French forces were brought on the site of the Colonists.
The Battle of Germantown headed by George Washington and Nathanael Greene was fought in October 1777. This time American troops were told to march in complete darkness to approach the hostile army when it is not ready to fight. But the progress was lower than expected – it was difficult to establish communication between columns. Despite the difficulties, the American troops managed to attack the British army. Thanks to well-considered strategies of George Washington, the loses of American troops were not great.
The Battle of Yorktown that took place on the 9th of October, 1781 was the last major battle. I think that these victory was connected with well-considered cooperation of the French and American armies since 1776. Different armies were given different responsibilities, and the mutual work’s results were successful.
I think that George Washington won the Revolutionary War because he applied a winning strategy. It means that the strategy included signal victories such as at the Battle of Yorktown and the Battle of Trenton. The victories in critical periods of war create the points of power, which directed the further events. Moreover, it is important to consider Washington’s views of civilians’ participation at war. He believed that American people should not only pay taxes and give their lives in blood-splitting battles. Instead, he believed that the principle of civilian control on the military issues of the U.S. should be supported.
In conclusion, George Washington was a responsible politicians, whose messages to civilians were accepted and supported. His well-considered strategies made it possible to win the entire Revolutionary War via victories in signal battles. The analysis of the above-mentioned battles shows that the most important thing is combination of inspiring patriotic ideas with cool and sophisticated strategies in critical periods. | <urn:uuid:fbb91087-7080-422d-b057-564abaef3d23> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://primeessay.org/free/Research/george-washington.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00119.warc.gz | en | 0.980522 | 1,296 | 3.796875 | 4 | [
-0.006067728158086538,
0.5561034679412842,
0.6552000641822815,
0.0008580011781305075,
-0.6273908615112305,
0.5039336085319519,
0.2005423903465271,
0.028275566175580025,
-0.10691816359758377,
0.3416588306427002,
0.29389792680740356,
0.18458369374275208,
0.1488245576620102,
0.455172240734100... | 10 | George Washington’s name is a foundation of American history. His figure serves as political, military and even moral leader for different generations of American people. He is the first president of the U.S., who shaped and implemented the basic principles of this state. His presidency lasted from 1789 till 1787, and these years became crucial for entire world. He headed four key battles that provided the success of American forces. This paper is aimed to explore the significance of George Washington, which is rooted in his successful battles and policies during the Revolutionary war.
George Washington’s main contribution is successful commandership, as he made his army win the war. As soon as the Revolutionary War started, Washington became commander –in-chief of the Continental army. The American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 was an armed conflict between Great Britain and its thirteen colonies located in the North America. The war began with Americans’ refusal to pay unconstitutional taxes imposed by the British Parliament. A variety of protests and boycotts headed by the American patriots demonstrated absence of Americans’ trust to British authorities. The most famous boycott is the Boston Tea Party that became the cause for further opposition. The Royal punish the protestors by removing self-government and closing the port of Boston. Nevertheless, these troubles have accelerated the protestors’ enthusiasm instead of suppressing it. To coordinate resistance, the protestors from different colonies created a Continental Congress. In addition, this Congress was aimed to seize power effectively and to make military decisions. Soon, in 1775 there was a fighting between British regulars and Massachusetts militia. In spring of 1776 the Congress appointed General George Washington to head militia units in Boston. Though the war was supervised by the Congress, Washington was given sufficient trust and responsibilities such as command of the new Continental Army. The above-mentioned events are the origins and the core of the Revolutionary War and may be considered its ‘first phase’.
The Battle at Lexington and Concord fought on April the 19, 1775 is the first military engagement of the Americans in the Revolutionary War. It is imparted because it begun a series of further military conflicts and made the Revolution approach to its military phase. British regulars were appointed to capture and to destroy the supplies that were stored at Concord. However, the Patriot colonists knew about this plans, so that they removed the supplies to safety. The battle was spent on the open territory, and the British troops did not implement quick and secret operation, though some of the supplies were destroyed.
The next important battle is Bunker Hill fought in the June of 1775. The British troops were believed to win it, which proved that there will not be quick and predictable outcome of the war. The Royal government believed that this was the last battle that will end with the victory of British troops, however, this battle made the opposition even harder. This battle is important because it showed that the war would be long and complicated, and that American troops are able to resist traditional British warfare
The Battle of Long Island fought on August, the 27th, 1776 was headed by George Washington. He realized the strategic importance of New York ,therefore he directed his troops there. He waited for the arrival of the British troops on the west of long Island. This battle begun on the 22nd of April, and its outcomes were negative for the American forces. When Washington joined the war, he did not blame the commanders of the troops, who lost the battle. He was cool, confident and calm because he oversaw his unfavorable position. His troops were on the open territory, so that he had to withdraw them as soon as possible. This situation does not demonstrate bravery and heroism, but rather calm and well-considered decision-making process of the politicians.
The Battle of Princeton of 1776 proved that Washington was a great leader capable of right decision-making in the critical time. His troops were not in advanced condition to fight appropriately. Nevertheless, he ,managed to inspire the soldiers and to ask them to stay one month long. Washington was capable of communicating great ideas to people, so that people wanted to implement the ideas and follow the interests of their country despite any difficulties. That was the time when patriotism was accepted and supported, and when the value of own independent state was articulated.
The Battle of Bennington fought in 1777, August may be considered a sufficient victory of American forces because it led to great losses of the British troops. For example, total losses of British and German troops were reported to have around 200 dead and 700 captured, while American troops lose 30 soldiers. During this battle the French forces were brought on the site of the Colonists.
The Battle of Germantown headed by George Washington and Nathanael Greene was fought in October 1777. This time American troops were told to march in complete darkness to approach the hostile army when it is not ready to fight. But the progress was lower than expected – it was difficult to establish communication between columns. Despite the difficulties, the American troops managed to attack the British army. Thanks to well-considered strategies of George Washington, the loses of American troops were not great.
The Battle of Yorktown that took place on the 9th of October, 1781 was the last major battle. I think that these victory was connected with well-considered cooperation of the French and American armies since 1776. Different armies were given different responsibilities, and the mutual work’s results were successful.
I think that George Washington won the Revolutionary War because he applied a winning strategy. It means that the strategy included signal victories such as at the Battle of Yorktown and the Battle of Trenton. The victories in critical periods of war create the points of power, which directed the further events. Moreover, it is important to consider Washington’s views of civilians’ participation at war. He believed that American people should not only pay taxes and give their lives in blood-splitting battles. Instead, he believed that the principle of civilian control on the military issues of the U.S. should be supported.
In conclusion, George Washington was a responsible politicians, whose messages to civilians were accepted and supported. His well-considered strategies made it possible to win the entire Revolutionary War via victories in signal battles. The analysis of the above-mentioned battles shows that the most important thing is combination of inspiring patriotic ideas with cool and sophisticated strategies in critical periods. | 1,329 | ENGLISH | 1 |
An overview of the great pyramid of egypt during the reign of khufu
These have allowed researchers to gain a better understanding of how the Giza pyramids were built. And a fourth example shows the king with the double crown impaling a hippopotamus.
But the Westcar Papyrus describes Khufu as a traditional oriental monarch: good-natured, amiable to his inferiors and interested in the nature of human existence and magic. After Djoser, the stepped pyramid became the norm for royal burials, although none of those planned by his dynastic successors were completed probably due to their relatively short reigns.
Great sphinx of giza
Old Kingdom thrones had a backrest that reached up to the neck of the king. Even today, in its greatly weathered state, the Great Pyramid inspires awe. The site was more or less neglected until Napoleon's Egyptian Campaign of CE during which he brought along his team of scholars and scientists to document ancient Egyptian culture and monuments. They were long believed by Egyptologists to be "air shafts" for ventilation, but this idea has now been widely abandoned in favour of the shafts serving a ritualistic purpose associated with the ascension of the king's spirit to the heavens. Khufu's serekh name is carved in a rock inscription reporting the "Mefat-travelling in the year after the 13th cattle count under Hor-Medjedu". It is likely that they used ramps to move the stones up the sides of the pyramid. Osiris, as lord of the dead, would certainly have been honored at Giza and underground chambers recognizing him as ruler in the afterlife were not uncommon throughout Egypt's history. The excavators point out that the statues were restored during the Middle Kingdom, after they were broken apart. Human Nature Shares And so scientists have had to piece together clues as to how these towering monuments were constructed. It also includes the Great Sphinx and several cemeteries. The dating of these important documents is secured by phrases typical for the Old Kingdom period, as well as the fact that the letters are addressed to the king himself, using his Horus name. This is the start of a vertical shaft which follows an irregular path through the masonry of the pyramid to join the Descending Passage. Egyptologists believe the pyramid was built as a tomb for the Fourth Dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Khufu often Hellenized as "Cheops" and was constructed over a year period. It shows the king with the Red Crown of Lower Egypt. Why was the Great Pyramid built?
Realizing the problem was that the National Geographic Society's camera was only able to see straight ahead of it, they instead used a fibre-optic " micro snake camera " that could see around corners. Each of the stone blocks is estimated to weigh over pounds.
When it was completed, the Great Pyramid must have appeared as the most striking creation the Egyptians had ever seen. The Great Pyramid was built as a tomb for the pharaoh Khufu. Individuals in the present day speculating on the lonely, deserted, mystical outpost of Giza ignore the evidence of what the complex would have been like for most of Egypt's long history.
Most Read. A major advance occurred during the reign of the pharaoh Djoser reign started around B. Flinders Petrie established the protocol regarding ancient monuments in Egypt which is still adhered to in the present day.
based on 77 review | <urn:uuid:b679a9a3-a163-4c2e-a8c8-daa9dc61905c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://hywefegoxojuca.whatshanesaid.com/an-overview-of-the-great-pyramid-of-egypt-during-the-reign-of-khufu31836872qd.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00352.warc.gz | en | 0.982284 | 704 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
-0.42817413806915283,
0.8520914912223816,
0.7522563934326172,
0.38806721568107605,
-0.6529277563095093,
-0.08524352312088013,
0.1383986622095108,
-0.0754944235086441,
-0.22767704725265503,
0.10839226841926575,
-0.1521470546722412,
-0.3127562999725342,
-0.09896966814994812,
0.07927224040031... | 1 | An overview of the great pyramid of egypt during the reign of khufu
These have allowed researchers to gain a better understanding of how the Giza pyramids were built. And a fourth example shows the king with the double crown impaling a hippopotamus.
But the Westcar Papyrus describes Khufu as a traditional oriental monarch: good-natured, amiable to his inferiors and interested in the nature of human existence and magic. After Djoser, the stepped pyramid became the norm for royal burials, although none of those planned by his dynastic successors were completed probably due to their relatively short reigns.
Great sphinx of giza
Old Kingdom thrones had a backrest that reached up to the neck of the king. Even today, in its greatly weathered state, the Great Pyramid inspires awe. The site was more or less neglected until Napoleon's Egyptian Campaign of CE during which he brought along his team of scholars and scientists to document ancient Egyptian culture and monuments. They were long believed by Egyptologists to be "air shafts" for ventilation, but this idea has now been widely abandoned in favour of the shafts serving a ritualistic purpose associated with the ascension of the king's spirit to the heavens. Khufu's serekh name is carved in a rock inscription reporting the "Mefat-travelling in the year after the 13th cattle count under Hor-Medjedu". It is likely that they used ramps to move the stones up the sides of the pyramid. Osiris, as lord of the dead, would certainly have been honored at Giza and underground chambers recognizing him as ruler in the afterlife were not uncommon throughout Egypt's history. The excavators point out that the statues were restored during the Middle Kingdom, after they were broken apart. Human Nature Shares And so scientists have had to piece together clues as to how these towering monuments were constructed. It also includes the Great Sphinx and several cemeteries. The dating of these important documents is secured by phrases typical for the Old Kingdom period, as well as the fact that the letters are addressed to the king himself, using his Horus name. This is the start of a vertical shaft which follows an irregular path through the masonry of the pyramid to join the Descending Passage. Egyptologists believe the pyramid was built as a tomb for the Fourth Dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Khufu often Hellenized as "Cheops" and was constructed over a year period. It shows the king with the Red Crown of Lower Egypt. Why was the Great Pyramid built?
Realizing the problem was that the National Geographic Society's camera was only able to see straight ahead of it, they instead used a fibre-optic " micro snake camera " that could see around corners. Each of the stone blocks is estimated to weigh over pounds.
When it was completed, the Great Pyramid must have appeared as the most striking creation the Egyptians had ever seen. The Great Pyramid was built as a tomb for the pharaoh Khufu. Individuals in the present day speculating on the lonely, deserted, mystical outpost of Giza ignore the evidence of what the complex would have been like for most of Egypt's long history.
Most Read. A major advance occurred during the reign of the pharaoh Djoser reign started around B. Flinders Petrie established the protocol regarding ancient monuments in Egypt which is still adhered to in the present day.
based on 77 review | 701 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Roman army in 300 to 100 BC was an innovative and powerful force that stands out in history. They were very advanced for their time and are considered by some to be the strongest military ever created. The army had two purposes, first to fight wars of conquest and satisfy the emperors" desires. Second, to suppress the unrest in outlying provinces. They were highly effective for a number of reasons; size, organization, tactics are what the Roman army relied. The Roman army was very victorious in its time because of its soldiers. The Roman army was very strict, and was highly trained in warfare, discipline, and engineering. The Roman army calls their soldier "legionaries". .
The Roman army was very victorious in its time because of its soldiers. The Roman army was very strict, and was highly trained in warfare, discipline, and engineering. The Roman army calls their soldier "legionaries". The soldiers were separated into four different classes. The triarii were the more experienced soldiers. They were rarely used in battle except when they were needed. They wore full Armour and carried a shield and a long spear. The principles were well armored and carried a heavy javelin, and a Shield. The hastati wore the same Armour, and carried a light and heavy javelin. The velites were armed with a small shield and a few light javelins. Every soldier in the Roman army carried a sword and a dagger. The Roman army put their soldiers through basic training. They did running exercises, obstacle courses while wearing all their Armour and weapons, and marched eighteen miles three times a month. On these marches the soldiers had to carry all their equipment. This would be very hard on the solders considering the weight of the Armour. They drilled in flanking and column movements used in battles and ceremonies. .
The Roman army was very strict about being perfect in drilling. But they really train more with the use of their weapons. | <urn:uuid:ad4ede51-77d2-4374-bb9f-84f6d8bd2fc0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/42317.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00377.warc.gz | en | 0.990881 | 394 | 3.703125 | 4 | [
-0.372158944606781,
0.6116783618927002,
0.5067166090011597,
-0.21858486533164978,
-0.516017735004425,
-0.3688543736934662,
-0.14410051703453064,
0.3514580726623535,
-0.045704055577516556,
-0.41558417677879333,
0.14214615523815155,
-0.6635501384735107,
0.24733301997184753,
0.281747639179229... | 3 | The Roman army in 300 to 100 BC was an innovative and powerful force that stands out in history. They were very advanced for their time and are considered by some to be the strongest military ever created. The army had two purposes, first to fight wars of conquest and satisfy the emperors" desires. Second, to suppress the unrest in outlying provinces. They were highly effective for a number of reasons; size, organization, tactics are what the Roman army relied. The Roman army was very victorious in its time because of its soldiers. The Roman army was very strict, and was highly trained in warfare, discipline, and engineering. The Roman army calls their soldier "legionaries". .
The Roman army was very victorious in its time because of its soldiers. The Roman army was very strict, and was highly trained in warfare, discipline, and engineering. The Roman army calls their soldier "legionaries". The soldiers were separated into four different classes. The triarii were the more experienced soldiers. They were rarely used in battle except when they were needed. They wore full Armour and carried a shield and a long spear. The principles were well armored and carried a heavy javelin, and a Shield. The hastati wore the same Armour, and carried a light and heavy javelin. The velites were armed with a small shield and a few light javelins. Every soldier in the Roman army carried a sword and a dagger. The Roman army put their soldiers through basic training. They did running exercises, obstacle courses while wearing all their Armour and weapons, and marched eighteen miles three times a month. On these marches the soldiers had to carry all their equipment. This would be very hard on the solders considering the weight of the Armour. They drilled in flanking and column movements used in battles and ceremonies. .
The Roman army was very strict about being perfect in drilling. But they really train more with the use of their weapons. | 397 | ENGLISH | 1 |
July 2, 1964: Lyndon Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act
Depending on your background in the early ’60s, living in America wasn’t all that great. Racial segregation was prominent in schools, and women were often turned down for jobs. One President decided to make things much better for everyone living in this country.
Giving it an update
In 1963, John F. Kennedy brought an updated version of the Civil Rights Act to the table. With this act, no one would be discriminated against based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. As expected, certain individuals had a problem with letting go of their discriminatory behavior. While many in the government approved the act, one person had issues with it. Democratic Representative Howard W. Smith was a strong opposer towards the Civil Rights Act of 1957. When the updated bill came his way, he simply tossed it on the sideline.
A change of position
Unfortunately, Kennedy was unable to be there to see if the act was passed or not. On November 22, 1963, he was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. The death of an active President can hit hard when it comes to their goals for the country. Will the next person follow through with their plans or will they change them? Fortunately, Lyndon Johnson was looking towards a better America like Kennedy. One thing that he was trying to take care of was that Civil Rights Act simply lying around. In a room of legislators, Johnson stated, “No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.”
Getting it passed
Smith was still in the way of having this bill sent to the Senate. To take it from him, Johnson delivered a petition to release it from his grasp. Since he knew he would get crushed by the petition, Smith relinquished the bill. Johnson was finally able to have this sent for debate on March 30, 1964. Following some back and forth talk, the Senate made their choice on June 19, 1964. With a vote of 73–27, the bill was passed. On July 2, 1964, Johnson was able to make Kennedy’s dream a reality by signing the bill. “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 created modern America, the things we take for granted today: people in restaurants and hotels and motels and transportation enjoying it regardless of race; the things my children take absolutely for granted,” author Todd Purdum told NPR. Upon that signing, America started to feel a bit more like the land of the free. | <urn:uuid:be892d37-863e-44f9-91e1-43150846d60b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.history101.com/july-2-1964-lyndon-johnson-signs-civil-rights-act/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778272.69/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128122813-20200128152813-00031.warc.gz | en | 0.980712 | 534 | 3.734375 | 4 | [
-1.0540380477905273,
-0.18361109495162964,
0.006667111534625292,
-0.0017513398779556155,
-0.10323100537061691,
0.8112044334411621,
0.21008500456809998,
-0.07659247517585754,
-0.30614399909973145,
0.024756304919719696,
0.16755804419517517,
0.4920831322669983,
-0.14211492240428925,
-0.238040... | 4 | July 2, 1964: Lyndon Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act
Depending on your background in the early ’60s, living in America wasn’t all that great. Racial segregation was prominent in schools, and women were often turned down for jobs. One President decided to make things much better for everyone living in this country.
Giving it an update
In 1963, John F. Kennedy brought an updated version of the Civil Rights Act to the table. With this act, no one would be discriminated against based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. As expected, certain individuals had a problem with letting go of their discriminatory behavior. While many in the government approved the act, one person had issues with it. Democratic Representative Howard W. Smith was a strong opposer towards the Civil Rights Act of 1957. When the updated bill came his way, he simply tossed it on the sideline.
A change of position
Unfortunately, Kennedy was unable to be there to see if the act was passed or not. On November 22, 1963, he was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. The death of an active President can hit hard when it comes to their goals for the country. Will the next person follow through with their plans or will they change them? Fortunately, Lyndon Johnson was looking towards a better America like Kennedy. One thing that he was trying to take care of was that Civil Rights Act simply lying around. In a room of legislators, Johnson stated, “No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.”
Getting it passed
Smith was still in the way of having this bill sent to the Senate. To take it from him, Johnson delivered a petition to release it from his grasp. Since he knew he would get crushed by the petition, Smith relinquished the bill. Johnson was finally able to have this sent for debate on March 30, 1964. Following some back and forth talk, the Senate made their choice on June 19, 1964. With a vote of 73–27, the bill was passed. On July 2, 1964, Johnson was able to make Kennedy’s dream a reality by signing the bill. “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 created modern America, the things we take for granted today: people in restaurants and hotels and motels and transportation enjoying it regardless of race; the things my children take absolutely for granted,” author Todd Purdum told NPR. Upon that signing, America started to feel a bit more like the land of the free. | 568 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Here lies one whose name was writ in water
What's the meaning of the phrase 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water'?
Fame, and indeed life, is fleeting.
What's the origin of the phrase 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water'?
A version of the words originate from Beaumont and Fletcher's play Philaster, 1611:
"All your better deeds Shall be in water writ, but this in Marble."
In the better known form 'writ in water' they appeared in Keat's Poetic Works, 1821.
Keats travelled to Rome and died there, aged just 25, in February, 1821. He told his friend Joseph Severn that he didn't want his name to appear on his tombstone, but merely this line:
"Here lies one whose name was writ in water."
Severn honoured that wish, as the gravestone shows - Keats is commemorated just as 'A young English poet'.
Keats's Grave - New Protestant Cemetery, Rome
THIS GRAVE CONTAINS
See also - season of mists and mellow fruitfulness. | <urn:uuid:67ab6b38-e8a4-4bac-9ff6-63d46cfe8aca> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/179500.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250603761.28/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121103642-20200121132642-00130.warc.gz | en | 0.986309 | 237 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.23358921706676483,
0.042635537683963776,
0.5576989650726318,
0.5171010494232178,
-0.477582722902298,
-0.2999144494533539,
0.9829305410385132,
-0.14243145287036896,
0.2004140317440033,
-0.17160454392433167,
-0.05974180996417999,
-0.7067455649375916,
-0.2249753624200821,
-0.32003632187843... | 12 | Here lies one whose name was writ in water
What's the meaning of the phrase 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water'?
Fame, and indeed life, is fleeting.
What's the origin of the phrase 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water'?
A version of the words originate from Beaumont and Fletcher's play Philaster, 1611:
"All your better deeds Shall be in water writ, but this in Marble."
In the better known form 'writ in water' they appeared in Keat's Poetic Works, 1821.
Keats travelled to Rome and died there, aged just 25, in February, 1821. He told his friend Joseph Severn that he didn't want his name to appear on his tombstone, but merely this line:
"Here lies one whose name was writ in water."
Severn honoured that wish, as the gravestone shows - Keats is commemorated just as 'A young English poet'.
Keats's Grave - New Protestant Cemetery, Rome
THIS GRAVE CONTAINS
See also - season of mists and mellow fruitfulness. | 238 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Carlos Finlay: Cuban Physician Who Solved the Mystery of Yellow Fever And Made the Panama Canal Possible
The cause of yellow fever was identified by Dr. Carlos Finlay (1833-1915), a Cuban physician who was instrumental in reducing the incidence of yellow fever in tropical climates throughout the world. In the United States, this was important in the southern states where the weather was often subtropical. The discovery was also crucial in Panama where the U.S. invested heavily to build a canal to reduce the shipping time of goods from the East to California and the West.
While many doctors were puzzling through the transmission of both malaria and yellow fever, Finlay came to the conclusion that neither illness could travel from human to human without a vector (carrier). Finlay identified that the mosquito was the carrier of both illnesses.
Carlos Finlay’s Background
Finlay was born in 1833 in Puerto Principe (now Camagüey), Cuba. His mother was French and his father, a doctor, was Scottish. The couple relocated to Cuba and embraced the country as their own.
Finlay’s early education was in France. He then attended Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia for his advanced degree. In 1855 he returned to Havana to establish a medical practice. Finlay was known as a kindly man who would not turn away patients even when they could not pay.
Finlay was also a devoted medical researcher. Cuba often had outbreaks of yellow fever and malaria, and Finlay spent his spare time trying to find the cause. After much study, he determined that the common element in those who suffered from these viruses were mosquito bites which led him to surmise that the illnesses were carried by these insects. He even identified the genus, Aedes, as the specific carrier of yellow fever.
As early as 1871, Finlay was invited to the United States to present a medical paper on the subject, but to other doctors, this reasoning made no sense. Finlay continued on, however, maintaining his private practice and researching yellow fever. He eventually contributed at least 40 articles on the disease.
Americans Take Issue More Seriously
It wasn’t until the Americans arrived in Cuba to fight the Spanish-American War that the U.S. medical establishment decided to put some heft behind the need to better understand yellow fever. In 1901 the government asked Army surgeon Walter Reed (1851-
1902) to put together a commission to study the issue. Reed did so, including Finlay in the commission. The entire group traveled to Cuba to better understand transmission of the illness.
Initially the commission discounted Finlay’s theory and focused on filth in hot, humid climates as the cause. But none of their tests proved their theories. Finally the doctors turned to Finlay, and he
walked them through almost thirty years or research to demonstrate that the mosquito was the disease vector.
After undertaking their own study, the Reed Commission confirmed Finlay’s findings. (Walter Reed is sometimes given credit for this discovery, but all the initial work in the field was Finlay’s.) The next task was to apply them and reduce the mosquito population to halt spread of the disease.
Since the 1850s, America and parts of Europe had been interested in finding a faster trade route through Central America to avoid the long voyage by ship around Cape Horn. In 1881 the French had attempted to span Panama with a canal which would greatly speed the trip. They brought with them the experience of having built the Suez Canal, but they found the engineering challenges in Panama to be far greater than those they had addressed in Egypt.
However, it was tropical disease that ultimately halted progress. Both the French engineers and the local labor force suffered mightily from various tropical diseases, particularly yellow fever and malaria. From 1881-1889 (the duration that France spent trying to build the canal), it is estimated that over 22,000 people died. Finally the French abandoned their efforts.
The United States Takes Over
When the United States took over the Panama project (1901-1902), they were well aware that 22,000 people had died working on the canal in the 1880s, and that 12,000 people had died while working through the same terrain building the Panama Railway (1850s). But now the United States had knowledge on their side. The Reed Commission confirmed what Dr. Finlay had long been telling everyone—reduce the mosquito population to cut the incident rate of disease.
As a result, the first two-and-a-half years of the American canal
effort involved preparation and planning to make the land fit for human habitation. U.S. Army physician Dr. William Gorgas (1854-1920) was brought in to implement a sanitation program, and a full-scale effort was made to eliminate as many mosquito breeding places as possible.
Swamps and wetlands around the Canal Zone were filled in, and Gorgas divided Panama into multiple districts so that inspectors could check regularly for stagnant water. In addition, he ordered that sleeping quarters be built with screens so that the workers were protected during the night when the mosquito population is most active.
He also experimented with fumigating buildings where people with yellow fever had been housed. Pans of sulfur or pyrethrum were placed in areas where yellow fever had taken root and the powder in the pans was set on fire. The smoke proved effective at reducing the mosquito population within buildings.
The final measure implemented under Dr. Gorgas involved quarantine of an individual if someone did become sick. The patient was transported to screened structures that prevented future mosquito bites so that the disease could not be spread from an infected individual.
Gorgas’s work and Finlay’s knowledge made the building of the Panama Canal possible, which was to change the course of American transport and greatly speed access to the West.
Carlos Finlay Recognized
Recognition of Finlay came late but his findings were celebrated in his lifetime. Finlay was nominated seven times for the Nobel Prize in Physiology, though he never was awarded it. However in 1908 he received the Legion of Honour from France.
There is a memorial to him in Havana and a statue of him in Panama City near the canal, the canal he made possible.
But best of all was certainly the statement made by General Leonard Wood, the U.S. military governor of Cuba from 1898 to 1902: “The confirmation of Dr. Finlay’s doctrine is the greatest step forward made in medical science since Jenner’s discovery of the vaccination.”
Finlay concluded his career as the Chief Sanitary Officer of Cuba, a position he held for eight years before retiring in 1909.
What Was the U.S. Bracero Program?
The Bracero Program was a guest worker program begun in a partnership between the United States and Mexico on August 4, 1942. It was a... »
Marcelino Serna: Highly Honored Soldier in World War I
Marcelino Serna was still a Mexican citizen when he fought for the United States in World War I. He was smart at battlefield tactics, felt... »
Hispanic Women in Arizona Provided Aid in World War II
During World War II, the country needed citizen support at home and abroad for all that needed to be done to fight a war. Tucson,... »
Latino Family Opened Door to School Integration in 1940s
The school desegregation case of Mendez v. Westminster (1947) prepared the way for the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, yet few people have... » | <urn:uuid:516de410-1d34-437f-954f-f3bcf4a2655f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://americacomesalive.com/2014/09/16/carlos-juan-finlay-cuban-physician-solved-mystery-yellow-fever-made-panama-canal-possible/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00545.warc.gz | en | 0.982355 | 1,579 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.2547830641269684,
0.3982629179954529,
0.15890595316886902,
0.35982441902160645,
0.11083218455314636,
-0.4989376962184906,
0.7654391527175903,
0.4976259469985962,
-0.3147571086883545,
-0.45194536447525024,
0.33162492513656616,
-0.39742201566696167,
-0.1999341994524002,
0.4740030169486999... | 1 | Carlos Finlay: Cuban Physician Who Solved the Mystery of Yellow Fever And Made the Panama Canal Possible
The cause of yellow fever was identified by Dr. Carlos Finlay (1833-1915), a Cuban physician who was instrumental in reducing the incidence of yellow fever in tropical climates throughout the world. In the United States, this was important in the southern states where the weather was often subtropical. The discovery was also crucial in Panama where the U.S. invested heavily to build a canal to reduce the shipping time of goods from the East to California and the West.
While many doctors were puzzling through the transmission of both malaria and yellow fever, Finlay came to the conclusion that neither illness could travel from human to human without a vector (carrier). Finlay identified that the mosquito was the carrier of both illnesses.
Carlos Finlay’s Background
Finlay was born in 1833 in Puerto Principe (now Camagüey), Cuba. His mother was French and his father, a doctor, was Scottish. The couple relocated to Cuba and embraced the country as their own.
Finlay’s early education was in France. He then attended Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia for his advanced degree. In 1855 he returned to Havana to establish a medical practice. Finlay was known as a kindly man who would not turn away patients even when they could not pay.
Finlay was also a devoted medical researcher. Cuba often had outbreaks of yellow fever and malaria, and Finlay spent his spare time trying to find the cause. After much study, he determined that the common element in those who suffered from these viruses were mosquito bites which led him to surmise that the illnesses were carried by these insects. He even identified the genus, Aedes, as the specific carrier of yellow fever.
As early as 1871, Finlay was invited to the United States to present a medical paper on the subject, but to other doctors, this reasoning made no sense. Finlay continued on, however, maintaining his private practice and researching yellow fever. He eventually contributed at least 40 articles on the disease.
Americans Take Issue More Seriously
It wasn’t until the Americans arrived in Cuba to fight the Spanish-American War that the U.S. medical establishment decided to put some heft behind the need to better understand yellow fever. In 1901 the government asked Army surgeon Walter Reed (1851-
1902) to put together a commission to study the issue. Reed did so, including Finlay in the commission. The entire group traveled to Cuba to better understand transmission of the illness.
Initially the commission discounted Finlay’s theory and focused on filth in hot, humid climates as the cause. But none of their tests proved their theories. Finally the doctors turned to Finlay, and he
walked them through almost thirty years or research to demonstrate that the mosquito was the disease vector.
After undertaking their own study, the Reed Commission confirmed Finlay’s findings. (Walter Reed is sometimes given credit for this discovery, but all the initial work in the field was Finlay’s.) The next task was to apply them and reduce the mosquito population to halt spread of the disease.
Since the 1850s, America and parts of Europe had been interested in finding a faster trade route through Central America to avoid the long voyage by ship around Cape Horn. In 1881 the French had attempted to span Panama with a canal which would greatly speed the trip. They brought with them the experience of having built the Suez Canal, but they found the engineering challenges in Panama to be far greater than those they had addressed in Egypt.
However, it was tropical disease that ultimately halted progress. Both the French engineers and the local labor force suffered mightily from various tropical diseases, particularly yellow fever and malaria. From 1881-1889 (the duration that France spent trying to build the canal), it is estimated that over 22,000 people died. Finally the French abandoned their efforts.
The United States Takes Over
When the United States took over the Panama project (1901-1902), they were well aware that 22,000 people had died working on the canal in the 1880s, and that 12,000 people had died while working through the same terrain building the Panama Railway (1850s). But now the United States had knowledge on their side. The Reed Commission confirmed what Dr. Finlay had long been telling everyone—reduce the mosquito population to cut the incident rate of disease.
As a result, the first two-and-a-half years of the American canal
effort involved preparation and planning to make the land fit for human habitation. U.S. Army physician Dr. William Gorgas (1854-1920) was brought in to implement a sanitation program, and a full-scale effort was made to eliminate as many mosquito breeding places as possible.
Swamps and wetlands around the Canal Zone were filled in, and Gorgas divided Panama into multiple districts so that inspectors could check regularly for stagnant water. In addition, he ordered that sleeping quarters be built with screens so that the workers were protected during the night when the mosquito population is most active.
He also experimented with fumigating buildings where people with yellow fever had been housed. Pans of sulfur or pyrethrum were placed in areas where yellow fever had taken root and the powder in the pans was set on fire. The smoke proved effective at reducing the mosquito population within buildings.
The final measure implemented under Dr. Gorgas involved quarantine of an individual if someone did become sick. The patient was transported to screened structures that prevented future mosquito bites so that the disease could not be spread from an infected individual.
Gorgas’s work and Finlay’s knowledge made the building of the Panama Canal possible, which was to change the course of American transport and greatly speed access to the West.
Carlos Finlay Recognized
Recognition of Finlay came late but his findings were celebrated in his lifetime. Finlay was nominated seven times for the Nobel Prize in Physiology, though he never was awarded it. However in 1908 he received the Legion of Honour from France.
There is a memorial to him in Havana and a statue of him in Panama City near the canal, the canal he made possible.
But best of all was certainly the statement made by General Leonard Wood, the U.S. military governor of Cuba from 1898 to 1902: “The confirmation of Dr. Finlay’s doctrine is the greatest step forward made in medical science since Jenner’s discovery of the vaccination.”
Finlay concluded his career as the Chief Sanitary Officer of Cuba, a position he held for eight years before retiring in 1909.
What Was the U.S. Bracero Program?
The Bracero Program was a guest worker program begun in a partnership between the United States and Mexico on August 4, 1942. It was a... »
Marcelino Serna: Highly Honored Soldier in World War I
Marcelino Serna was still a Mexican citizen when he fought for the United States in World War I. He was smart at battlefield tactics, felt... »
Hispanic Women in Arizona Provided Aid in World War II
During World War II, the country needed citizen support at home and abroad for all that needed to be done to fight a war. Tucson,... »
Latino Family Opened Door to School Integration in 1940s
The school desegregation case of Mendez v. Westminster (1947) prepared the way for the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, yet few people have... » | 1,606 | ENGLISH | 1 |
fobubookhardrel.ml/decision-making/god-exists.pdf It led to a completely new understanding of how the universe worked. Galileo continued and expanded the work of Copernicus. Isaac Newton built on the ideas of these two scientists and others. He found and proved the answers for which they searched. Isaac Newton was born in Woolsthorpe, England, on December twenty-fifth, sixteen forty-two. He was born early. He was a small baby and very weak. No one expected him to survive. But he surprised everyone. He had one of the most powerful minds in history.
And he lived until he was eighty-four. Newton's father died before he was born.
His mother married again a few years later. She left Isaac with his grandmother. The boy was not a good student. Yet he liked to make things, such as kites and clocks and simple machines. Newton also enjoyed finding new ways to answer questions or solve problems. As a boy, for example, he decided to find a way to measure the speed of the wind. On a windy day, he measured how far he could jump with the wind at his back.
Then he measured how far he could jump with the wind in his face. From the difference between the two jumps, he made his own measure of the strength of the wind. The boy was one of the best students in the school. Newton decided to get even by getting higher marks than the boy who kicked him. In a short time, Newton became the top student at the school. It soon became clear, however, that the boy was not a good farmer. He spent his time solving mathematical problems, instead of taking care of the crops.
He spent hours visiting a bookstore in town, instead of selling his vegetables in the market. An uncle decided that Newton would do better as a student than as a farmer. So he helped the young man enter Cambridge University to study mathematics. Newton completed his university studies five years later, in sixteen sixty-five.
He was twenty-two years old. At that time, a deadly plague was spreading across England.
To escape the disease, Newton returned to the family farm. He did more thinking than farming. In doing so, he found the answers to some of the greatest mysteries of science. Newton used his great skill in mathematics to form a better understanding of the world and the universe.
He used methods he had learned as a boy in making things. He experimented. Then he studied the results and used what he had learned to design new experiments. Newton's work led him to create a new method in mathematics for measuring areas curved in shape. He also used it to find how much material was contained in solid objects.
The method he created became known as integral calculus. One day, sitting in the garden, Newton watched an apple fall from a tree. He began to wonder if the same force that pulled the apple down also kept the moon circling the earth. Newton believed it was. And he believed it could be measured.
He decided that the strength of the force keeping a planet in orbit around the sun depended on two things. One was the amount of mass in the planet and the sun.
The other was how far apart they were. Newton was able to find the exact relationship between distance and gravity. He multiplied the mass of one space object by the mass of the other. Then he divided that number by the square of their distance apart. The result was the strength of the gravity force that tied them to each other. Newton proved his idea by measuring how much gravity force would be needed to keep the moon orbiting the Earth.
Then he measured the mass of the Earth and the moon, and the distance between them. He found that his measurement of the gravity force produced was not the same as the force needed. But the numbers were close. Newton did not tell anyone about his discovery. He put it aside to work on other ideas. Later, with correct measurements of the size of the Earth, he found that the numbers were exactly the same. Newton spent time studying light and colors.
This may be partly true, but no matter how many creative inspirations one gets from the manic state and how extraordinary the achievements are as a result of it, one thing is clear to all who suffer from it — this is an illness that can destroy lives and cause tremendous pain for all connected to the sufferer. He spent most of his time alone, building miniature mills, machines, carts, and other inventions. He was high strung, egotistical, and dominant. He experienced attacks of rage, which he directed toward his friends and family.
His violent temper made him unpopular and his peers and the servants rejoiced when Newton left home for Cambridge. At Cambridge, Newton made only one friend among his fellow students. His notebooks on his college years document anxiety, sadness, fear, a low opinion of himself, and suicidal thoughts.
After his appointment as Fellow of the University in Cambridge, Newton continued to have manic episodes, often forgetting to eat. Such events were usually followed by a collapse into depression, and he would become enraged by any criticism of his work. As a result, he would withdraw from the scientific community and refuse to continue his research. Despite his success and recognition, Newton was afraid to expose his work to the criticism of fellow scientists.
He kept his calculus secret until Leibniz made a claim of discovering it first. Newton avoided the company of others. When he had to interact with people, he contributed little to conversations. His relationships with other scientists were tyrannical. He would refuse to speak to those who dared to disagree with him. Newton sought quarrels with friends and foes alike. Newton had a strong aversion to fame and requested that his papers be published anonymously.
Other famous mathematicians were unable to even come near an answer. At times of depression, Newton hallucinated and had conversations with absent people. | <urn:uuid:edffad74-792d-4b0b-b09c-34e352d5ca5f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://irelytuqypov.ml/developed/isaac-newton-great-men-in-history.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594662.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119151736-20200119175736-00440.warc.gz | en | 0.989964 | 1,212 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.022391505539417267,
0.2021450400352478,
-0.16330240666866302,
-0.12175632268190384,
-0.46093273162841797,
-0.11039386689662933,
0.04222826659679413,
0.5078682899475098,
0.10709176957607269,
0.18947602808475494,
-0.17285579442977905,
-0.640019953250885,
0.14249929785728455,
0.05053751170... | 1 | fobubookhardrel.ml/decision-making/god-exists.pdf It led to a completely new understanding of how the universe worked. Galileo continued and expanded the work of Copernicus. Isaac Newton built on the ideas of these two scientists and others. He found and proved the answers for which they searched. Isaac Newton was born in Woolsthorpe, England, on December twenty-fifth, sixteen forty-two. He was born early. He was a small baby and very weak. No one expected him to survive. But he surprised everyone. He had one of the most powerful minds in history.
And he lived until he was eighty-four. Newton's father died before he was born.
His mother married again a few years later. She left Isaac with his grandmother. The boy was not a good student. Yet he liked to make things, such as kites and clocks and simple machines. Newton also enjoyed finding new ways to answer questions or solve problems. As a boy, for example, he decided to find a way to measure the speed of the wind. On a windy day, he measured how far he could jump with the wind at his back.
Then he measured how far he could jump with the wind in his face. From the difference between the two jumps, he made his own measure of the strength of the wind. The boy was one of the best students in the school. Newton decided to get even by getting higher marks than the boy who kicked him. In a short time, Newton became the top student at the school. It soon became clear, however, that the boy was not a good farmer. He spent his time solving mathematical problems, instead of taking care of the crops.
He spent hours visiting a bookstore in town, instead of selling his vegetables in the market. An uncle decided that Newton would do better as a student than as a farmer. So he helped the young man enter Cambridge University to study mathematics. Newton completed his university studies five years later, in sixteen sixty-five.
He was twenty-two years old. At that time, a deadly plague was spreading across England.
To escape the disease, Newton returned to the family farm. He did more thinking than farming. In doing so, he found the answers to some of the greatest mysteries of science. Newton used his great skill in mathematics to form a better understanding of the world and the universe.
He used methods he had learned as a boy in making things. He experimented. Then he studied the results and used what he had learned to design new experiments. Newton's work led him to create a new method in mathematics for measuring areas curved in shape. He also used it to find how much material was contained in solid objects.
The method he created became known as integral calculus. One day, sitting in the garden, Newton watched an apple fall from a tree. He began to wonder if the same force that pulled the apple down also kept the moon circling the earth. Newton believed it was. And he believed it could be measured.
He decided that the strength of the force keeping a planet in orbit around the sun depended on two things. One was the amount of mass in the planet and the sun.
The other was how far apart they were. Newton was able to find the exact relationship between distance and gravity. He multiplied the mass of one space object by the mass of the other. Then he divided that number by the square of their distance apart. The result was the strength of the gravity force that tied them to each other. Newton proved his idea by measuring how much gravity force would be needed to keep the moon orbiting the Earth.
Then he measured the mass of the Earth and the moon, and the distance between them. He found that his measurement of the gravity force produced was not the same as the force needed. But the numbers were close. Newton did not tell anyone about his discovery. He put it aside to work on other ideas. Later, with correct measurements of the size of the Earth, he found that the numbers were exactly the same. Newton spent time studying light and colors.
This may be partly true, but no matter how many creative inspirations one gets from the manic state and how extraordinary the achievements are as a result of it, one thing is clear to all who suffer from it — this is an illness that can destroy lives and cause tremendous pain for all connected to the sufferer. He spent most of his time alone, building miniature mills, machines, carts, and other inventions. He was high strung, egotistical, and dominant. He experienced attacks of rage, which he directed toward his friends and family.
His violent temper made him unpopular and his peers and the servants rejoiced when Newton left home for Cambridge. At Cambridge, Newton made only one friend among his fellow students. His notebooks on his college years document anxiety, sadness, fear, a low opinion of himself, and suicidal thoughts.
After his appointment as Fellow of the University in Cambridge, Newton continued to have manic episodes, often forgetting to eat. Such events were usually followed by a collapse into depression, and he would become enraged by any criticism of his work. As a result, he would withdraw from the scientific community and refuse to continue his research. Despite his success and recognition, Newton was afraid to expose his work to the criticism of fellow scientists.
He kept his calculus secret until Leibniz made a claim of discovering it first. Newton avoided the company of others. When he had to interact with people, he contributed little to conversations. His relationships with other scientists were tyrannical. He would refuse to speak to those who dared to disagree with him. Newton sought quarrels with friends and foes alike. Newton had a strong aversion to fame and requested that his papers be published anonymously.
Other famous mathematicians were unable to even come near an answer. At times of depression, Newton hallucinated and had conversations with absent people. | 1,191 | ENGLISH | 1 |
For most of the 1800s, children were considered "small, unruly adults" who needed to be strictly disciplined and put to useful work as soon as they were able. The very concept of childhood itself, as a carefree, innocent time, is a result of increasing economic stability and changing family roles in the 1800s. Before child welfare laws were enacted and compulsory education enforced, children made up an important part of the industrial and agricultural workforce in 1800s America. Toys and time for games and fun may have been a luxury, but kids will be kids, and the adults that loved them made sure their lives weren't all work and no play. The establishment of public schools, more humane working conditions, and expanding economic opportunities helped improve the life of America's children in the 1800s, but they worked hard and their pleasures were simple ones. | <urn:uuid:bc07c03a-3007-46e8-bc51-b8333380c6ee> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.simonandschuster.ca/books/Jump-Ropes-Jacks-and-Endless-Chores/Matthew-Strange/Daily-Life-in-America-in-the-1800s/9781422296882 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00126.warc.gz | en | 0.987908 | 170 | 3.828125 | 4 | [
-0.2500690817832947,
0.12413008511066437,
0.4353295862674713,
-0.40067219734191895,
0.010924187488853931,
0.21164721250534058,
-0.31706544756889343,
-0.12986648082733154,
-0.2481132447719574,
-0.0315893292427063,
0.2321559637784958,
0.4811283051967621,
-0.022792985662817955,
0.359548270702... | 5 | For most of the 1800s, children were considered "small, unruly adults" who needed to be strictly disciplined and put to useful work as soon as they were able. The very concept of childhood itself, as a carefree, innocent time, is a result of increasing economic stability and changing family roles in the 1800s. Before child welfare laws were enacted and compulsory education enforced, children made up an important part of the industrial and agricultural workforce in 1800s America. Toys and time for games and fun may have been a luxury, but kids will be kids, and the adults that loved them made sure their lives weren't all work and no play. The establishment of public schools, more humane working conditions, and expanding economic opportunities helped improve the life of America's children in the 1800s, but they worked hard and their pleasures were simple ones. | 186 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The first African-American woman to win a Nobel Prize, Toni Morrison is dead.
Toni Morrison, an American writer who received the Nobel Prize in Literature, died at the age of 88.
Her novels, “Beloved,” “Song of Solomon,” and others explored the way African-Americans search for freedom and identity in a country obsessed with skin colour.
A decorated novelist, editor and educator — among other prestigious academic appointments, she was a professor emeritus at Princeton University.
Morrison said writing was the state in which she found true freedom.
“I know how to write forever. I don’t think I could have happily stayed here in the world if I did not have a way of thinking about it, which is what writing is for me. It’s control. Nobody tells me what to do. It’s mine, it’s free, and it’s a way of thinking. It’s pure knowledge,”
Growing up in Lorain, Morrison has said, she played and attended school with children of various backgrounds, many of them immigrants. Race and racism were not the overriding concerns in her childhood that they would become in her books.
“When I was in first grade, nobody thought I was inferior. I was the only black in the class and the only child who could read,” she once told the Los Angeles Times. She said
In 1953, she graduated from Howard with a degree in English; she went on to earn a master’s from Cornell University in 1955.
She married Jamaican architect Harold Morrison in 1958 and gave birth to two sons, Harold Ford in 1961 and Slade Kevin in 1964.
She and her husband divorced after six years of marriage.
Morrison began her storied career in letters as a college instructor at Texas Southern University and later at Howard, her alma mater. | <urn:uuid:6b455340-ae2e-4c42-a46b-cbde1d56e6b3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.von.gov.ng/literary-icon-toni-morrison-dies-at-88/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00259.warc.gz | en | 0.983655 | 398 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.2671287953853607,
0.3176249563694,
0.2621513307094574,
0.4106912910938263,
-0.4804435670375824,
0.18685698509216309,
0.3321687579154968,
0.3736270070075989,
-0.03858545422554016,
0.14002858102321625,
0.1952120065689087,
-0.08576251566410065,
-0.04748876020312309,
0.22424858808517456,
... | 1 | The first African-American woman to win a Nobel Prize, Toni Morrison is dead.
Toni Morrison, an American writer who received the Nobel Prize in Literature, died at the age of 88.
Her novels, “Beloved,” “Song of Solomon,” and others explored the way African-Americans search for freedom and identity in a country obsessed with skin colour.
A decorated novelist, editor and educator — among other prestigious academic appointments, she was a professor emeritus at Princeton University.
Morrison said writing was the state in which she found true freedom.
“I know how to write forever. I don’t think I could have happily stayed here in the world if I did not have a way of thinking about it, which is what writing is for me. It’s control. Nobody tells me what to do. It’s mine, it’s free, and it’s a way of thinking. It’s pure knowledge,”
Growing up in Lorain, Morrison has said, she played and attended school with children of various backgrounds, many of them immigrants. Race and racism were not the overriding concerns in her childhood that they would become in her books.
“When I was in first grade, nobody thought I was inferior. I was the only black in the class and the only child who could read,” she once told the Los Angeles Times. She said
In 1953, she graduated from Howard with a degree in English; she went on to earn a master’s from Cornell University in 1955.
She married Jamaican architect Harold Morrison in 1958 and gave birth to two sons, Harold Ford in 1961 and Slade Kevin in 1964.
She and her husband divorced after six years of marriage.
Morrison began her storied career in letters as a college instructor at Texas Southern University and later at Howard, her alma mater. | 382 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Paper type: Essay Pages: 10 (2259 words)
Mariano Azuela’s novel, The Underdogs, is a male-dominated novel. The story of the exploits and wartime adventures of a rebel band during the Mexican Revolution is primarily driven by men; the majority of the characters are men who are separated from their families and lives and who are fighting for a cause in which they strongly believe (at least at the beginning of the novel). Despite the masculine story, however, there are two highly developed and significant female characters in The Underdogs.
These women, Camila and War Paint, are a representation of two of the roles women played during the Mexican Revolution. While the portraits Azuela paints of these women and their role in society and revolution are incredibly accurate, he does neglect the explore the other avenues of participation that women had in the revolution. Thus, Azuela semi-accurately portrays the roles that women played in the revolution during this time through the characters of Camila and War Paint.
Through these two women, the modern reader can achieve a sense of understanding as to two of the primary roles that women played during the revolution in the early 20th century.
Camila is a young women who embodies a primarily domestic role, providing comfort, care and shelter to the rebel soldiers as so many women did during this time in Mexican history. War Paint provides a stark contrast to the mild Camila; as her name suggests, she is a fierce and hardened warrior, a soldadera. Her role in the revolution is much different: she actually joins the ranks of the rebel band led by Demetrio Macias, and fights alongside the men.
While the two women are highly developed characters who accurately represent the portion of society from which they come, there are many women who participated in the revolution whose roles did not fall into the “domestic” and “warrior” categories. Many women were journalists, lobbyists, and propagandists; some were nurses, tending to the wounded outside of their homes; some even participated in religious protesting. Thus, while Camila and War Paint’s roles in Azuela’s portrayal of the Mexican Revolution are accurate and well-developed, there is a much larger picture of women’s roles that is missing from the novel.
Women in Mexican Society: Pre-Revolution
In order to effectively understand how women’s roles in Mexican society changed during the Mexican Revolution, we must examine the societal expectations of women’s behavior before this tumultuous time in their history. Women in Mexico between the 18th and 19th centuries experienced many changes as the enlightenment swept across Europe and impacted Spain. Were women only good for producing children and caring for a husband? The answer to this question was in the process of being determined even as early as the 18th century.
In the late 1700’s, small steps were taken to reform the treatment and expectations of women. Education, even if incredibly limited instruction was to be had, became more accessible to women living in urban areas; changes were made in order to allow women to enter the work force; women were even pushed and encouraged to join in the fight for independence. As with many countries during this time, women’s rights had been limited for centuries, so the changes that were made in Mexico during the Enlightenment allowed women to break free of the mold that society had placed upon them and explore other avenues. They could work outside of the home, receive an education, and participate in politics, even if it was to a limited extent. Many women did participate in the wars of independence, offering their services for the benefit of the country.
After the freedom was finally achieved, women were expected to return to their private spheres and traditional roles; that is, raising a family, keeping a home, and caring for a husband. However, many women did not wish to return to their old lives; they continued forming organizations, signing petitions, and attempting to show the government how valuable their contributions to society could be. They seem to have succeeded, at least limitedly; the government seemed to recognize that women could be valuable societal participants, but made adjustments to the ways that they would be allowed to participate. Education was oriented toward the home and family, organizations and petitions set up by females remained exclusively for women, and the like. Regardless of developments in the government, however, women did continue to raise and nurture their families and serve their communities as they had prior to the wars of independence.
By the time the Mexican Revolution began, women were ready to be recognized fully for their talents and abilities. While many women chose to stay behind the scenes and care for the soldiers on the sidelines, like Camila in The Underdogs, there were equally as many women who chose to actively participate in the revolution. Women such as War Paint chose to become fighters, while others followed less dangerous paths (although many were equally as radical). Despite the fact that Camila and War Paint are both accurate representations of the women who chose the same paths during the revolution, there are still many different roles that women played during this time that Azuela does not acknowledge.
Women in The Underdogs: Is It Enough?
Even though Camila and War Paint’s stories are woven throughout the “bigger picture” of Azuela’s novel, their characters are meticulously developed and show readers how women within their roles in society and revolution were expected to behave (and how they actually behaved). Camila is present throughout the entire story; if not in person, than in name. She is the domestic, meek girl who stays on the sidelines of the battles and passively waits for injured, hungry or exhausted soldiers to show up on her doorstep and allow her to care for them. War Paint, on the other hand, has a wild personality and refuses to let her life be dictated by outside influences; she joins the rebel band as a fighter, not a caretaker.
There were real women who would have embodied the characteristics of War Paint and Camila and participated in the same or similar activities during the revolution, but there were also many other women who did nothing of the sort. Thus, Azuela could have done a much better job portraying, or at least mentioning, the other types of resistance and participation of women in the revolution. War Paint and Camila’s roles in the revolution and society surrounding it, however, do give readers a semi-accurate portrait of some things that women were doing to participate in culture and society during this time in Mexican history.
Camila: Women in Society during the Revolution
Camila, the domestic, first appears after Demetrio Macias has been wounded in a fight. The rebels carry their leader on a stretcher to a small village, where they expect Camila and the other women to take care of him and nurse him back to health. Azuela introduces Camila as an obedient girl who follows tradition and conforms to the expectations surrounding her role in society as a woman. After Macias is brought into her village,
A very friendly girl brought a jícara filled with blue water. Demetrio grabbed the gourd with his trembling hands and drank avidly.
“Want any more?”
Demetrio raised his eyes: the young woman had a very ordinary face, but her voice was filled with much sweetness.
Camila is a typical village girl, fulfilling her duty of providing care to the soldiers who show up on her doorstep.
The young girl soon becomes infatuated with Luis Cervantes, though he does not return the affection, and Macias desires for Camila to become his lover. After the rebels leave her village, she disappears from the story until Macias decides to send for her. She does indeed become his lover at this point, riding along with the rebel band and providing Macias with the comforts he asks of her; however, she is not exactly the most convenient person to be tagging along with the band, as she cries regularly and is constantly getting into arguments with War Paint. Camila is eventually stabbed after an argument with War Paint, which devastates Macias, who then turns all of his efforts to fighting.
Camila embodies the characteristics of the domestic woman in Mexican society during the revolution. By the time the Mexican Revolution began, 80% of the population of Mexico lived in rural areas untouched by the modernization that occurred in urban areas; thus, the majority of women were homemakers, farmers’ wives, or vendors at village markets, selling flowers, vegetables, or food to hungry travelers. Many women who lived in these rural areas chose not to fight were often forced to offer their homes, food, and bodies for the comfort of those fighting for the rebel cause. Providing care to the men of the revolution was not the only role that women played, however. Some women joined the ranks as fighters, as well.
War Paint: Women’s Roles in the Revolution
As the only female warrior presented in the novel, War Paint is proven to be one of the most feisty and hotheaded characters. The first description that Azuela gives of her shows her wild spirit and non-conformist attitude:
“Are you Demetrio Macias, then?” asked the young woman all of a sudden, bursting in from atop the bar, swinging her legs and tapping Demetrio on the back with her coarse leather shoes.
“At your service,” he replied, barely turning his head around.
Indifferent, she continued moving her uncovered legs, showing off her blue stockings.
War Paint’s introduction to the story is a complete contrast to the young and mild Camila, who seems, for the most part, to obey the expectations of women from prior to the Mexican Revolution. War Paint refuses to bow to pre-revolution standards for women and instead presents herself in the complete opposite light: as a rebel. She is absolutely successful in this endeavor, and actually becomes one of the rebel fighters. As a female fighter, she is known as a soldadera; these women were among the first of their race and culture to join ranks with men and fight for a cause.
Many women chose to follow the same path as War Paint and becomes soldaderas. These female soldiers were first developed during the wars of independence as women joined the ranks of soldiers to prepare food, wash their clothing, and help to take care of them when they were injured. During the Mexican Revolution, they traveled around with the rebel bands that their husbands or lovers belonged to, often participating in the fighting themselves. War Paint fits this description: she joins the rebel band with the man she loves, Towhead Margarito (though she is also attracted to Macias).
Artists and writers during this period often portrayed these soldaderas as heroes, creating paintings (and, for authors like Azuela, characters like War Paint) and even songs that were sung about female fighters. While this was not the most popular avenue for women living in Mexico during the revolution, there were still many that did choose this path of rebellion, instead of a less dangerous one.
Other Women’s Roles during the Mexican Revolution
As was previously stated, Camila and War Paint, while their characters do embody two of the large roles that women played during the Mexican Revolution, are not representative of their entire sex. Aside from becoming soldaderas to join in the fighting or staying home to tend to soldiers that needed care, there were many other activities that women participated in to show their support for the revolution. Women were active participants in areas such as journalism, where they would write about the revolution and its effects on society; they would propagandize and protest to encourage other men and women to join in the resistance; some of the educated women became nurses on the front lines of the fighting and on the home front (similar to Camila’s role). Some women participated in resistance groups, helping to gather ammunition and arms and transport them to those fighting, as well as performing courier tasks and espionage. Many of the middle and upper-class women who lived in urban areas away from the fighting avoided participation altogether.
Prior to the revolution, women were just beginning to emerge as important members of society and some were daring enough to push the limits of what was deemed “acceptable” female behavior. While many women of the revolution chose to conform to those expectations and become the caretakers of the soldiers, like Camila, there were many more like War Paint who fought against them. They were not just soldaderas. They did much more than that, but Azuela doesn’t mention them in The Underdogs.
The women of the Mexican Revolution were active participants in many more fields than just the two that Azuela portrayed through Camila and War Paint. While his female characters do show how domestic women and soldaderas were active participants in the revolution, he neglects to show just to what extent women in general actually engaged in the revolution. Readers get a good sense of the role of the domestic caretaker and the female fighter, but learn nothing about the nurses, protestors, propagandists, journalists, and the like from his novel.
Arrom, Silvia Marina. The Women of Mexico City, 1790-1857. Stanford: Stanford University
Azuela, Mariano. The Underdogs: A Novel of the Mexican Revolution. Trans. Sergio Waisman.
New York: Penguin Books, 2008.
Buchenau, Jürgen. Mexican Mosaic: A Brief History of Mexico. Wheeling: Harlan Davidson, Inc.
Macias, Anna. “Women and the Mexican Revolution, 1910-1920.” The Americas, Vol. 37, No. 1
(July 1980), pp. 53-82.
Cite this page
Women of The Underdogs. (2016, Aug 15). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/women-of-the-underdogs-essay | <urn:uuid:0a3b1615-f5a9-4d9b-8ac4-48349382710f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studymoose.com/women-of-the-underdogs-essay | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00418.warc.gz | en | 0.982013 | 2,891 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
0.11854269355535507,
0.2857915759086609,
0.12852251529693604,
0.39022335410118103,
-0.0022039904724806547,
0.40621909499168396,
-0.12744811177253723,
0.4404664635658264,
0.1276223510503769,
-0.10345306247472763,
0.027427537366747856,
0.10529917478561401,
0.10372797399759293,
-0.16273869574... | 1 | Paper type: Essay Pages: 10 (2259 words)
Mariano Azuela’s novel, The Underdogs, is a male-dominated novel. The story of the exploits and wartime adventures of a rebel band during the Mexican Revolution is primarily driven by men; the majority of the characters are men who are separated from their families and lives and who are fighting for a cause in which they strongly believe (at least at the beginning of the novel). Despite the masculine story, however, there are two highly developed and significant female characters in The Underdogs.
These women, Camila and War Paint, are a representation of two of the roles women played during the Mexican Revolution. While the portraits Azuela paints of these women and their role in society and revolution are incredibly accurate, he does neglect the explore the other avenues of participation that women had in the revolution. Thus, Azuela semi-accurately portrays the roles that women played in the revolution during this time through the characters of Camila and War Paint.
Through these two women, the modern reader can achieve a sense of understanding as to two of the primary roles that women played during the revolution in the early 20th century.
Camila is a young women who embodies a primarily domestic role, providing comfort, care and shelter to the rebel soldiers as so many women did during this time in Mexican history. War Paint provides a stark contrast to the mild Camila; as her name suggests, she is a fierce and hardened warrior, a soldadera. Her role in the revolution is much different: she actually joins the ranks of the rebel band led by Demetrio Macias, and fights alongside the men.
While the two women are highly developed characters who accurately represent the portion of society from which they come, there are many women who participated in the revolution whose roles did not fall into the “domestic” and “warrior” categories. Many women were journalists, lobbyists, and propagandists; some were nurses, tending to the wounded outside of their homes; some even participated in religious protesting. Thus, while Camila and War Paint’s roles in Azuela’s portrayal of the Mexican Revolution are accurate and well-developed, there is a much larger picture of women’s roles that is missing from the novel.
Women in Mexican Society: Pre-Revolution
In order to effectively understand how women’s roles in Mexican society changed during the Mexican Revolution, we must examine the societal expectations of women’s behavior before this tumultuous time in their history. Women in Mexico between the 18th and 19th centuries experienced many changes as the enlightenment swept across Europe and impacted Spain. Were women only good for producing children and caring for a husband? The answer to this question was in the process of being determined even as early as the 18th century.
In the late 1700’s, small steps were taken to reform the treatment and expectations of women. Education, even if incredibly limited instruction was to be had, became more accessible to women living in urban areas; changes were made in order to allow women to enter the work force; women were even pushed and encouraged to join in the fight for independence. As with many countries during this time, women’s rights had been limited for centuries, so the changes that were made in Mexico during the Enlightenment allowed women to break free of the mold that society had placed upon them and explore other avenues. They could work outside of the home, receive an education, and participate in politics, even if it was to a limited extent. Many women did participate in the wars of independence, offering their services for the benefit of the country.
After the freedom was finally achieved, women were expected to return to their private spheres and traditional roles; that is, raising a family, keeping a home, and caring for a husband. However, many women did not wish to return to their old lives; they continued forming organizations, signing petitions, and attempting to show the government how valuable their contributions to society could be. They seem to have succeeded, at least limitedly; the government seemed to recognize that women could be valuable societal participants, but made adjustments to the ways that they would be allowed to participate. Education was oriented toward the home and family, organizations and petitions set up by females remained exclusively for women, and the like. Regardless of developments in the government, however, women did continue to raise and nurture their families and serve their communities as they had prior to the wars of independence.
By the time the Mexican Revolution began, women were ready to be recognized fully for their talents and abilities. While many women chose to stay behind the scenes and care for the soldiers on the sidelines, like Camila in The Underdogs, there were equally as many women who chose to actively participate in the revolution. Women such as War Paint chose to become fighters, while others followed less dangerous paths (although many were equally as radical). Despite the fact that Camila and War Paint are both accurate representations of the women who chose the same paths during the revolution, there are still many different roles that women played during this time that Azuela does not acknowledge.
Women in The Underdogs: Is It Enough?
Even though Camila and War Paint’s stories are woven throughout the “bigger picture” of Azuela’s novel, their characters are meticulously developed and show readers how women within their roles in society and revolution were expected to behave (and how they actually behaved). Camila is present throughout the entire story; if not in person, than in name. She is the domestic, meek girl who stays on the sidelines of the battles and passively waits for injured, hungry or exhausted soldiers to show up on her doorstep and allow her to care for them. War Paint, on the other hand, has a wild personality and refuses to let her life be dictated by outside influences; she joins the rebel band as a fighter, not a caretaker.
There were real women who would have embodied the characteristics of War Paint and Camila and participated in the same or similar activities during the revolution, but there were also many other women who did nothing of the sort. Thus, Azuela could have done a much better job portraying, or at least mentioning, the other types of resistance and participation of women in the revolution. War Paint and Camila’s roles in the revolution and society surrounding it, however, do give readers a semi-accurate portrait of some things that women were doing to participate in culture and society during this time in Mexican history.
Camila: Women in Society during the Revolution
Camila, the domestic, first appears after Demetrio Macias has been wounded in a fight. The rebels carry their leader on a stretcher to a small village, where they expect Camila and the other women to take care of him and nurse him back to health. Azuela introduces Camila as an obedient girl who follows tradition and conforms to the expectations surrounding her role in society as a woman. After Macias is brought into her village,
A very friendly girl brought a jícara filled with blue water. Demetrio grabbed the gourd with his trembling hands and drank avidly.
“Want any more?”
Demetrio raised his eyes: the young woman had a very ordinary face, but her voice was filled with much sweetness.
Camila is a typical village girl, fulfilling her duty of providing care to the soldiers who show up on her doorstep.
The young girl soon becomes infatuated with Luis Cervantes, though he does not return the affection, and Macias desires for Camila to become his lover. After the rebels leave her village, she disappears from the story until Macias decides to send for her. She does indeed become his lover at this point, riding along with the rebel band and providing Macias with the comforts he asks of her; however, she is not exactly the most convenient person to be tagging along with the band, as she cries regularly and is constantly getting into arguments with War Paint. Camila is eventually stabbed after an argument with War Paint, which devastates Macias, who then turns all of his efforts to fighting.
Camila embodies the characteristics of the domestic woman in Mexican society during the revolution. By the time the Mexican Revolution began, 80% of the population of Mexico lived in rural areas untouched by the modernization that occurred in urban areas; thus, the majority of women were homemakers, farmers’ wives, or vendors at village markets, selling flowers, vegetables, or food to hungry travelers. Many women who lived in these rural areas chose not to fight were often forced to offer their homes, food, and bodies for the comfort of those fighting for the rebel cause. Providing care to the men of the revolution was not the only role that women played, however. Some women joined the ranks as fighters, as well.
War Paint: Women’s Roles in the Revolution
As the only female warrior presented in the novel, War Paint is proven to be one of the most feisty and hotheaded characters. The first description that Azuela gives of her shows her wild spirit and non-conformist attitude:
“Are you Demetrio Macias, then?” asked the young woman all of a sudden, bursting in from atop the bar, swinging her legs and tapping Demetrio on the back with her coarse leather shoes.
“At your service,” he replied, barely turning his head around.
Indifferent, she continued moving her uncovered legs, showing off her blue stockings.
War Paint’s introduction to the story is a complete contrast to the young and mild Camila, who seems, for the most part, to obey the expectations of women from prior to the Mexican Revolution. War Paint refuses to bow to pre-revolution standards for women and instead presents herself in the complete opposite light: as a rebel. She is absolutely successful in this endeavor, and actually becomes one of the rebel fighters. As a female fighter, she is known as a soldadera; these women were among the first of their race and culture to join ranks with men and fight for a cause.
Many women chose to follow the same path as War Paint and becomes soldaderas. These female soldiers were first developed during the wars of independence as women joined the ranks of soldiers to prepare food, wash their clothing, and help to take care of them when they were injured. During the Mexican Revolution, they traveled around with the rebel bands that their husbands or lovers belonged to, often participating in the fighting themselves. War Paint fits this description: she joins the rebel band with the man she loves, Towhead Margarito (though she is also attracted to Macias).
Artists and writers during this period often portrayed these soldaderas as heroes, creating paintings (and, for authors like Azuela, characters like War Paint) and even songs that were sung about female fighters. While this was not the most popular avenue for women living in Mexico during the revolution, there were still many that did choose this path of rebellion, instead of a less dangerous one.
Other Women’s Roles during the Mexican Revolution
As was previously stated, Camila and War Paint, while their characters do embody two of the large roles that women played during the Mexican Revolution, are not representative of their entire sex. Aside from becoming soldaderas to join in the fighting or staying home to tend to soldiers that needed care, there were many other activities that women participated in to show their support for the revolution. Women were active participants in areas such as journalism, where they would write about the revolution and its effects on society; they would propagandize and protest to encourage other men and women to join in the resistance; some of the educated women became nurses on the front lines of the fighting and on the home front (similar to Camila’s role). Some women participated in resistance groups, helping to gather ammunition and arms and transport them to those fighting, as well as performing courier tasks and espionage. Many of the middle and upper-class women who lived in urban areas away from the fighting avoided participation altogether.
Prior to the revolution, women were just beginning to emerge as important members of society and some were daring enough to push the limits of what was deemed “acceptable” female behavior. While many women of the revolution chose to conform to those expectations and become the caretakers of the soldiers, like Camila, there were many more like War Paint who fought against them. They were not just soldaderas. They did much more than that, but Azuela doesn’t mention them in The Underdogs.
The women of the Mexican Revolution were active participants in many more fields than just the two that Azuela portrayed through Camila and War Paint. While his female characters do show how domestic women and soldaderas were active participants in the revolution, he neglects to show just to what extent women in general actually engaged in the revolution. Readers get a good sense of the role of the domestic caretaker and the female fighter, but learn nothing about the nurses, protestors, propagandists, journalists, and the like from his novel.
Arrom, Silvia Marina. The Women of Mexico City, 1790-1857. Stanford: Stanford University
Azuela, Mariano. The Underdogs: A Novel of the Mexican Revolution. Trans. Sergio Waisman.
New York: Penguin Books, 2008.
Buchenau, Jürgen. Mexican Mosaic: A Brief History of Mexico. Wheeling: Harlan Davidson, Inc.
Macias, Anna. “Women and the Mexican Revolution, 1910-1920.” The Americas, Vol. 37, No. 1
(July 1980), pp. 53-82.
Cite this page
Women of The Underdogs. (2016, Aug 15). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/women-of-the-underdogs-essay | 2,822 | ENGLISH | 1 |
“the Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano”
Andrew Lin GHIST102 “The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano” From Olaudah Equiano’s autobiography published in 1776, historians are able to understand the significant difference between how the business of slavery was conducted between Europeans and Africans. Throughout Equiano’s journey, he recalled how the European and African slave traders and owners differed in the treatment of slaves. Although both Africans and Europeans viewed slavery as a business and traded slaves as property, the European’s treatment of slaves was much more horrific and inhumane.
Thus, from his personal accounts traveling throughout parts of Africa and across the Atlantic Ocean, he was able to write from his perspective as a slave which provides historians an accurate firsthand account of the slave trade. From Equiano’s earliest account of childhood in the African region of Nigeria, slavery was a common practice amongst Africans in the region. He noted that slaves “were only prisoners of war, or such among us had been convicted of…crimes, which we esteemed heinous. ” (Equiano, p701. So from Equiano’s account, slavery amongst Africans was not for the purpose of profit and exploitation but rather out of necessity, custom and to assist slave owners. He even commented on that after he was abducted into the slave trade in Africa, he found his way into a chieftain and claimed that “they all used me extremely well, and did all they could to comfort me. ” (Equiano,p701-702. ) Although the Africans used the practice of slavery as part of their common commerce from Equiano’s account of how he was traded numerous times, each African master throughout his journey treated him “ethically. We can even construe that African slave owner’s assimilated their slaves as part of the family from Equiano who considered one of his master’s wife “as something like a mother. ” (Equiano,p701) We can also see how although slaves were still considered as property, the African slavers treated slaves as human beings from Equiano’s account of how one of his mistress washed him and even allowed him to eat with her and her son who are both free.
Not only did they allow him to eat and drink before them, they also maintained common African customs when the mistress’s son “would not at any time either eat, or drink till I had taken first, because I was the eldest. ”(Equiano,p702. ) From Equiano’s journey in the slave trade in Africa, we see many evidence of how the treatment and sale of slaves was much more “ethical” in context to his account of his later travels with European slavers. After Equiano had been traded to the Europeans to be transported across the Atlantic to Barbados his accounts significantly differs from his previous accounts while he was in Africa.
His Equiano’s point of view, Europeans saw slavery as an economically viable way to exploit Africans and make tremendous profits from the trade. We can see evidence of this from how they loaded the slaves in masses unto ships that caused the condition to be “so crowded that each had scarcely room to turn himself. ”(Equiano,p703. ) His account provides evidence of Europeans negligence and inhumane treatment of slaves by putting them in these horrific living conditions.
These living conditions not only brought suffering, but sickness and death to many slaves from Equiano’s accounts. We can also see that Europeans did not believe that African slaves had any humanity and saw them as purely property to be exploited when Equiano described how a “multitude of black people of every description chained together. ”(Equiano,p702. ) From what Equiano described as he was traded to the Europeans, it is clear that European and African slavers had a much different perspective on slavery.
Equiano’s autobiography gives historians a firsthand account of what he sees as he journey throughout Africa and across the Atlantic Ocean. His autobiography provides us evidence that Europeans exploited the African slave trade and treated slaves much more inhumanly then the African slavers. Although Equiano could be slightly biased due to the fact that he was African and he addressed largely to European Christians from his autobiography, his accounts from a firsthand view gives historians evidence to believe that Europeans did in fact treated slaves far worst then Africans. | <urn:uuid:1cb19ddc-16b8-47a7-81fe-88515850d869> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://freebooksummary.com/the-interesting-narrative-of-the-life-of-olaudah-equiano-21814 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592565.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118110141-20200118134141-00366.warc.gz | en | 0.980806 | 925 | 3.625 | 4 | [
0.03825603052973747,
0.4575720727443695,
0.4897037744522095,
-0.26915907859802246,
-0.3004574179649353,
-0.13473154604434967,
0.41952407360076904,
-0.0006460384465754032,
-0.11254414916038513,
0.49395930767059326,
-0.29698246717453003,
-0.3410791754722595,
-0.27424323558807373,
0.285701036... | 1 | “the Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano”
Andrew Lin GHIST102 “The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano” From Olaudah Equiano’s autobiography published in 1776, historians are able to understand the significant difference between how the business of slavery was conducted between Europeans and Africans. Throughout Equiano’s journey, he recalled how the European and African slave traders and owners differed in the treatment of slaves. Although both Africans and Europeans viewed slavery as a business and traded slaves as property, the European’s treatment of slaves was much more horrific and inhumane.
Thus, from his personal accounts traveling throughout parts of Africa and across the Atlantic Ocean, he was able to write from his perspective as a slave which provides historians an accurate firsthand account of the slave trade. From Equiano’s earliest account of childhood in the African region of Nigeria, slavery was a common practice amongst Africans in the region. He noted that slaves “were only prisoners of war, or such among us had been convicted of…crimes, which we esteemed heinous. ” (Equiano, p701. So from Equiano’s account, slavery amongst Africans was not for the purpose of profit and exploitation but rather out of necessity, custom and to assist slave owners. He even commented on that after he was abducted into the slave trade in Africa, he found his way into a chieftain and claimed that “they all used me extremely well, and did all they could to comfort me. ” (Equiano,p701-702. ) Although the Africans used the practice of slavery as part of their common commerce from Equiano’s account of how he was traded numerous times, each African master throughout his journey treated him “ethically. We can even construe that African slave owner’s assimilated their slaves as part of the family from Equiano who considered one of his master’s wife “as something like a mother. ” (Equiano,p701) We can also see how although slaves were still considered as property, the African slavers treated slaves as human beings from Equiano’s account of how one of his mistress washed him and even allowed him to eat with her and her son who are both free.
Not only did they allow him to eat and drink before them, they also maintained common African customs when the mistress’s son “would not at any time either eat, or drink till I had taken first, because I was the eldest. ”(Equiano,p702. ) From Equiano’s journey in the slave trade in Africa, we see many evidence of how the treatment and sale of slaves was much more “ethical” in context to his account of his later travels with European slavers. After Equiano had been traded to the Europeans to be transported across the Atlantic to Barbados his accounts significantly differs from his previous accounts while he was in Africa.
His Equiano’s point of view, Europeans saw slavery as an economically viable way to exploit Africans and make tremendous profits from the trade. We can see evidence of this from how they loaded the slaves in masses unto ships that caused the condition to be “so crowded that each had scarcely room to turn himself. ”(Equiano,p703. ) His account provides evidence of Europeans negligence and inhumane treatment of slaves by putting them in these horrific living conditions.
These living conditions not only brought suffering, but sickness and death to many slaves from Equiano’s accounts. We can also see that Europeans did not believe that African slaves had any humanity and saw them as purely property to be exploited when Equiano described how a “multitude of black people of every description chained together. ”(Equiano,p702. ) From what Equiano described as he was traded to the Europeans, it is clear that European and African slavers had a much different perspective on slavery.
Equiano’s autobiography gives historians a firsthand account of what he sees as he journey throughout Africa and across the Atlantic Ocean. His autobiography provides us evidence that Europeans exploited the African slave trade and treated slaves much more inhumanly then the African slavers. Although Equiano could be slightly biased due to the fact that he was African and he addressed largely to European Christians from his autobiography, his accounts from a firsthand view gives historians evidence to believe that Europeans did in fact treated slaves far worst then Africans. | 892 | ENGLISH | 1 |
How did the Throne Develop as a Royal Symbol?
The throne has been a type of royal furniture that has often been associated with the very nature of monarchy. A monarch's authority is often symbolized through the throne and how elaborate or sometimes simple the throne may be has come to symbolize the country in which they rule. While modern government in the West has eschewed monarchy, the throne still retains an important symbolic power that also has religious and other cultural connotations.
Early Thrones and Cultures
From the very first evidence of the establishment of royal authority we begin to see a throne or idea of a raised seat depicted in royal imagery. Both in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, depictions of thrones are shown soon after those regions developed royal power. The throne was not just a raised seat but also was placed into a special room, the throne room, where royalty began to receive and meet with foreigners and subjects alike. Thrones were already decorated, often made with ebony, cedar, and gilded with gold or even ivory. Thrones also became raised, to show the status of the king. Often a large stone slab or platform was used to raise the seat. For Egypt, this was particularly important because the king (or pharaoh) was also a god and being raised indicated the divine nature of authority.
For deities, they also became associated as seated figures who resided in special houses (or temples). Sometimes these deities were represented as statues placed in a niche but often they were also represented as seated figures who sat on a throne of authority. In particular, deities associated with monarchs, such as the sun god, were more typically seated, where they would be shown imparting wisdom on rulers to govern their people. This concept is also in the Bible , where Yahweh is described as seated on a throne.
What is telling about thrones is that they were common as soon as regions began to develop the idea of kings and royal authority. Few other pieces of furniture became so common throughout much of the ancient world. In ancient China, chairs were classified and associated with classes of people who could sit on certain chairs. Thrones in China, like many other regions, began to be named, with the latest name used was the Dragon Throne, where the name lasted until the last Qing Dynasty emperor rules in the early 20th century. In India, the ancient name for the throne was the seat of the lion. Similar to China, it was intricately decorated and was only associated with royal authority.
Europe's oldest throne room is found at the palace of Knossos, a city in Crete that existed in the 2nd millennium BCE. Similar to the ancient Near East, the idea of a throne room was also meant to not only have the raised chair and platform where the king would receive people but wall decorations of griffins, which also became symbols of royal power in the Mediterranean and stretching to Central Asia. At Knossos, the throne also was surrounded by benches, which were possibly used by the king's council. Thus, thrones also became to symbolize a type of court where council would be given to the king. Later, the idea of a parliament retained this idea, where a king would receive council sitting on a raised throne.
Thrones were also independently used in the New World. Aztec gods, such as Ehecatl, were shown as seated on thrones. An elaborate throne in Tenochtitlan was found, called the throne of Montezuma, which was used for religious and royal ceremony. The Aztec king likely sat on it to perform his religious duties where he made contact with the earth and sun, acting as the sacred guardian of both these important symbols of religious authority.
Taking the idea of royal and religious thrones, when Christianity developed it was seen that both high priests, such as bishops or the pope, had authority to sit on thrones as well as kings. In effect, the close nature and symbolism shared between royal and heavenly power led to similar displays developed in cathedrals, churches, and palaces. European royal thrones, however, developed into more simple designs in contrast to earlier periods or from the royal thrones in Asia (e.g., China or India). Initially in Europe, kings tried to fashion themselves as continuing the traditions of Rome. Royal thrones became more simple as a sign of respect to religious authority and God.
As royal thrones generally became simple in decoration in Europe, religious ones became more elaborate. Bishop thrones in cathedrals or eastern Orthodox thrones, in particular, became gilded with gold and elaborately decorated. The raised platforms, similar to royal thrones, began to symbolize the religious authority figures such as bishops and popes had. In fact, the elaborate nature of thrones became one of the issues that the Reformation decried against.
However, by the later Medieval era, some European states began to not only become more wealth but the simple thrones and regalia were updated to reflect growing power. One of the more elaborately decorated thrones was that of Ivan the Terrible, who ruled in the 16th century. Ivan was known as a megalomaniac king and lavished his own power greatly. In effect, his throne continued the millennia long tradition of thrones reflecting the type of power royal authorities wanted to display, even when that display shifted from more humble depictions to one of showing more grandeur. | <urn:uuid:8e196a23-3b3c-400f-971a-dc61456d30f9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_did_the_Throne_Develop_as_a_Royal_Symbol%3F&oldid=6230 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594705.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119180644-20200119204644-00375.warc.gz | en | 0.988152 | 1,105 | 3.8125 | 4 | [
-0.011448576115071774,
0.557364821434021,
0.5635178685188293,
-0.12466827780008316,
-0.6020412445068359,
0.11205524206161499,
0.4211343228816986,
0.10481594502925873,
0.30671215057373047,
0.27217966318130493,
-0.009160427376627922,
-0.3013514578342438,
0.38362953066825867,
-0.1979251503944... | 1 | How did the Throne Develop as a Royal Symbol?
The throne has been a type of royal furniture that has often been associated with the very nature of monarchy. A monarch's authority is often symbolized through the throne and how elaborate or sometimes simple the throne may be has come to symbolize the country in which they rule. While modern government in the West has eschewed monarchy, the throne still retains an important symbolic power that also has religious and other cultural connotations.
Early Thrones and Cultures
From the very first evidence of the establishment of royal authority we begin to see a throne or idea of a raised seat depicted in royal imagery. Both in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, depictions of thrones are shown soon after those regions developed royal power. The throne was not just a raised seat but also was placed into a special room, the throne room, where royalty began to receive and meet with foreigners and subjects alike. Thrones were already decorated, often made with ebony, cedar, and gilded with gold or even ivory. Thrones also became raised, to show the status of the king. Often a large stone slab or platform was used to raise the seat. For Egypt, this was particularly important because the king (or pharaoh) was also a god and being raised indicated the divine nature of authority.
For deities, they also became associated as seated figures who resided in special houses (or temples). Sometimes these deities were represented as statues placed in a niche but often they were also represented as seated figures who sat on a throne of authority. In particular, deities associated with monarchs, such as the sun god, were more typically seated, where they would be shown imparting wisdom on rulers to govern their people. This concept is also in the Bible , where Yahweh is described as seated on a throne.
What is telling about thrones is that they were common as soon as regions began to develop the idea of kings and royal authority. Few other pieces of furniture became so common throughout much of the ancient world. In ancient China, chairs were classified and associated with classes of people who could sit on certain chairs. Thrones in China, like many other regions, began to be named, with the latest name used was the Dragon Throne, where the name lasted until the last Qing Dynasty emperor rules in the early 20th century. In India, the ancient name for the throne was the seat of the lion. Similar to China, it was intricately decorated and was only associated with royal authority.
Europe's oldest throne room is found at the palace of Knossos, a city in Crete that existed in the 2nd millennium BCE. Similar to the ancient Near East, the idea of a throne room was also meant to not only have the raised chair and platform where the king would receive people but wall decorations of griffins, which also became symbols of royal power in the Mediterranean and stretching to Central Asia. At Knossos, the throne also was surrounded by benches, which were possibly used by the king's council. Thus, thrones also became to symbolize a type of court where council would be given to the king. Later, the idea of a parliament retained this idea, where a king would receive council sitting on a raised throne.
Thrones were also independently used in the New World. Aztec gods, such as Ehecatl, were shown as seated on thrones. An elaborate throne in Tenochtitlan was found, called the throne of Montezuma, which was used for religious and royal ceremony. The Aztec king likely sat on it to perform his religious duties where he made contact with the earth and sun, acting as the sacred guardian of both these important symbols of religious authority.
Taking the idea of royal and religious thrones, when Christianity developed it was seen that both high priests, such as bishops or the pope, had authority to sit on thrones as well as kings. In effect, the close nature and symbolism shared between royal and heavenly power led to similar displays developed in cathedrals, churches, and palaces. European royal thrones, however, developed into more simple designs in contrast to earlier periods or from the royal thrones in Asia (e.g., China or India). Initially in Europe, kings tried to fashion themselves as continuing the traditions of Rome. Royal thrones became more simple as a sign of respect to religious authority and God.
As royal thrones generally became simple in decoration in Europe, religious ones became more elaborate. Bishop thrones in cathedrals or eastern Orthodox thrones, in particular, became gilded with gold and elaborately decorated. The raised platforms, similar to royal thrones, began to symbolize the religious authority figures such as bishops and popes had. In fact, the elaborate nature of thrones became one of the issues that the Reformation decried against.
However, by the later Medieval era, some European states began to not only become more wealth but the simple thrones and regalia were updated to reflect growing power. One of the more elaborately decorated thrones was that of Ivan the Terrible, who ruled in the 16th century. Ivan was known as a megalomaniac king and lavished his own power greatly. In effect, his throne continued the millennia long tradition of thrones reflecting the type of power royal authorities wanted to display, even when that display shifted from more humble depictions to one of showing more grandeur. | 1,108 | ENGLISH | 1 |
John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights
by David Reynolds, 2005 (Excerpted with permission)
One of the most symbolic events of the Civil War occurred in a mansion. The event was the reception held on January 1, 1863, at the Medford, Massachusetts, estate of the businessman George L. Stearns to celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation, which had been issued that afternoon by President Lincoln.
Stearns called the affair "the John Brown Party." The highlight of the evening was the unveiling of a marble bust of John Brown, the antislavery martyr who had died on a scaffold three years earlier after his doomed, heroic effort to free the slaves by leading a twenty-two-man raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia.
Brown's presence was felt elsewhere in America that day. The Union general Robert H. Milroy, stationed near Harpers Ferry, read Lincoln's proclamation aloud to his regiment, which spontaneously thundered forth the war song "John Brown's Body," with its heady chorus about Brown "mouldering in the grave" while "his soul keeps marching on." The Emancipation Proclamation made General Milroy feel as though John Brown's spirit had merged with his. "That hand-bill order," he said, "gave Freedom to the slaves through and around the region where Old John Brown was hung. I felt then that I was on duty, in the most righteous cause that man ever drew sword in."
In Boston, a tense wait had ended in midafternoon when the news came over the wires that the proclamation had been put into effect. At a Jubilee Concert in Music Hall, Ralph Waldo Emerson read his Abolitionist poem "Boston Hymn" and was followed by performances of Handel's Hallelujah Chorus, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and Mendelssohn's "Hymn of Praise." That evening at Tremont Temple a huge crowd cheered as the proclamation was read aloud and exploded into song when Frederick
Douglass led in singing "Blow Ye the Trumpet, Blow!" the joyous hymn that had been Brown's favorite and had been sung at his funeral.
A number of people missed the Boston celebration because they had gone to George Stearns's twenty-six-acre estate in nearby Medford for the John Brown Party. The party was, in its own way, as meaningful as Lincoln's proclamation. It celebrated the man who had sparked the war that led to this historic day. Lincoln's proclamation, freeing millions of enslaved blacks, sped the process that led eventually to civil rights. John Brown's personal war against slavery had set this process in motion.
Gathered in Stearns's elegant home was a motley group. Stearns himself, long-bearded and earnest, had made a fortune manufacturing lead pipes. His guests included the bald, spectacled William Lloyd Garrison and the volatile Wendell Phillips, pioneers of Abolitionism; the stately, reserved philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson, magus of Transcendentalism; his idealistic cohort Amos Bronson Alcott, who was there with his daughter, Louisa May, soon to captivate young readers with Little Women; Franklin Sanborn, the Concord schoolteacher whose students included children of Emerson, John Brown, and Henry James, Sr.; and the red-haired, vivacious Julia Ward Howe, writer of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." They represented cultural threads that had once been aimed in various directions but were now unified in their devotion to the memory of John Brown.
Garrison and Phillips had since the 1830s called for immediate emancipation of the slaves or, barring that, separation of the North and the South. Garrison, long committed to pacifism, had advocated moral argument as the sole means of fighting slavery until John Brown's self-sacrificing terrorism inspired him to espouse a more militant stance. Phillips, long driven by his disgust with slavery to curse the Constitution and the American Union, had come to espouse Brown's vision of a unified nation based on rights for people of all ethnicities.
Emerson had begun his career alienated from the antislavery cause but had taken it up with growing zeal that culminated in his famous statement that John Brown would "make the gallows as glorious as the cross." Along with Thoreau, who had died the previous year, he had been chiefly responsible for rescuing Brown from infamy and oblivion. Alcott, too, had played a part in the resuscitation of Brown, whom he called "the type and synonym of the Just." If, as Alfred Kazin suggests, without John Brown there would have been no Civil War, we would add that without the Concord Transcendentalists, John Brown would have had little cultural impact.
And without Julia Ward Howe, John Brown may not have become fused with American myth. The wife of Samuel Gridley Howe, one of those who had financed Brown, she wrote "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" to the tune of "John Brown's Body," retaining its "Glory, glory hallelujah" and changing "His soul goes marching on" to "His truth is marching on." With her memorable images of a just God "trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored," and loosening "the fateful lightnings of His terrible swift sword" against the slaveholding South, she caught the essence of John Brown, a devout Calvinist who considered himself predestined to stamp out slavery. She had coupled his God-inspired antislavery passion with the North's mission and had thus helped define America.
Another of Stearns's guests, Frank Sanborn, helped define John Brown. In 1857 he had introduced Brown to several reformers who, along with him, would make up the group of Brown's backers known as the Secret Six. A zealous Brown booster, he would perpetuate the legend of the heroic Brown in his writings of the post-Civil War period.
As for George Stearns, besides having been the chief contributor of funds and arms to Brown, he was largely responsible for pushing Brown's ideal of racial justice toward civil rights. He once declared, "I consider it the proudest act of my life that I gave good old John Brown every pike and rifle he carried to Harper's Ferry." Just as Brown had assigned prominent positions to blacks in his antislavery activities, so Stearns led the recruitment of blacks for the Union army. After the war, Stearns would fight for passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave suffrage to blacks.
That these and assorted other reformers, writers, and society people would gather on Emancipation Day to honor John Brown was more than fitting. From their perspective, it was inevitable. Everyone present believed that without John Brown this day would not have come, at least not as soon as it did.
Several at the party had doubts about President Lincoln. Despite his deep hatred of slavery, Lincoln had acted with politic moderation early in his presidency. Hoping to preserve the Union by conciliating the South, he had supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (anathema even to some of the most conservative Northerners), had endorsed a constitutional amendment preserving slavery where it already existed, had revoked an emancipation proclamation in Missouri, and had advocated colonization for blacks, who, he said, could never live on equal terms with whites in America due to racial differences. In response, Wendell Phillips had written a bitter article, "Abraham Lincoln, Slave-hound of Illinois." Garrison was so angry that he wrote of Lincoln, "He has evidently not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins; and he seems incapable of uttering a humane or generous sentiment respecting the enslaved millions in our land."
As strange as such statements appear today, they were not so to those who had known John Brown and had absorbed his progressive racial views. There was good reason Stearns had organized a John Brown Party instead of an Abraham Lincoln Party.
Although Stearns and his guests were overjoyed by the president's proclamation, they saw Lincoln as a latecomer to emancipation, a goal for which John Brown had given his life. In 1861, two years before Lincoln's proclamation, Stearns, Sanborn, Phillips, and other followers of Brown had formed an Emancipation League, whose aim was to win over Lincoln to the idea that freeing the slaves must be the primary mission of the Union war effort. The league issued a public document demanding emancipation "as a measure of justice, and as a military necessity." As a first step, Stearns wrote in a letter to Lincoln, black troops were needed to ensure a Union victory. Lincoln accepted the strategy after Stearns had devoted most of 1862 traveling thousands of miles throughout the North and organizing ten black regiments, including the famous 54th Massachusetts, led by Colonel Robert Gould Shaw.
The use of black soldiers was just one of Brown's forward-looking measures that impelled George Stearns to single out John Brown for tribute that evening.
Although the white marble bust of Brown, which Stearns and his wife had commissioned Edwin A. Brackett to sculpt in 1859 while the imprisoned Brown awaited execution, had long been a fixture in the Stearns mansion, unveiling it anew on Emancipation Day gave it fresh significance. The bust, which many compared to Michelangelo's Moses, was an idealized rendering. It invested the stern, hatchet-faced Brown with a calm Jovian dignity. It gleamed against the black walnut wainscoting on the landing of the Stearns's curved staircase as the hushed crowd below heard Emerson read his "Boston Hymn" and Julia Ward Howe give a powerful recitation her "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
The journalist James Redpath would later see the bust in the Boston Athenaeum amid Roman statuary and would comment that it might well be Moses but certainly was not John Brown. True: but, then, who was John Brown?
Perhaps the most significant meaning of the John Brown Party was that everyone present was joined by an idealistic vision of a man who, in other circles, was branded as a murderer, a thief, and an insane fanatic. The pristine purity of Brackett's bust was as distant from John Brown's real looks as the starry-eyed hero worship of Stearns's guests was from a true appraisal of his achievements.
The fact is that during his life and after it Brown gave rise to significant misreadings that shaped the course of American history. Brown himself had misread the slaves and sympathetic whites among the locals, whom he expected to rally in masses to his side as soon as his raid on Harpers Ferry began. The blacks he liberated misread him, since, by most reports, few of them voluntarily joined him in the battle against the Virginia troops -- a fact that may have contributed to the fatal delay on the part of Brown, who had expected "the bees to hive" as soon as his liberation plan became known among the slaves.
Most important, Brown himself became the subject of crucial misreadings. Although after the raid he was at first denounced by most Northerners, a few influential individuals, especially the Transcendentalists, salvaged his reputation by placing him on the level of Christ -- a notable misreading of a man who, despite his remarkable virtues, had violent excesses, as evidenced by the nighttime slaughter of five proslavery residents he had directed in Pottawatomie, Kansas. The Transcendentalist image of Brown spread throughout the North and was fanned by books, melodramas, poems, and music-culminating in "John Brown's Body," the inspiring song chanted by tens of thousands of Union troops as they marched south.
At the same time that this misreading swept the North, an opposite one was pervading the South. The South's initial grudging admiration for Brown's courage was quickly overwhelmed by a paranoid fear that he was a malicious aggressor who represented the entire North -- a tremendous and tragic misreading, since virtually everyone in the Northern-led Republican Party, from Lincoln to Seward, actually disapproved of his violent tactics. The South's misreading was fanned by Democratic Party propaganda that unjustifiably smeared the Republicans with responsibility for Harpers Ferry. In this view, "Black Republicanism" meant not only "nigger-worship" but also deep alliance with John Brown, whom the Democrats characterized as a villain of the blackest dye.
These dual misreadings, positive and negative, were perpetuated in biographies of Brown. The early biographers were mainly people who had known Brown personally and who idolized him -- they therefore twisted facts to make him seem heroic, at times godlike. In reaction, there arose a school of biographers intent upon exploding this saintly image. They swung to the other extreme of portraying him as little more than a cold-blooded murderer, horse thief, inflexible egotist, fanatical visionary, and shady businessman.
These extremes of hagiography and vilification were in time answered by scholarly objectivity. Several biographers -- most notably Oswald Garrison Villard and Stephen B. Oates -- present information about Brown's life factually, unfiltered by partisan bias. Villard and Oates pitilessly expose Brown's savagery at Pottawatomie and question the wisdom of his provisional constitution and his attack on Harpers Ferry, even as they praise his humanitarian aims.
Still, there is a danger to an overstrict insistence on impartiality. One reviewer's comment on Villard -- i.e., that he "holds a position of impartiality, and almost of aloofness" -- speaks for the best modern biographies. For example, biographers have waffled on the issue of Brown's sanity, leaving it as an unsolved problem. One can be objective without remaining impartial about the crucial moral, political, and human issues that Brown's life poses.
My stand on some key issues is: (a) Brown was not insane; instead, he was a deeply religious, flawed, yet ultimately noble reformer; (b) the Pottawatomie affair was indeed a crime, but it was a war crime committed against proslavery settlers by a man who saw slavery itself as an unprovoked war of one race against another; and (c) neither Brown's provisional constitution nor the Harpers Ferry raid were wild-eyed, erratic schemes doomed to failure: instead, they reflect Brown's overconfidence in whites' ability to rise above racism and in blacks' willingness to rise up in armed insurrection against their masters.
The current book develops these and other arguments by placing Brown fully in historical context. This is emphatically a cultural biography, a term that demands explanation. Cultural biography is based on the idea that human beings have a dynamic, dialogic relationship to many aspects of their historical surroundings, such as politics, society, literature, and religion.
The special province of the cultural biographer is to explore this relationship, focusing on three questions: How does my subject reflect his or her era? How does my subject transcend the era-that is, what makes him or her unique? What impact did my subject have on the era?
Cultural biography takes an Emersonian approach to the human subject. As Emerson writes, "the ideas of the time are in the air, and infect all who breathe it. . . . We learn of our contemporaries what they know without effort, and almost through the pores of our skin." The cultural biographer explores the historical "air" surrounding the subject and describes the process by which the air seeped through the pores of his or her skin. "Great geniuses are parts of the times," Melville wrote; "they themselves are the times, and possess a correspondent coloring." Once the biographer accepts the cultural environment as a viable area of study, new vistas of information and insight open up. John Brown emerges in cultural biography not as an isolated, insane antislavery terrorist but as an amalgam of social currents-religious, reformist, racial, and political-that found explosive realization in him.
David Reynolds Podcast on "John Brown, Abolitionist" from Gilder Lehrman Historians� Forums [MP-3, Running Time: 42:16]
From: John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights by David Reynolds, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, copyright, 2005.
John Brown's youngest sister Martha L. (Brown) Davis, lived and died here in Clinton County, Michigan. In an article in the December 3, 1891, Clinton County Pioneer Society column published in the Clinton Republican she is interviewed and refers to a family Bible in her possession. She gives the following children list:
First marriage of Owen Brown: Solomon O., John, Oliver, Frederick, two daughters, and one additional son who died in infancy. Second marriage: Marian, Watson, Florella, Jeremiah, Edward, Martha (first one), Lucian, Martha (second one). Martha (second one) was born in Hudson, Ohio on June 18, 1832. She married Stephen C. Davis and they settled in Clinton County, Michigan in 1865.
In the interview with Martha (Brown) Davis she states John Brown's wife died in Saratoga, CA, February 29, 1884, where she was living with an unmarried daughter who was working for the San Francisco Mint. Another daughter living in Pasadena, CA, married Henry Thompson who had been one of John Brown's soldiers in Kansas and had had a brother who died at Harper's Ferry. Jason Brown, who also was involved in Kansas with his father, was living in Pasadena, CA in 1891. His brother Owen had lived with him until his death on January 8, 1889. Owen had fought at Harper's Ferry, was one of the six who escaped, and was the last surviving member of the group. John Brown, Jr. was living in Put-in-Bay, OH in 1891. | <urn:uuid:4b91bca5-9ccb-43f6-bd2f-84834e375c12> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.kansashistory.us/johnbrown.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694176.67/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127020458-20200127050458-00032.warc.gz | en | 0.981312 | 3,775 | 4.0625 | 4 | [
-0.18287143111228943,
0.3375522494316101,
0.2860879898071289,
0.030273130163550377,
-0.17043070495128632,
0.32764333486557007,
0.058582134544849396,
-0.08218077570199966,
-0.29641449451446533,
0.042403437197208405,
0.10131325572729111,
0.40340763330459595,
-0.22602146863937378,
0.234030321... | 4 | John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights
by David Reynolds, 2005 (Excerpted with permission)
One of the most symbolic events of the Civil War occurred in a mansion. The event was the reception held on January 1, 1863, at the Medford, Massachusetts, estate of the businessman George L. Stearns to celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation, which had been issued that afternoon by President Lincoln.
Stearns called the affair "the John Brown Party." The highlight of the evening was the unveiling of a marble bust of John Brown, the antislavery martyr who had died on a scaffold three years earlier after his doomed, heroic effort to free the slaves by leading a twenty-two-man raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia.
Brown's presence was felt elsewhere in America that day. The Union general Robert H. Milroy, stationed near Harpers Ferry, read Lincoln's proclamation aloud to his regiment, which spontaneously thundered forth the war song "John Brown's Body," with its heady chorus about Brown "mouldering in the grave" while "his soul keeps marching on." The Emancipation Proclamation made General Milroy feel as though John Brown's spirit had merged with his. "That hand-bill order," he said, "gave Freedom to the slaves through and around the region where Old John Brown was hung. I felt then that I was on duty, in the most righteous cause that man ever drew sword in."
In Boston, a tense wait had ended in midafternoon when the news came over the wires that the proclamation had been put into effect. At a Jubilee Concert in Music Hall, Ralph Waldo Emerson read his Abolitionist poem "Boston Hymn" and was followed by performances of Handel's Hallelujah Chorus, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and Mendelssohn's "Hymn of Praise." That evening at Tremont Temple a huge crowd cheered as the proclamation was read aloud and exploded into song when Frederick
Douglass led in singing "Blow Ye the Trumpet, Blow!" the joyous hymn that had been Brown's favorite and had been sung at his funeral.
A number of people missed the Boston celebration because they had gone to George Stearns's twenty-six-acre estate in nearby Medford for the John Brown Party. The party was, in its own way, as meaningful as Lincoln's proclamation. It celebrated the man who had sparked the war that led to this historic day. Lincoln's proclamation, freeing millions of enslaved blacks, sped the process that led eventually to civil rights. John Brown's personal war against slavery had set this process in motion.
Gathered in Stearns's elegant home was a motley group. Stearns himself, long-bearded and earnest, had made a fortune manufacturing lead pipes. His guests included the bald, spectacled William Lloyd Garrison and the volatile Wendell Phillips, pioneers of Abolitionism; the stately, reserved philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson, magus of Transcendentalism; his idealistic cohort Amos Bronson Alcott, who was there with his daughter, Louisa May, soon to captivate young readers with Little Women; Franklin Sanborn, the Concord schoolteacher whose students included children of Emerson, John Brown, and Henry James, Sr.; and the red-haired, vivacious Julia Ward Howe, writer of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." They represented cultural threads that had once been aimed in various directions but were now unified in their devotion to the memory of John Brown.
Garrison and Phillips had since the 1830s called for immediate emancipation of the slaves or, barring that, separation of the North and the South. Garrison, long committed to pacifism, had advocated moral argument as the sole means of fighting slavery until John Brown's self-sacrificing terrorism inspired him to espouse a more militant stance. Phillips, long driven by his disgust with slavery to curse the Constitution and the American Union, had come to espouse Brown's vision of a unified nation based on rights for people of all ethnicities.
Emerson had begun his career alienated from the antislavery cause but had taken it up with growing zeal that culminated in his famous statement that John Brown would "make the gallows as glorious as the cross." Along with Thoreau, who had died the previous year, he had been chiefly responsible for rescuing Brown from infamy and oblivion. Alcott, too, had played a part in the resuscitation of Brown, whom he called "the type and synonym of the Just." If, as Alfred Kazin suggests, without John Brown there would have been no Civil War, we would add that without the Concord Transcendentalists, John Brown would have had little cultural impact.
And without Julia Ward Howe, John Brown may not have become fused with American myth. The wife of Samuel Gridley Howe, one of those who had financed Brown, she wrote "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" to the tune of "John Brown's Body," retaining its "Glory, glory hallelujah" and changing "His soul goes marching on" to "His truth is marching on." With her memorable images of a just God "trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored," and loosening "the fateful lightnings of His terrible swift sword" against the slaveholding South, she caught the essence of John Brown, a devout Calvinist who considered himself predestined to stamp out slavery. She had coupled his God-inspired antislavery passion with the North's mission and had thus helped define America.
Another of Stearns's guests, Frank Sanborn, helped define John Brown. In 1857 he had introduced Brown to several reformers who, along with him, would make up the group of Brown's backers known as the Secret Six. A zealous Brown booster, he would perpetuate the legend of the heroic Brown in his writings of the post-Civil War period.
As for George Stearns, besides having been the chief contributor of funds and arms to Brown, he was largely responsible for pushing Brown's ideal of racial justice toward civil rights. He once declared, "I consider it the proudest act of my life that I gave good old John Brown every pike and rifle he carried to Harper's Ferry." Just as Brown had assigned prominent positions to blacks in his antislavery activities, so Stearns led the recruitment of blacks for the Union army. After the war, Stearns would fight for passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave suffrage to blacks.
That these and assorted other reformers, writers, and society people would gather on Emancipation Day to honor John Brown was more than fitting. From their perspective, it was inevitable. Everyone present believed that without John Brown this day would not have come, at least not as soon as it did.
Several at the party had doubts about President Lincoln. Despite his deep hatred of slavery, Lincoln had acted with politic moderation early in his presidency. Hoping to preserve the Union by conciliating the South, he had supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (anathema even to some of the most conservative Northerners), had endorsed a constitutional amendment preserving slavery where it already existed, had revoked an emancipation proclamation in Missouri, and had advocated colonization for blacks, who, he said, could never live on equal terms with whites in America due to racial differences. In response, Wendell Phillips had written a bitter article, "Abraham Lincoln, Slave-hound of Illinois." Garrison was so angry that he wrote of Lincoln, "He has evidently not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins; and he seems incapable of uttering a humane or generous sentiment respecting the enslaved millions in our land."
As strange as such statements appear today, they were not so to those who had known John Brown and had absorbed his progressive racial views. There was good reason Stearns had organized a John Brown Party instead of an Abraham Lincoln Party.
Although Stearns and his guests were overjoyed by the president's proclamation, they saw Lincoln as a latecomer to emancipation, a goal for which John Brown had given his life. In 1861, two years before Lincoln's proclamation, Stearns, Sanborn, Phillips, and other followers of Brown had formed an Emancipation League, whose aim was to win over Lincoln to the idea that freeing the slaves must be the primary mission of the Union war effort. The league issued a public document demanding emancipation "as a measure of justice, and as a military necessity." As a first step, Stearns wrote in a letter to Lincoln, black troops were needed to ensure a Union victory. Lincoln accepted the strategy after Stearns had devoted most of 1862 traveling thousands of miles throughout the North and organizing ten black regiments, including the famous 54th Massachusetts, led by Colonel Robert Gould Shaw.
The use of black soldiers was just one of Brown's forward-looking measures that impelled George Stearns to single out John Brown for tribute that evening.
Although the white marble bust of Brown, which Stearns and his wife had commissioned Edwin A. Brackett to sculpt in 1859 while the imprisoned Brown awaited execution, had long been a fixture in the Stearns mansion, unveiling it anew on Emancipation Day gave it fresh significance. The bust, which many compared to Michelangelo's Moses, was an idealized rendering. It invested the stern, hatchet-faced Brown with a calm Jovian dignity. It gleamed against the black walnut wainscoting on the landing of the Stearns's curved staircase as the hushed crowd below heard Emerson read his "Boston Hymn" and Julia Ward Howe give a powerful recitation her "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
The journalist James Redpath would later see the bust in the Boston Athenaeum amid Roman statuary and would comment that it might well be Moses but certainly was not John Brown. True: but, then, who was John Brown?
Perhaps the most significant meaning of the John Brown Party was that everyone present was joined by an idealistic vision of a man who, in other circles, was branded as a murderer, a thief, and an insane fanatic. The pristine purity of Brackett's bust was as distant from John Brown's real looks as the starry-eyed hero worship of Stearns's guests was from a true appraisal of his achievements.
The fact is that during his life and after it Brown gave rise to significant misreadings that shaped the course of American history. Brown himself had misread the slaves and sympathetic whites among the locals, whom he expected to rally in masses to his side as soon as his raid on Harpers Ferry began. The blacks he liberated misread him, since, by most reports, few of them voluntarily joined him in the battle against the Virginia troops -- a fact that may have contributed to the fatal delay on the part of Brown, who had expected "the bees to hive" as soon as his liberation plan became known among the slaves.
Most important, Brown himself became the subject of crucial misreadings. Although after the raid he was at first denounced by most Northerners, a few influential individuals, especially the Transcendentalists, salvaged his reputation by placing him on the level of Christ -- a notable misreading of a man who, despite his remarkable virtues, had violent excesses, as evidenced by the nighttime slaughter of five proslavery residents he had directed in Pottawatomie, Kansas. The Transcendentalist image of Brown spread throughout the North and was fanned by books, melodramas, poems, and music-culminating in "John Brown's Body," the inspiring song chanted by tens of thousands of Union troops as they marched south.
At the same time that this misreading swept the North, an opposite one was pervading the South. The South's initial grudging admiration for Brown's courage was quickly overwhelmed by a paranoid fear that he was a malicious aggressor who represented the entire North -- a tremendous and tragic misreading, since virtually everyone in the Northern-led Republican Party, from Lincoln to Seward, actually disapproved of his violent tactics. The South's misreading was fanned by Democratic Party propaganda that unjustifiably smeared the Republicans with responsibility for Harpers Ferry. In this view, "Black Republicanism" meant not only "nigger-worship" but also deep alliance with John Brown, whom the Democrats characterized as a villain of the blackest dye.
These dual misreadings, positive and negative, were perpetuated in biographies of Brown. The early biographers were mainly people who had known Brown personally and who idolized him -- they therefore twisted facts to make him seem heroic, at times godlike. In reaction, there arose a school of biographers intent upon exploding this saintly image. They swung to the other extreme of portraying him as little more than a cold-blooded murderer, horse thief, inflexible egotist, fanatical visionary, and shady businessman.
These extremes of hagiography and vilification were in time answered by scholarly objectivity. Several biographers -- most notably Oswald Garrison Villard and Stephen B. Oates -- present information about Brown's life factually, unfiltered by partisan bias. Villard and Oates pitilessly expose Brown's savagery at Pottawatomie and question the wisdom of his provisional constitution and his attack on Harpers Ferry, even as they praise his humanitarian aims.
Still, there is a danger to an overstrict insistence on impartiality. One reviewer's comment on Villard -- i.e., that he "holds a position of impartiality, and almost of aloofness" -- speaks for the best modern biographies. For example, biographers have waffled on the issue of Brown's sanity, leaving it as an unsolved problem. One can be objective without remaining impartial about the crucial moral, political, and human issues that Brown's life poses.
My stand on some key issues is: (a) Brown was not insane; instead, he was a deeply religious, flawed, yet ultimately noble reformer; (b) the Pottawatomie affair was indeed a crime, but it was a war crime committed against proslavery settlers by a man who saw slavery itself as an unprovoked war of one race against another; and (c) neither Brown's provisional constitution nor the Harpers Ferry raid were wild-eyed, erratic schemes doomed to failure: instead, they reflect Brown's overconfidence in whites' ability to rise above racism and in blacks' willingness to rise up in armed insurrection against their masters.
The current book develops these and other arguments by placing Brown fully in historical context. This is emphatically a cultural biography, a term that demands explanation. Cultural biography is based on the idea that human beings have a dynamic, dialogic relationship to many aspects of their historical surroundings, such as politics, society, literature, and religion.
The special province of the cultural biographer is to explore this relationship, focusing on three questions: How does my subject reflect his or her era? How does my subject transcend the era-that is, what makes him or her unique? What impact did my subject have on the era?
Cultural biography takes an Emersonian approach to the human subject. As Emerson writes, "the ideas of the time are in the air, and infect all who breathe it. . . . We learn of our contemporaries what they know without effort, and almost through the pores of our skin." The cultural biographer explores the historical "air" surrounding the subject and describes the process by which the air seeped through the pores of his or her skin. "Great geniuses are parts of the times," Melville wrote; "they themselves are the times, and possess a correspondent coloring." Once the biographer accepts the cultural environment as a viable area of study, new vistas of information and insight open up. John Brown emerges in cultural biography not as an isolated, insane antislavery terrorist but as an amalgam of social currents-religious, reformist, racial, and political-that found explosive realization in him.
David Reynolds Podcast on "John Brown, Abolitionist" from Gilder Lehrman Historians� Forums [MP-3, Running Time: 42:16]
From: John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights by David Reynolds, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, copyright, 2005.
John Brown's youngest sister Martha L. (Brown) Davis, lived and died here in Clinton County, Michigan. In an article in the December 3, 1891, Clinton County Pioneer Society column published in the Clinton Republican she is interviewed and refers to a family Bible in her possession. She gives the following children list:
First marriage of Owen Brown: Solomon O., John, Oliver, Frederick, two daughters, and one additional son who died in infancy. Second marriage: Marian, Watson, Florella, Jeremiah, Edward, Martha (first one), Lucian, Martha (second one). Martha (second one) was born in Hudson, Ohio on June 18, 1832. She married Stephen C. Davis and they settled in Clinton County, Michigan in 1865.
In the interview with Martha (Brown) Davis she states John Brown's wife died in Saratoga, CA, February 29, 1884, where she was living with an unmarried daughter who was working for the San Francisco Mint. Another daughter living in Pasadena, CA, married Henry Thompson who had been one of John Brown's soldiers in Kansas and had had a brother who died at Harper's Ferry. Jason Brown, who also was involved in Kansas with his father, was living in Pasadena, CA in 1891. His brother Owen had lived with him until his death on January 8, 1889. Owen had fought at Harper's Ferry, was one of the six who escaped, and was the last surviving member of the group. John Brown, Jr. was living in Put-in-Bay, OH in 1891. | 3,796 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What is the moral of The Wind in the Willows?
The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame is a classic children's book and is able to continually inspire children with its abundance of adventures and Toad's escapades. Adults and older children who critically evaluate the novel are able to consider and reconsider their choices and the consequences of those choices, but at the same time remain removed from the story; it is about animals, after all.
A moral is a lesson to be learnt by the reader from the story. Toad especially has a lot to learn as he uses his unlimited wealth to chase his dreams. His decisions are often are ill-considered and lead to his arrest and potential long-term imprisonment. However, his friends consistently guide him and eventually persuade him to change his ways. In short, they never give up on him—a valuable moral for any reader.
By the end of the novel, the reader learns the value of forgiveness and patience as the four friends make mistakes and try to learn from them (although Toad tests anyone's...
(The entire section contains 2 answers and 524 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | <urn:uuid:f54a546f-5ca3-4175-9610-b34d76c07565> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-moral-wind-willows-682364?en_action=hh-question_click&en_label=topics_related_hh_questions&en_category=internal_campaign | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00098.warc.gz | en | 0.982496 | 237 | 3.921875 | 4 | [
-0.1476803421974182,
0.03775828704237938,
-0.1090475544333458,
-0.19236227869987488,
0.021893935278058052,
0.4005303680896759,
0.33059245347976685,
0.0916408970952034,
0.2851006090641022,
0.4824681878089905,
-0.1662749946117401,
0.045221876353025436,
0.03367298096418381,
0.2828384339809418... | 1 | What is the moral of The Wind in the Willows?
The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame is a classic children's book and is able to continually inspire children with its abundance of adventures and Toad's escapades. Adults and older children who critically evaluate the novel are able to consider and reconsider their choices and the consequences of those choices, but at the same time remain removed from the story; it is about animals, after all.
A moral is a lesson to be learnt by the reader from the story. Toad especially has a lot to learn as he uses his unlimited wealth to chase his dreams. His decisions are often are ill-considered and lead to his arrest and potential long-term imprisonment. However, his friends consistently guide him and eventually persuade him to change his ways. In short, they never give up on him—a valuable moral for any reader.
By the end of the novel, the reader learns the value of forgiveness and patience as the four friends make mistakes and try to learn from them (although Toad tests anyone's...
(The entire section contains 2 answers and 524 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | 233 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Get help with any kind of project - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
William Shakespeare was born on April 23, 1564 and died of unknown causes at age 52 on his own birthday on April 23, 1616. The education Shakespeare received comprised learning to talk and write in Latin. At that time, Shakespeare could have been expected to interpret Latin into English and English to Latin. In addition, he analyzed the works of classical authors and dramatists like Ovid, Plautus, Horace, Virgil, Cicero, and Seneca. When Shakespeare was 14, he left college and not much is known of his life until he was 18 when he married Anne Hatheway, who was 26 and several months pregnant. Shakespeare was away in London for long amounts of time, until he retired. When he stayed in Stratford until his departure. He was buried at Holy Trinity Church. Shakespeare is best known for being a dramatist who wrote numerous plays entertainment. To this day, many different types of theatre businesses put on Shakespeare plays, from little amateur groups to big professional businesses. Shakespeare's contribution to the arts also comprises numerous movie and tv productions of his plays, his plots, characters, and poetry. William Shakespeare's wife, Anne Hatheway was born in 1556. She dwelt in Shottery that wasn't far from Stratford. The house was shared between Anne and her brother after the death of the parents. She wed Shakespeare at November, 1582. Anne gave birth to three children, Susanna at 1583, and the twins Hamnet and Judith in 1585. Shakespeare has often been thought to have disliked his wife. For most of their union, he lived in London while she stayed in Stratford. Additionally, Shakespeare abandoned Anne just the "second-best bed," according to his will. During that time period, "that the best-bed" was. | <urn:uuid:88f1e716-eabf-47d2-8a19-d7c40bba0c60> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studybay.com/example-works/essay/writing/1010816/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00448.warc.gz | en | 0.988105 | 386 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.08589743822813034,
-0.1629166603088379,
0.7895843982696533,
-0.14583763480186462,
-0.364154189825058,
-0.1605737805366516,
-0.10946398228406906,
0.43986424803733826,
-0.0780969113111496,
-0.32132962346076965,
-0.0014995216624811292,
-0.20292352139949799,
-0.43271154165267944,
0.22030438... | 1 | Get help with any kind of project - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
William Shakespeare was born on April 23, 1564 and died of unknown causes at age 52 on his own birthday on April 23, 1616. The education Shakespeare received comprised learning to talk and write in Latin. At that time, Shakespeare could have been expected to interpret Latin into English and English to Latin. In addition, he analyzed the works of classical authors and dramatists like Ovid, Plautus, Horace, Virgil, Cicero, and Seneca. When Shakespeare was 14, he left college and not much is known of his life until he was 18 when he married Anne Hatheway, who was 26 and several months pregnant. Shakespeare was away in London for long amounts of time, until he retired. When he stayed in Stratford until his departure. He was buried at Holy Trinity Church. Shakespeare is best known for being a dramatist who wrote numerous plays entertainment. To this day, many different types of theatre businesses put on Shakespeare plays, from little amateur groups to big professional businesses. Shakespeare's contribution to the arts also comprises numerous movie and tv productions of his plays, his plots, characters, and poetry. William Shakespeare's wife, Anne Hatheway was born in 1556. She dwelt in Shottery that wasn't far from Stratford. The house was shared between Anne and her brother after the death of the parents. She wed Shakespeare at November, 1582. Anne gave birth to three children, Susanna at 1583, and the twins Hamnet and Judith in 1585. Shakespeare has often been thought to have disliked his wife. For most of their union, he lived in London while she stayed in Stratford. Additionally, Shakespeare abandoned Anne just the "second-best bed," according to his will. During that time period, "that the best-bed" was. | 412 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
Otto I, byname Otto the Great, German Otto der Grosse, (born Nov. 23, 912—died May 7, 973, Memleben, Thuringia), duke of Saxony (as Otto II, 936–961), German king (from 936), and Holy Roman emperor (962–973) who consolidated the German Reich by his suppression of rebellious vassals and his decisive victory over the Hungarians. His use of the church as a stabilizing influence created a secure empire and stimulated a cultural renaissance.
Otto was the son of the future king Henry I, of the Liudolfing, or Saxon, dynasty, and his second wife, Matilda. Little is known of his early years, but he probably shared in some of his father’s campaigns. He married Edith, daughter of the English king Edward the Elder, in 930; she obtained as her dowry the flourishing town of Magdeburg. Nominated by Henry as his successor, Otto was elected king by the German dukes at Aachen on Aug. 7, 936, a month after Henry’s death, and crowned by the archbishops of Mainz and Cologne.
While Henry I had controlled his vassal dukes only with difficulty, the new king firmly asserted his suzerainty over them. This led immediately to war, especially with Eberhard of Franconia and his namesake, Eberhard of Bavaria, who were joined by discontented Saxon nobles under the leadership of Otto’s half-brother Thankmar. Thankmar was defeated and killed, the Franconian Eberhard submitted to the King, and Eberhard of Bavaria was deposed and outlawed. In 939, however, Otto’s younger brother Henry revolted; he was joined by Eberhard of Franconia and by Giselbert of Lotharingia and supported by the French king Louis IV. Otto was again victorious: Eberhard fell in battle, Giselbert was drowned in flight, and Henry submitted to his brother. Nevertheless, in 941 Henry joined a conspiracy to murder the King. This was discovered in time, and, whereas the other conspirators were punished, Henry was again forgiven. Thenceforward he remained faithful to his brother and, in 947, was given the dukedom of Bavaria. The other German dukedoms were likewise bestowed on relatives of Otto.
Despite these internal difficulties, Otto found time to strengthen and to extend the frontiers of the kingdom. In the east the margraves Gero and Hermann Billung were successful against the Slavs, and their gains were consolidated by the founding of the Monastery of St. Maurice in Magdeburg, in 937, and of two bishoprics, in 948. In the north, three bishoprics (followed in 968 by a fourth) were founded to extend the Christian mission in Denmark. Otto’s first campaign in Bohemia was, however, a failure, and it was not until 950 that the Bohemian prince Boleslav I was forced to submit and to pay tribute.
Having thus strengthened his own position, Otto could not only resist France’s claims to Lorraine (Lotharingia) but also act as mediator in France’s internal troubles. Similarly, he extended his influence into Burgundy. Moreover, when the Burgundian princess Adelaide, the widowed queen of Italy whom the margrave Berengar of Ivrea had taken prisoner, appealed to him for help, Otto marched into Italy in 951, assumed the title of king of the Lombards, and married Adelaide himself, his first wife having died in 946. In 952 Berengar did homage to him as his vassal for the kingdom of Italy.
Otto had to break off his first Italian campaign because of a revolt in Germany, where Liudolf, his son by Edith, had risen against him with the aid of several magnates. Otto found himself compelled to withdraw to Saxony; but the position of the rebels began to deteriorate when the Magyars invaded Germany in 954, for the rebels could now be accused of complicity with the enemies of the Reich. After prolonged fighting, Liudolf had to submit in 955. This made it possible for Otto to defeat the Magyars decisively in the Battle of the Lechfeld, near Augsburg, in August 955; they never invaded Germany again. In the same year Otto and the margrave Gero also won a victory over the Slavs. A further series of campaigns led, by 960, to the subjection of the Slavs between the middle Elbe and the middle Oder. The archbishopric of Magdeburg was founded in 968 with three suffragan bishoprics. Even Mieszko of Poland paid tribute to the German king.
Coronation as emperor
In May 961 Otto procured the election and coronation of the six-year-old Otto II, his elder son by Adelaide, as German king. Then he went for a second time to Italy on the appeal of Pope John XII, who was hard pressed by Berengar of Ivrea. Arriving in Rome on Feb. 2, 962, Otto was crowned emperor, and 11 days later a treaty, known as the Privilegium Ottonianum, was concluded, to regulate relations between emperor and pope. This confirmed and extended the temporal power of the papacy, but it is a matter of controversy whether the proviso enabling the emperor to ratify papal elections was included in the original version of the treaty or added in December 963, when Otto deposed John XII for treating with Berengar and set up Leo VIII as pope. Berengar was captured and taken to Germany, and in 964 a revolt of the Romans against Leo VIII was suppressed.
When Leo VIII died in 965, the Emperor chose John XIII for pope, but John was expelled by the Romans. Otto, therefore, marched for a third time to Italy, where he stayed from 966 to 972. He subdued Rome and even advanced into the Byzantine south of Italy. Prolonged negotiations with Byzantium resulted in the marriage of Otto II to the Byzantine princess Theophano, in 972. Having returned to Germany, the Emperor held a great assembly of his court at Quedlinburg on March 23, 973. He died in Memleben several weeks later and was buried in Magdeburg at the side of his first wife. | <urn:uuid:cb3d8c58-0faf-478d-b3cb-d5fd988d301b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.britannica.com/biography/Otto-I | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597458.22/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120052454-20200120080454-00492.warc.gz | en | 0.985633 | 1,404 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.6540443897247314,
0.6135212779045105,
0.04756859317421913,
-0.10878421366214752,
0.05337018519639969,
-0.10373715311288834,
0.02862156182527542,
0.08783568441867828,
-0.2240963876247406,
-0.14620931446552277,
-0.12687474489212036,
-0.3586263060569763,
-0.09702558815479279,
-0.0266964640... | 4 | Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
Otto I, byname Otto the Great, German Otto der Grosse, (born Nov. 23, 912—died May 7, 973, Memleben, Thuringia), duke of Saxony (as Otto II, 936–961), German king (from 936), and Holy Roman emperor (962–973) who consolidated the German Reich by his suppression of rebellious vassals and his decisive victory over the Hungarians. His use of the church as a stabilizing influence created a secure empire and stimulated a cultural renaissance.
Otto was the son of the future king Henry I, of the Liudolfing, or Saxon, dynasty, and his second wife, Matilda. Little is known of his early years, but he probably shared in some of his father’s campaigns. He married Edith, daughter of the English king Edward the Elder, in 930; she obtained as her dowry the flourishing town of Magdeburg. Nominated by Henry as his successor, Otto was elected king by the German dukes at Aachen on Aug. 7, 936, a month after Henry’s death, and crowned by the archbishops of Mainz and Cologne.
While Henry I had controlled his vassal dukes only with difficulty, the new king firmly asserted his suzerainty over them. This led immediately to war, especially with Eberhard of Franconia and his namesake, Eberhard of Bavaria, who were joined by discontented Saxon nobles under the leadership of Otto’s half-brother Thankmar. Thankmar was defeated and killed, the Franconian Eberhard submitted to the King, and Eberhard of Bavaria was deposed and outlawed. In 939, however, Otto’s younger brother Henry revolted; he was joined by Eberhard of Franconia and by Giselbert of Lotharingia and supported by the French king Louis IV. Otto was again victorious: Eberhard fell in battle, Giselbert was drowned in flight, and Henry submitted to his brother. Nevertheless, in 941 Henry joined a conspiracy to murder the King. This was discovered in time, and, whereas the other conspirators were punished, Henry was again forgiven. Thenceforward he remained faithful to his brother and, in 947, was given the dukedom of Bavaria. The other German dukedoms were likewise bestowed on relatives of Otto.
Despite these internal difficulties, Otto found time to strengthen and to extend the frontiers of the kingdom. In the east the margraves Gero and Hermann Billung were successful against the Slavs, and their gains were consolidated by the founding of the Monastery of St. Maurice in Magdeburg, in 937, and of two bishoprics, in 948. In the north, three bishoprics (followed in 968 by a fourth) were founded to extend the Christian mission in Denmark. Otto’s first campaign in Bohemia was, however, a failure, and it was not until 950 that the Bohemian prince Boleslav I was forced to submit and to pay tribute.
Having thus strengthened his own position, Otto could not only resist France’s claims to Lorraine (Lotharingia) but also act as mediator in France’s internal troubles. Similarly, he extended his influence into Burgundy. Moreover, when the Burgundian princess Adelaide, the widowed queen of Italy whom the margrave Berengar of Ivrea had taken prisoner, appealed to him for help, Otto marched into Italy in 951, assumed the title of king of the Lombards, and married Adelaide himself, his first wife having died in 946. In 952 Berengar did homage to him as his vassal for the kingdom of Italy.
Otto had to break off his first Italian campaign because of a revolt in Germany, where Liudolf, his son by Edith, had risen against him with the aid of several magnates. Otto found himself compelled to withdraw to Saxony; but the position of the rebels began to deteriorate when the Magyars invaded Germany in 954, for the rebels could now be accused of complicity with the enemies of the Reich. After prolonged fighting, Liudolf had to submit in 955. This made it possible for Otto to defeat the Magyars decisively in the Battle of the Lechfeld, near Augsburg, in August 955; they never invaded Germany again. In the same year Otto and the margrave Gero also won a victory over the Slavs. A further series of campaigns led, by 960, to the subjection of the Slavs between the middle Elbe and the middle Oder. The archbishopric of Magdeburg was founded in 968 with three suffragan bishoprics. Even Mieszko of Poland paid tribute to the German king.
Coronation as emperor
In May 961 Otto procured the election and coronation of the six-year-old Otto II, his elder son by Adelaide, as German king. Then he went for a second time to Italy on the appeal of Pope John XII, who was hard pressed by Berengar of Ivrea. Arriving in Rome on Feb. 2, 962, Otto was crowned emperor, and 11 days later a treaty, known as the Privilegium Ottonianum, was concluded, to regulate relations between emperor and pope. This confirmed and extended the temporal power of the papacy, but it is a matter of controversy whether the proviso enabling the emperor to ratify papal elections was included in the original version of the treaty or added in December 963, when Otto deposed John XII for treating with Berengar and set up Leo VIII as pope. Berengar was captured and taken to Germany, and in 964 a revolt of the Romans against Leo VIII was suppressed.
When Leo VIII died in 965, the Emperor chose John XIII for pope, but John was expelled by the Romans. Otto, therefore, marched for a third time to Italy, where he stayed from 966 to 972. He subdued Rome and even advanced into the Byzantine south of Italy. Prolonged negotiations with Byzantium resulted in the marriage of Otto II to the Byzantine princess Theophano, in 972. Having returned to Germany, the Emperor held a great assembly of his court at Quedlinburg on March 23, 973. He died in Memleben several weeks later and was buried in Magdeburg at the side of his first wife. | 1,457 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Sound of Rain | Out of North Korea: A gripping novel about an American held captive in a North Korean prison camp | Dawn's Prelude
In 1848, Ellen Craft became invisible. Ellen, a slave from Macon, Georgia, took trains and steamboats north, but the people all around couldn’t see her. They saw only a white man. Ellen Craft’s mother was a slave, but her father was her master, and she had skin as white as his. So she posed as a white man, while her husband William posed as her slave. Ellen vanished and became William Johnson—an ailing gentleman seeking medical treatment in Philadelphia. The Vanishing Woman is based on a true story—one of the boldest escapes in American history. William and Ellen knew they could never have children until they were free, so they embarked on the greatest of escapes. Their incredible story riveted a nation, and it put the Fugitive Slave Act to the test, bringing attention to their plight all the way to the White House. The ultimate irony: The invisible woman became one of the most visible symbols of freedom in nineteenth-century America. | <urn:uuid:f20391a0-0af2-4c8f-95fa-be6e8a0d0b78> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://isbn.nu/9781613280812 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00528.warc.gz | en | 0.980191 | 232 | 4.1875 | 4 | [
-0.13728661835193634,
0.4465349018573761,
0.5667288303375244,
0.24475689232349396,
0.042809225618839264,
0.05305261164903641,
0.0826268121600151,
-0.1860269010066986,
0.033061541616916656,
0.008929203264415264,
0.25720953941345215,
0.49506688117980957,
0.2157389521598816,
-0.11590627580881... | 1 | Sound of Rain | Out of North Korea: A gripping novel about an American held captive in a North Korean prison camp | Dawn's Prelude
In 1848, Ellen Craft became invisible. Ellen, a slave from Macon, Georgia, took trains and steamboats north, but the people all around couldn’t see her. They saw only a white man. Ellen Craft’s mother was a slave, but her father was her master, and she had skin as white as his. So she posed as a white man, while her husband William posed as her slave. Ellen vanished and became William Johnson—an ailing gentleman seeking medical treatment in Philadelphia. The Vanishing Woman is based on a true story—one of the boldest escapes in American history. William and Ellen knew they could never have children until they were free, so they embarked on the greatest of escapes. Their incredible story riveted a nation, and it put the Fugitive Slave Act to the test, bringing attention to their plight all the way to the White House. The ultimate irony: The invisible woman became one of the most visible symbols of freedom in nineteenth-century America. | 229 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Winston Churchill lived to the age of 90, and in those years he accomplished many things. Most of us will remember Winston Churchill, the politician, and he is certainly remembered for his contribution to the Second World War, but that is just one side of this great man’s story. His life and work are well documented, and too vast for a single blog post, so here are our top 10 interesting facts about Winston Churchill:
1. Winston Churchill was an accomplished artist
One of the more well-known facts; Winston Churchill was an accomplished artist. He was in his 40’s before he began painting, but would go on to become a prolific artist, creating more than 500 paintings over a 48 year period. You can see some of his works in the National Trust Collections.
2. The ‘Greatest’ Briton, the ‘British Bulldog’, was in fact half American
Winston Churchill was born to Lord and Lady Randolph Churchill. His father, Randolph Churchill, was a British politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer, while his mother, Jennie Jerome, was an American socialite. Interestingly, he was also the first person to be made an honorary citizen of the United States.
3. Winston Churchill received a Nobel Prize… for Literature
Winston Churchill was awarded The Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 for “his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values”. He is the only British Prime Minister to have won the Nobel Prize in Literature since its inception in 1901. source
4. He served in British Parliament under six monarchs
Winston Churchill’s time in Parliament came to an end on 6 April 1955. He served in the British Parliament for almost 55 years, having begun his political career at the 1900 general election as the Conservative Member of Parliament for Oldham. His political tenure spanned the reigns of: Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II.
5. Winston Churchill served as prime minister twice
Better known for his first stint in office, Winston Churchill was actually prime minister twice! First on 10 May 1940 to 26 July 1945, then again from 26 October 1951 to 6 April 1955.
6. The first known use of ‘OMG’ was in a letter to Winston Churchill
OMG, who’d have thought it? The first known use of the common abbreviation ‘OMG’ was in a letter from Lord Fisher to Winston Churchill on 9 September 1917. source
7. Winston Churchill is the only prime minister to enter the music charts
Winston Churchill has in fact entered the music charts twice! He first charted in 1965, shortly after his death, with ‘The Voice Of‘ – a collection of his most famous speeches. He then charted again, entering the album chart for a second time with a record marking the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain: ‘Reach For The Skies‘, by The Central Band of the Royal Air Force.
8. He had a speech impediment
Winston Churchill is best known for his speeches, of which there are many, and of which I’m sure you can recite a few. But a fact which may surprise you, as it did me, is that Winston Churchill had a speech impediment which meant he had difficulty pronouncing the letter ‘s’. click here to find out more about his greatest speeches
9. Winston Churchill was a prisoner of war
Winston Churchill is well known for his contribution to war, both the First World War and, in particular, the Second World War. A less known fact is that he was actually a prisoner of war, during the Boer War. In 1899, Churchill travelled to South Africa as a newspaper correspondent to cover the Boer War between British and Dutch Settlers. He was ambushed and captured by enemy soliders. He later made his great escape and returned a hero. find out more here
10. He is the only statesman to be honoured on two occasions on British coins
To be commemorated on a coin is an honour to which not many can put claim. Themes and designs for coins are carefully selected by committee and the commemorative theme must carry significant weight in order to be considered. It’s rare for a statesman to be commemorated on a coin and that honour was fitting for Winston Churchill upon his death in 1965. Such was Winston Churchill’s contribution and legacy that now, 50 years later, his memory will be honoured again on UK coins and he will become the only statesman to be honoured in such a way on two separate occasions. | <urn:uuid:21b53bd6-fab0-4adb-b8e2-64d415b24422> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.royalmint.com/stories/commemorate/10-facts-about-winston-churchill/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00040.warc.gz | en | 0.982958 | 969 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.2702823281288147,
0.46723687648773193,
0.49125826358795166,
-0.25970590114593506,
-0.07690151780843735,
0.29878127574920654,
0.6508912444114685,
0.03056587092578411,
-0.12037002295255661,
0.5273783802986145,
-0.06869500130414963,
-0.3908824026584625,
0.3691452145576477,
0.43389803171157... | 6 | Winston Churchill lived to the age of 90, and in those years he accomplished many things. Most of us will remember Winston Churchill, the politician, and he is certainly remembered for his contribution to the Second World War, but that is just one side of this great man’s story. His life and work are well documented, and too vast for a single blog post, so here are our top 10 interesting facts about Winston Churchill:
1. Winston Churchill was an accomplished artist
One of the more well-known facts; Winston Churchill was an accomplished artist. He was in his 40’s before he began painting, but would go on to become a prolific artist, creating more than 500 paintings over a 48 year period. You can see some of his works in the National Trust Collections.
2. The ‘Greatest’ Briton, the ‘British Bulldog’, was in fact half American
Winston Churchill was born to Lord and Lady Randolph Churchill. His father, Randolph Churchill, was a British politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer, while his mother, Jennie Jerome, was an American socialite. Interestingly, he was also the first person to be made an honorary citizen of the United States.
3. Winston Churchill received a Nobel Prize… for Literature
Winston Churchill was awarded The Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 for “his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values”. He is the only British Prime Minister to have won the Nobel Prize in Literature since its inception in 1901. source
4. He served in British Parliament under six monarchs
Winston Churchill’s time in Parliament came to an end on 6 April 1955. He served in the British Parliament for almost 55 years, having begun his political career at the 1900 general election as the Conservative Member of Parliament for Oldham. His political tenure spanned the reigns of: Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II.
5. Winston Churchill served as prime minister twice
Better known for his first stint in office, Winston Churchill was actually prime minister twice! First on 10 May 1940 to 26 July 1945, then again from 26 October 1951 to 6 April 1955.
6. The first known use of ‘OMG’ was in a letter to Winston Churchill
OMG, who’d have thought it? The first known use of the common abbreviation ‘OMG’ was in a letter from Lord Fisher to Winston Churchill on 9 September 1917. source
7. Winston Churchill is the only prime minister to enter the music charts
Winston Churchill has in fact entered the music charts twice! He first charted in 1965, shortly after his death, with ‘The Voice Of‘ – a collection of his most famous speeches. He then charted again, entering the album chart for a second time with a record marking the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain: ‘Reach For The Skies‘, by The Central Band of the Royal Air Force.
8. He had a speech impediment
Winston Churchill is best known for his speeches, of which there are many, and of which I’m sure you can recite a few. But a fact which may surprise you, as it did me, is that Winston Churchill had a speech impediment which meant he had difficulty pronouncing the letter ‘s’. click here to find out more about his greatest speeches
9. Winston Churchill was a prisoner of war
Winston Churchill is well known for his contribution to war, both the First World War and, in particular, the Second World War. A less known fact is that he was actually a prisoner of war, during the Boer War. In 1899, Churchill travelled to South Africa as a newspaper correspondent to cover the Boer War between British and Dutch Settlers. He was ambushed and captured by enemy soliders. He later made his great escape and returned a hero. find out more here
10. He is the only statesman to be honoured on two occasions on British coins
To be commemorated on a coin is an honour to which not many can put claim. Themes and designs for coins are carefully selected by committee and the commemorative theme must carry significant weight in order to be considered. It’s rare for a statesman to be commemorated on a coin and that honour was fitting for Winston Churchill upon his death in 1965. Such was Winston Churchill’s contribution and legacy that now, 50 years later, his memory will be honoured again on UK coins and he will become the only statesman to be honoured in such a way on two separate occasions. | 1,005 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Here at Cheshire Metalcraft, we supply a variety of different gates that are able to meet the security and aesthetical needs of every property owner that chooses to do business with us. With this said, there are very few gates in the world that hold the rich history of those that were used by the suffragettes during the Vote for Women protests. Read on as we go over everything there is to know about the suffragettes and why they chained themselves to famous gates in order to help spread their message…
Who were the suffragettes?
The suffragettes were the name embraced by the members of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), a women’s only movement that was founded in 1903. The aim of this movement was to win women the right to vote in public elections and the protests were carried out using civil disobedience that often ended in arrest for many women.
How did the suffragettes get their message across?
When women in the UK had not been given the right to vote like other countries, the ‘Votes for Women’ banner was undertaken by political activist Emmeline Pankhurst in 1903, the organiser of the WSPU movement. There were several different approaches that were used in order to spread the word and many protests were violent yet difficult to ignore such as setting fire to post-boxes, smashing windows and even carrying out hunger strikes.
Why did WSPU members handcuff themselves to gates?
Perhaps the most memorable way that the suffragettes would spread their message was by handcuffing themselves to gates and railing around the capital city of London. This was a popular method because it gave the suffragettes time to make a loud and memorable speech before the police officers were able to arrest and remove them for ‘disturbing the peace’. In fact, Buckingham Palace was famously involved in a protest in 1914 when suffragettes handcuffed themselves to the gates that still stand today.
When it comes to political messages, there is nothing more effective than a highly publicised protest. In fact, the suffragettes would regularly risk arrest in order to handcuff themselves to gates and railings all over London as this would give them the time to carry out their speeches. Thankfully, women over 21 won the vote in 1928, 25 years after the movement began and just weeks after organiser Emmeline Pankhurst passed away. Here at Cheshire Metalcraft, our gates may not be famous for the suffragettes but they are made with the same elegance and perseverance in mind. Get in contact with the best gates Manchester has to offer to find out more information today! | <urn:uuid:a8b83a68-6c86-4789-8b43-4c6c5b55b4af> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://cheshiremetalcraft.co.uk/why-suffragettes-chained-themselves-to-gates/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251773463.72/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128030221-20200128060221-00486.warc.gz | en | 0.986183 | 544 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.0539633184671402,
0.26386624574661255,
0.1725931465625763,
0.32037001848220825,
-0.26866817474365234,
0.2463294416666031,
0.17367443442344666,
0.21731312572956085,
-0.23231860995292664,
-0.10751821100711823,
-0.08836247026920319,
-0.13628754019737244,
0.07279595732688904,
-0.41121381521... | 9 | Here at Cheshire Metalcraft, we supply a variety of different gates that are able to meet the security and aesthetical needs of every property owner that chooses to do business with us. With this said, there are very few gates in the world that hold the rich history of those that were used by the suffragettes during the Vote for Women protests. Read on as we go over everything there is to know about the suffragettes and why they chained themselves to famous gates in order to help spread their message…
Who were the suffragettes?
The suffragettes were the name embraced by the members of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), a women’s only movement that was founded in 1903. The aim of this movement was to win women the right to vote in public elections and the protests were carried out using civil disobedience that often ended in arrest for many women.
How did the suffragettes get their message across?
When women in the UK had not been given the right to vote like other countries, the ‘Votes for Women’ banner was undertaken by political activist Emmeline Pankhurst in 1903, the organiser of the WSPU movement. There were several different approaches that were used in order to spread the word and many protests were violent yet difficult to ignore such as setting fire to post-boxes, smashing windows and even carrying out hunger strikes.
Why did WSPU members handcuff themselves to gates?
Perhaps the most memorable way that the suffragettes would spread their message was by handcuffing themselves to gates and railing around the capital city of London. This was a popular method because it gave the suffragettes time to make a loud and memorable speech before the police officers were able to arrest and remove them for ‘disturbing the peace’. In fact, Buckingham Palace was famously involved in a protest in 1914 when suffragettes handcuffed themselves to the gates that still stand today.
When it comes to political messages, there is nothing more effective than a highly publicised protest. In fact, the suffragettes would regularly risk arrest in order to handcuff themselves to gates and railings all over London as this would give them the time to carry out their speeches. Thankfully, women over 21 won the vote in 1928, 25 years after the movement began and just weeks after organiser Emmeline Pankhurst passed away. Here at Cheshire Metalcraft, our gates may not be famous for the suffragettes but they are made with the same elegance and perseverance in mind. Get in contact with the best gates Manchester has to offer to find out more information today! | 547 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Dogs have been an integral aspect of the human condition in virtually every world culture for thousands of years. Some of the greatest civilizations of the past have kept dogs as companions, for various chores, and featured dogs in their art, literature, and elevated them to important positions in religious belief and, among these, were the Persians. The dog was highly valued in ancient Persia as they were considered part-wild, part-human, and part-divine, a gift from the gods.
Although little is known of the early religious beliefs of the Persians prior to the rise of Zoroastrianism (c. 1500-1000 BCE), the dog played a major role in religious rituals as recorded by Zoroastrian texts. Dogs were an important part of funerary rituals and held center stage in the vision of the afterlife from an early date as well as performing important functions in people’s daily lives.
The Persians kept dogs for protection, herding, and hunting but grave goods and archaeological evidence suggests that they were also kept for companionship, and this is further supported by how the section of the Avesta (Zoroastrian scripture) known as the Vendidad emphasizes the importance of treating a dog as well as one would a member of one’s own family. How one treated a dog, in fact, would directly affect whether one was rewarded or punished in the afterlife according to Zoroastrian belief.
The Persian love of the dog was so profound and well-known to their neighbors that persecution of dogs became a means whereby the Muslim Arab conquest subdued the population in the invasions of the 7th century CE. As in every instance of a new religious-political system trying to assert dominance over the cultural values of a conquered people, the dog was proclaimed unclean – especially the so-called “four-eyed dog” (a dog with a spot above each eye) - which had been held in the highest regard by the Persians.
Although the Prophet Muhammad is said to have reversed his decision to kill all dogs and allowed for certain types to be kept by Muslims, persecution of dogs which were not guard dogs, hunting dogs, or sheep dogs continued. In the present day, the Iranian government continues policies targeting dogs and dog owners - even though the more severe proscriptions have been relaxed - and many modern-day Persians and animal rights groups continue working to restore the dog to its former stature in the country.
Domestication & Breeds
When and where the dog was first domesticated continues to be debated, but evidence (such as dogs interred with people in graves) suggests that dogs were already domesticated in the Near East as early as 12,000 BCE even though, according to scholar Frank Hole, confirmation of full domestication dates only to 5,500 BCE based on osteological evidence (the study of bones) which shows wear and injuries consistent with domestic roles. Dogs were important enough to the people, c. 5,500 BCE, to merit depiction on ceramics, as Hole notes:
Around 8,000 years ago, at a time when naturalistic pictures of any kind were rare on pottery, dogs were painted on vessels from Tepe Sabz in Deh Luran and Chogha Mish in Khuzistan, two small-scale agricultural villages in southwestern Iran. (175-176)
These early images suggest the Saluki breed (also known as the Persian Greyhound, Gazelle Hound), and this motif would be repeated later on a much grander scale at the city of Susa (founded 4395 BCE), as Hole also mentions:
Following the depiction of dogs on the early bowls of Tepe Sabz and Chogha Mish, there was a succession of regional ceramic styles during the next 1,500 years culminating in the Susa-A style. (176)
The dog images were painted inside the bowls, suggesting that these ceramics were used for ornamentation, not for daily use. Hole notes how the delicacy of the images suggests they were made to be admired, not covered with food. The Saluki, as noted, is the breed most often depicted but other breeds are known to have been kept by the Persians, including:
- Afghan Hounds
- Alabai (the Central Asian Shepherd)
- Persian Sarabi Mastiff
- Pshdar Dog (Kurdish Mastiff)
The Roman historian Claudius Aelianus (better known as Aelian, l. c. 175 - c. 235 CE), whose work De Natura Animalium (“On the Characteristics of Animals”) devotes significant space to dogs, claims that the Persians kept four main types – Elymaeans, Hyrcanians, Carmanians, and Medians – which correspond roughly to the breeds mentioned above. Aelian’s observations are taken from the earlier work of Pliny the Elder (l. 23-79 CE) who also makes mention of notable dogs in Persian and Greek history and the devotion they regularly showed to their masters.
Dogs in Myth & Legend
The loyalty of the dog and its role as protector and guardian features significantly in the myths concerning its origin. The collection of Zoroastrian lore known as the Bundahisn claims that all animals were created from the purified semen of Gavaevodata (usually referenced as the Primordial Bull) whose death gives them life. The dog is created to protect human beings and the Bundahisn (13.18) lists ten types with only three – the sheep dog, guard dog, herd dog – considered actual dogs.
The dog is also associated with the mythological creature Simurgh – the great and benevolent bird of wisdom depicted as a peacock with a dog’s head and lion’s claws and often referred to as the “dog bird”. The Simurgh is said to have acquired the wisdom of the ages through a long life of 1,700 years (according to some versions of the myth), after which it dies in flames and is reborn like the Phoenix. The Simurgh is a protector and helper, most famously assisting in the birth of the Persian hero Rustum. The loyalty Simurgh shows to those she is attached to mirrors the devotion of the dog, as does her protective aspects.
This central quality – of protector – is the main focus of the Islamic versions of the creation of the dog and its purpose, all written after the 7th century CE. In one of these, after Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden, Iblis (Satan) encourages the wild animals to attack and kill them. Iblis is so passionate in rousing the beasts that spit flies out of his mouth, and Allah then forms the spittle into dogs – a male and female – and places the male as protector over Adam and the female to protect Eve. The central role of the dog as protector is emphasized but the myth also serves to explain the enmity between the dog and wild animals, especially the wolf.
Dogs in Religion
A related tale, also from post-conquest literature, has Allah send Adam a magical staff for protection against Iblis and the wild animals. Adam, not understanding the role of the dog, strikes it with the staff and is corrected by Allah who commands he should pat the dog instead. As Adam pats it, the dog becomes domesticated and henceforth serves as Adam’s friend and protector. This theme was no doubt suggested by the nature of the dog and how it was most commonly employed by humans, but dog-as-protector has a long history in the Persian religious belief system where one’s treatment of the dog played a critical part in the quality of one’s life after death.
The importance of dogs is defined in the Vendidad where they are described as benevolent, clean, protective, and worthy of respect and human protection. An important aspect of the Persian funerary ritual was the sagdid (“glance of the dog”) in which a dog – preferably one with “four eyes” (a spot above each eye) – was brought into the room where the newly deceased was laid out. The purpose was twofold: the dog would be able to tell if the person was actually dead (and so mortuary rituals could proceed) and the dog would scare away any evil spirits hovering around the body.
The sagdid was enacted three times before rituals could then proceed but, if the dog appeared unwilling any of those times, the rite was repeated six more times. If the dog showed any hesitation in entering the room any of these times, it was then led in again nine more times. Presumably, the dog was reacting to the presence of particularly powerful evil spirits upon whom its energies as guardian and protector needed more time to work. Only once the dog entered the presence of the corpse willingly and without drawing back was the sagdid concluded and other rites performed.
After death, the soul would journey to the Chinvat Bridge which spanned the abyss between the world of the living and the lands of the dead. Two dogs guarded the bridge and, as one was to cross, these dogs would welcome the righteous but not the condemned. The bridge would widen for the virtuous soul and narrow for those who had led evil lives. Justified souls would continue on to the paradise of the House of Song; evil souls would be dropped into the hell of the House of Lies where they would be tormented and, further, would experience a devastating loneliness – no matter how many other souls were around them, they would feel always alone.
A major determinant of where the soul went was how they had treated dogs during their lifetime. People were supposed to care for dogs as they would their own family members and, just as one would not intentionally hurt or kill a loved one, so one should not do so with a dog. Further, as one meant only the best for one’s family, so should one act toward a dog. The dog’s soul was thought to be a combination of one-third wild animal, one-third human, and one-third divine and so commanded the level of respect one would show to all three of these kinds of energies.
Dogs in Daily Life
Pregnant dogs – even strays – were to be cared for and good homes found for their puppies. Vendidad 13 makes clear that anyone who purposefully injures a dog will be beaten and that dogs should be served the same quality food as one would present to the master of the house. Serving food that is too hard, and might injure a dog’s teeth, was considered as serious an offense as intentionally hurting the dog and foods should be neither too hot nor too cold. It is stipulated that one should save three morsels from one’s daily meal as a gift to the dog, in addition to whatever else it has had to eat.
Infirm dogs were to be cared for with just as much diligence as those who were sound and productive. A mad dog was to be calmed and cured of its madness, and one which had lost its ability to scent was to be guided by collar and leash so that it would not venture off and, unable to detect a predator or some other danger, come to harm. Vendidad 13.6.39 makes clear that people are to take care of injured dogs, not only because it is the right thing to do but also in return for all the dog has done for them. The passage cites the supreme deity Ahura Mazda stating:
I have made the dog strong of body against the evil-doer when sound of body and watchful over your goods. And whosoever shall awake at his voice, neither shall the thief nor the wolf carry anything from his house without his being warned; the wolf shall be smitten and torn to pieces; he is driven away, he melts away like snow. (13.6.39-40)
The dog had been provided for human beings as a gift from Ahura Mazda, and the deity expected that gift to be well-cared for. Insulting a dog was thought to bring a divine reprimand because the person was presuming to elevate themselves over the dog without any good reason. Dogs, after all, did not insult humans and, in spite of all the good they provided, remained ever humble. Punishments for injuring a dog on purpose include beating with up to “seventy stripes” and, if one accidentally harmed another person’s watchdog, herd dog, or hunting dog, one would have to pay for treatment and, further, compensate the owner if the dog was unable to perform its duties because of the injury.
The hunting dog, guard dog, and shepherd dog are mentioned most frequently, and these seem to have been the Saluki and Afghan (hunters), Pshdar and Sarabi Mastiff (guardians), and Alabai (cattle dogs/sheep dogs, though also guard dogs). These dogs helped procure food for their masters, protected that food and the home from threats, and guarded their masters’ herds in the fields. Further, the dog protected the individual owner from harm as well as members of the family and was equated with health and healing thus making the dog a vitally important aspect of the Persians’ daily lives even if it were not so prominently featured in mortuary rituals and the vision of the afterlife.
After the Muslim Arab conquest of the 7th century CE, dogs were declared unclean – even though dogs are mentioned positively in the Quran – in an effort to denigrate an important Persian cultural value. This declaration is thought to have been politically motivated, having nothing to actually do with religious belief, in order to elevate the conquerors at the expense of the conquered. One of the most famous passages of the Quran, in fact, depicts the dog as the faithful protector of the righteous Seven Sleepers of the Cave, who understand the truth of divine revelation correctly (Sura 18:9-26), and they are presented in a similar light elsewhere.
Muhammad is said to have originally called for a mass cull of dogs but then softened his stance, upon reflection on their beneficial aspects, limiting the death penalty only to black dogs (associated with evil) and those with “four eyes”. The four-eyed dog, as noted earlier, was among the most central to the Persian vision of the afterlife as well as the ritual of the sagdid and so, clearly, this was an effort to undermine Persian culture in order to replace it with the vision of the conquerors.
In time, Persian values would be adopted by the Muslim Arabs – entire dynasties, in fact, would be Persian – and the art, architecture, and other aspects of the culture would become associated with the Arabian Muslim belief system. This same paradigm applies to the dog only to a far lesser degree because of the Muslim religious obligation to pray five times a day and to be ritually clean in order to do so. The presence of a dog, as an unclean animal, would require one to purify one’s self before prayer.
Even so, dogs are owned by Muslims around the world in the present day and government proscriptions against dog ownership, such as those in Iran, are not as harsh as they were in the past and make allowance for keeping a guard dog, sheep/cattle dog, and hunting dog as per Muhammad’s ruling on the subject – the same types of dogs, notably, that the Persians valued themselves thousands of years ago. Still, the Iranian government periodically initiates crackdowns on walking dogs in public and dog ownership in general – largely, it seems, in an effort to prevent Iranian emulation of Western cultural values – ignoring the long cultural heritage of the Persian people as a dog’s best friend. | <urn:uuid:71e6a150-207d-4db1-826e-a2a03e4dbcca> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.ancient.eu/article/1482/dogs-in-ancient-persia/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00035.warc.gz | en | 0.980684 | 3,258 | 3.875 | 4 | [
0.05549044907093048,
0.44265711307525635,
0.4872635304927826,
-0.050733424723148346,
-0.28155842423439026,
-0.20750445127487183,
0.06392814218997955,
0.3521095812320709,
0.06140000373125076,
-0.0160064660012722,
-0.143024742603302,
-0.126100093126297,
0.3035377860069275,
0.3008642792701721... | 7 | Dogs have been an integral aspect of the human condition in virtually every world culture for thousands of years. Some of the greatest civilizations of the past have kept dogs as companions, for various chores, and featured dogs in their art, literature, and elevated them to important positions in religious belief and, among these, were the Persians. The dog was highly valued in ancient Persia as they were considered part-wild, part-human, and part-divine, a gift from the gods.
Although little is known of the early religious beliefs of the Persians prior to the rise of Zoroastrianism (c. 1500-1000 BCE), the dog played a major role in religious rituals as recorded by Zoroastrian texts. Dogs were an important part of funerary rituals and held center stage in the vision of the afterlife from an early date as well as performing important functions in people’s daily lives.
The Persians kept dogs for protection, herding, and hunting but grave goods and archaeological evidence suggests that they were also kept for companionship, and this is further supported by how the section of the Avesta (Zoroastrian scripture) known as the Vendidad emphasizes the importance of treating a dog as well as one would a member of one’s own family. How one treated a dog, in fact, would directly affect whether one was rewarded or punished in the afterlife according to Zoroastrian belief.
The Persian love of the dog was so profound and well-known to their neighbors that persecution of dogs became a means whereby the Muslim Arab conquest subdued the population in the invasions of the 7th century CE. As in every instance of a new religious-political system trying to assert dominance over the cultural values of a conquered people, the dog was proclaimed unclean – especially the so-called “four-eyed dog” (a dog with a spot above each eye) - which had been held in the highest regard by the Persians.
Although the Prophet Muhammad is said to have reversed his decision to kill all dogs and allowed for certain types to be kept by Muslims, persecution of dogs which were not guard dogs, hunting dogs, or sheep dogs continued. In the present day, the Iranian government continues policies targeting dogs and dog owners - even though the more severe proscriptions have been relaxed - and many modern-day Persians and animal rights groups continue working to restore the dog to its former stature in the country.
Domestication & Breeds
When and where the dog was first domesticated continues to be debated, but evidence (such as dogs interred with people in graves) suggests that dogs were already domesticated in the Near East as early as 12,000 BCE even though, according to scholar Frank Hole, confirmation of full domestication dates only to 5,500 BCE based on osteological evidence (the study of bones) which shows wear and injuries consistent with domestic roles. Dogs were important enough to the people, c. 5,500 BCE, to merit depiction on ceramics, as Hole notes:
Around 8,000 years ago, at a time when naturalistic pictures of any kind were rare on pottery, dogs were painted on vessels from Tepe Sabz in Deh Luran and Chogha Mish in Khuzistan, two small-scale agricultural villages in southwestern Iran. (175-176)
These early images suggest the Saluki breed (also known as the Persian Greyhound, Gazelle Hound), and this motif would be repeated later on a much grander scale at the city of Susa (founded 4395 BCE), as Hole also mentions:
Following the depiction of dogs on the early bowls of Tepe Sabz and Chogha Mish, there was a succession of regional ceramic styles during the next 1,500 years culminating in the Susa-A style. (176)
The dog images were painted inside the bowls, suggesting that these ceramics were used for ornamentation, not for daily use. Hole notes how the delicacy of the images suggests they were made to be admired, not covered with food. The Saluki, as noted, is the breed most often depicted but other breeds are known to have been kept by the Persians, including:
- Afghan Hounds
- Alabai (the Central Asian Shepherd)
- Persian Sarabi Mastiff
- Pshdar Dog (Kurdish Mastiff)
The Roman historian Claudius Aelianus (better known as Aelian, l. c. 175 - c. 235 CE), whose work De Natura Animalium (“On the Characteristics of Animals”) devotes significant space to dogs, claims that the Persians kept four main types – Elymaeans, Hyrcanians, Carmanians, and Medians – which correspond roughly to the breeds mentioned above. Aelian’s observations are taken from the earlier work of Pliny the Elder (l. 23-79 CE) who also makes mention of notable dogs in Persian and Greek history and the devotion they regularly showed to their masters.
Dogs in Myth & Legend
The loyalty of the dog and its role as protector and guardian features significantly in the myths concerning its origin. The collection of Zoroastrian lore known as the Bundahisn claims that all animals were created from the purified semen of Gavaevodata (usually referenced as the Primordial Bull) whose death gives them life. The dog is created to protect human beings and the Bundahisn (13.18) lists ten types with only three – the sheep dog, guard dog, herd dog – considered actual dogs.
The dog is also associated with the mythological creature Simurgh – the great and benevolent bird of wisdom depicted as a peacock with a dog’s head and lion’s claws and often referred to as the “dog bird”. The Simurgh is said to have acquired the wisdom of the ages through a long life of 1,700 years (according to some versions of the myth), after which it dies in flames and is reborn like the Phoenix. The Simurgh is a protector and helper, most famously assisting in the birth of the Persian hero Rustum. The loyalty Simurgh shows to those she is attached to mirrors the devotion of the dog, as does her protective aspects.
This central quality – of protector – is the main focus of the Islamic versions of the creation of the dog and its purpose, all written after the 7th century CE. In one of these, after Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden, Iblis (Satan) encourages the wild animals to attack and kill them. Iblis is so passionate in rousing the beasts that spit flies out of his mouth, and Allah then forms the spittle into dogs – a male and female – and places the male as protector over Adam and the female to protect Eve. The central role of the dog as protector is emphasized but the myth also serves to explain the enmity between the dog and wild animals, especially the wolf.
Dogs in Religion
A related tale, also from post-conquest literature, has Allah send Adam a magical staff for protection against Iblis and the wild animals. Adam, not understanding the role of the dog, strikes it with the staff and is corrected by Allah who commands he should pat the dog instead. As Adam pats it, the dog becomes domesticated and henceforth serves as Adam’s friend and protector. This theme was no doubt suggested by the nature of the dog and how it was most commonly employed by humans, but dog-as-protector has a long history in the Persian religious belief system where one’s treatment of the dog played a critical part in the quality of one’s life after death.
The importance of dogs is defined in the Vendidad where they are described as benevolent, clean, protective, and worthy of respect and human protection. An important aspect of the Persian funerary ritual was the sagdid (“glance of the dog”) in which a dog – preferably one with “four eyes” (a spot above each eye) – was brought into the room where the newly deceased was laid out. The purpose was twofold: the dog would be able to tell if the person was actually dead (and so mortuary rituals could proceed) and the dog would scare away any evil spirits hovering around the body.
The sagdid was enacted three times before rituals could then proceed but, if the dog appeared unwilling any of those times, the rite was repeated six more times. If the dog showed any hesitation in entering the room any of these times, it was then led in again nine more times. Presumably, the dog was reacting to the presence of particularly powerful evil spirits upon whom its energies as guardian and protector needed more time to work. Only once the dog entered the presence of the corpse willingly and without drawing back was the sagdid concluded and other rites performed.
After death, the soul would journey to the Chinvat Bridge which spanned the abyss between the world of the living and the lands of the dead. Two dogs guarded the bridge and, as one was to cross, these dogs would welcome the righteous but not the condemned. The bridge would widen for the virtuous soul and narrow for those who had led evil lives. Justified souls would continue on to the paradise of the House of Song; evil souls would be dropped into the hell of the House of Lies where they would be tormented and, further, would experience a devastating loneliness – no matter how many other souls were around them, they would feel always alone.
A major determinant of where the soul went was how they had treated dogs during their lifetime. People were supposed to care for dogs as they would their own family members and, just as one would not intentionally hurt or kill a loved one, so one should not do so with a dog. Further, as one meant only the best for one’s family, so should one act toward a dog. The dog’s soul was thought to be a combination of one-third wild animal, one-third human, and one-third divine and so commanded the level of respect one would show to all three of these kinds of energies.
Dogs in Daily Life
Pregnant dogs – even strays – were to be cared for and good homes found for their puppies. Vendidad 13 makes clear that anyone who purposefully injures a dog will be beaten and that dogs should be served the same quality food as one would present to the master of the house. Serving food that is too hard, and might injure a dog’s teeth, was considered as serious an offense as intentionally hurting the dog and foods should be neither too hot nor too cold. It is stipulated that one should save three morsels from one’s daily meal as a gift to the dog, in addition to whatever else it has had to eat.
Infirm dogs were to be cared for with just as much diligence as those who were sound and productive. A mad dog was to be calmed and cured of its madness, and one which had lost its ability to scent was to be guided by collar and leash so that it would not venture off and, unable to detect a predator or some other danger, come to harm. Vendidad 13.6.39 makes clear that people are to take care of injured dogs, not only because it is the right thing to do but also in return for all the dog has done for them. The passage cites the supreme deity Ahura Mazda stating:
I have made the dog strong of body against the evil-doer when sound of body and watchful over your goods. And whosoever shall awake at his voice, neither shall the thief nor the wolf carry anything from his house without his being warned; the wolf shall be smitten and torn to pieces; he is driven away, he melts away like snow. (13.6.39-40)
The dog had been provided for human beings as a gift from Ahura Mazda, and the deity expected that gift to be well-cared for. Insulting a dog was thought to bring a divine reprimand because the person was presuming to elevate themselves over the dog without any good reason. Dogs, after all, did not insult humans and, in spite of all the good they provided, remained ever humble. Punishments for injuring a dog on purpose include beating with up to “seventy stripes” and, if one accidentally harmed another person’s watchdog, herd dog, or hunting dog, one would have to pay for treatment and, further, compensate the owner if the dog was unable to perform its duties because of the injury.
The hunting dog, guard dog, and shepherd dog are mentioned most frequently, and these seem to have been the Saluki and Afghan (hunters), Pshdar and Sarabi Mastiff (guardians), and Alabai (cattle dogs/sheep dogs, though also guard dogs). These dogs helped procure food for their masters, protected that food and the home from threats, and guarded their masters’ herds in the fields. Further, the dog protected the individual owner from harm as well as members of the family and was equated with health and healing thus making the dog a vitally important aspect of the Persians’ daily lives even if it were not so prominently featured in mortuary rituals and the vision of the afterlife.
After the Muslim Arab conquest of the 7th century CE, dogs were declared unclean – even though dogs are mentioned positively in the Quran – in an effort to denigrate an important Persian cultural value. This declaration is thought to have been politically motivated, having nothing to actually do with religious belief, in order to elevate the conquerors at the expense of the conquered. One of the most famous passages of the Quran, in fact, depicts the dog as the faithful protector of the righteous Seven Sleepers of the Cave, who understand the truth of divine revelation correctly (Sura 18:9-26), and they are presented in a similar light elsewhere.
Muhammad is said to have originally called for a mass cull of dogs but then softened his stance, upon reflection on their beneficial aspects, limiting the death penalty only to black dogs (associated with evil) and those with “four eyes”. The four-eyed dog, as noted earlier, was among the most central to the Persian vision of the afterlife as well as the ritual of the sagdid and so, clearly, this was an effort to undermine Persian culture in order to replace it with the vision of the conquerors.
In time, Persian values would be adopted by the Muslim Arabs – entire dynasties, in fact, would be Persian – and the art, architecture, and other aspects of the culture would become associated with the Arabian Muslim belief system. This same paradigm applies to the dog only to a far lesser degree because of the Muslim religious obligation to pray five times a day and to be ritually clean in order to do so. The presence of a dog, as an unclean animal, would require one to purify one’s self before prayer.
Even so, dogs are owned by Muslims around the world in the present day and government proscriptions against dog ownership, such as those in Iran, are not as harsh as they were in the past and make allowance for keeping a guard dog, sheep/cattle dog, and hunting dog as per Muhammad’s ruling on the subject – the same types of dogs, notably, that the Persians valued themselves thousands of years ago. Still, the Iranian government periodically initiates crackdowns on walking dogs in public and dog ownership in general – largely, it seems, in an effort to prevent Iranian emulation of Western cultural values – ignoring the long cultural heritage of the Persian people as a dog’s best friend. | 3,233 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Enduring The Vietnam War
Over 9 million American military personnel served in active duty during one of the most gruesome wars ever fought, the Vietnam War. As Caputo, from A Rumor Of War by Philip Caputo, refers to the veterans on the war as they return home: “We had survived, and that was our only victory”(337). This war is considered to be the only military conflict that the United States has been involved in that they haven’t “won”. To agree with Caputo, no side ever truly wins at war. Both sides experience extreme amounts of both mental and physical harm to the soldiers that are fighting for them.
Vietnam was known for being one of the bloodiest and most gruesome wars ever experienced by American soldiers. Almost 31 percent of Vietnam veterans returning to the states have developed PTSD. This is a disease that is most often received by being put into traumatic events that has lasting mental effects on the rest of ones life. These veterans have experienced mortifying situations that ranged from killing an enemy soldier, to watching a best friend killed, to even living through being shot for oneself. Situations like these have harsh impacts on the physical body, but equally important is the strain on their mental health. Experiences like these impact these veterans for the rest of their lives and made it hard for them to return to daily life. To make life even harder for these veterans, when they returned from service, they were outcasted and shunned by society, Caputo states: “We would not return to cheering crowds”(337). Soldiers were not welcomed back from their service, to even take it a step farther, they were looked down upon and referred to as savages and killers for doing what they had been told to do: kill. These men had just risked their lives for the country and were shunned for doing so. The fact that these soldiers were resented for serving their country led many soldiers to emotionally breaking points and a large amount of suicides from many Vietnam veterans. Although most veterans did not reach these extremes, all of them suffered from emotional pain and terror as they could vividly remember the events that they had experienced in Vietnam. The most common experience that all of the veterans shared upon returning to the states was terrifying nightmares, as if they were reliving some of the situations that had scarred them in Vietnam. It is hard for most people to imagine the terrors that these people must have lived through during their time in Vietnam. The emotional pains suffered by the soldiers who fought in this war help validate Caputo’s statement that nobody ever truly wins in a war.
Not only was the Vietnam War mentally strenuous, but it also challenged every soldier physically as well. The soldiers faced many challenges similar to previous wars, such as injuries, exhausting days, and hard work, but the Vietnam war brought new elements of physical difficulty to the table. These new challenges were due to the harsh environment that they were forced to fight in. One main challenge was the heat that was very harsh and intense in this equatorial… | <urn:uuid:c0d73aff-7de9-4739-8b6f-8bd473b0734d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.majortests.com/essay/Truman-Caputo-610916.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251801423.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129164403-20200129193403-00236.warc.gz | en | 0.987811 | 627 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.342845618724823,
0.6911249756813049,
0.25443390011787415,
0.048786696046590805,
0.1854231059551239,
0.34133195877075195,
0.5347522497177124,
0.10772231221199036,
-0.10198548436164856,
-0.07432407885789871,
0.24009710550308228,
-0.10467419028282166,
0.18036913871765137,
0.237635672092437... | 1 | Enduring The Vietnam War
Over 9 million American military personnel served in active duty during one of the most gruesome wars ever fought, the Vietnam War. As Caputo, from A Rumor Of War by Philip Caputo, refers to the veterans on the war as they return home: “We had survived, and that was our only victory”(337). This war is considered to be the only military conflict that the United States has been involved in that they haven’t “won”. To agree with Caputo, no side ever truly wins at war. Both sides experience extreme amounts of both mental and physical harm to the soldiers that are fighting for them.
Vietnam was known for being one of the bloodiest and most gruesome wars ever experienced by American soldiers. Almost 31 percent of Vietnam veterans returning to the states have developed PTSD. This is a disease that is most often received by being put into traumatic events that has lasting mental effects on the rest of ones life. These veterans have experienced mortifying situations that ranged from killing an enemy soldier, to watching a best friend killed, to even living through being shot for oneself. Situations like these have harsh impacts on the physical body, but equally important is the strain on their mental health. Experiences like these impact these veterans for the rest of their lives and made it hard for them to return to daily life. To make life even harder for these veterans, when they returned from service, they were outcasted and shunned by society, Caputo states: “We would not return to cheering crowds”(337). Soldiers were not welcomed back from their service, to even take it a step farther, they were looked down upon and referred to as savages and killers for doing what they had been told to do: kill. These men had just risked their lives for the country and were shunned for doing so. The fact that these soldiers were resented for serving their country led many soldiers to emotionally breaking points and a large amount of suicides from many Vietnam veterans. Although most veterans did not reach these extremes, all of them suffered from emotional pain and terror as they could vividly remember the events that they had experienced in Vietnam. The most common experience that all of the veterans shared upon returning to the states was terrifying nightmares, as if they were reliving some of the situations that had scarred them in Vietnam. It is hard for most people to imagine the terrors that these people must have lived through during their time in Vietnam. The emotional pains suffered by the soldiers who fought in this war help validate Caputo’s statement that nobody ever truly wins in a war.
Not only was the Vietnam War mentally strenuous, but it also challenged every soldier physically as well. The soldiers faced many challenges similar to previous wars, such as injuries, exhausting days, and hard work, but the Vietnam war brought new elements of physical difficulty to the table. These new challenges were due to the harsh environment that they were forced to fight in. One main challenge was the heat that was very harsh and intense in this equatorial… | 622 | ENGLISH | 1 |
It’s always a tragedy when society loses an artistic genius in their prime, and there is perhaps no case of this phenomenon sadder than that of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. And according to new research, it seems that the loss the music world suffered when Mozart died at age 35 could have been even more devastating than we ever realized: Music historians have determined that if Mozart had lived 15 seconds longer, he might have produced up to two more nice, loud piano sounds.
What a shame. It’s devastating to think we could have heard a couple more amazing plinks and clangs from Mozart on the piano if he had held on a quarter minute longer.
Music historians at Boston College who have been studying Mozart’s life and work for decades have concluded that if the prodigious composer had lived to be just 15 seconds older, the extra time afforded to him to hone his craft might have allowed him to grace the world with a pair of great big, thunderous piano noises by banging upon the keyboard with his mighty fists.
“It can be tough to answer ‘what if’ questions in history, but we feel confident that if Mozart had succumbed to his final illness a few moments later than he did, both his musical training and his pure creative talent would have converged to give him the chance to bang out a really loud low note on the piano, and then maybe a nice tinkly high one after that,” said lead researcher Max Boyle. “If he had lived just a few more moments, there’s no limit to how noisily Mozart could have possibly slammed his hand down on his keyboard, or how booming the resulting ‘bwaaangggg’ sounds might have been. It’s possible that if Mozart had survived even seven additional seconds, he might have been able to make a piano noise that sounded something like, ‘bodooonga.’ Due to Mozart’s premature death, the world has truly missed out on a couple astonishing piano noises.”
This is completely heartbreaking! It would be any classical music lover’s dream to change history so that we could hear just two more piano sounds to round out Mozart’s storied career. This research is truly fascinating—as much incredible piano noise as Mozart produced in his time, there was still more in him, and we truly wish the world could have heard it. | <urn:uuid:b658a0d8-6555-4774-aaf9-117da2398cc0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://lifestyle.clickhole.com/fascinating-historians-have-determined-that-if-mozart-1840416404 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00403.warc.gz | en | 0.985099 | 507 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
0.052067503333091736,
0.08173126727342606,
0.29812610149383545,
-0.3691810667514801,
-0.25699055194854736,
0.24977141618728638,
0.06597908586263657,
0.014430800452828407,
0.39129576086997986,
-0.5615890622138977,
0.02945229969918728,
0.052229732275009155,
0.5571296811103821,
0.085260286927... | 5 | It’s always a tragedy when society loses an artistic genius in their prime, and there is perhaps no case of this phenomenon sadder than that of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. And according to new research, it seems that the loss the music world suffered when Mozart died at age 35 could have been even more devastating than we ever realized: Music historians have determined that if Mozart had lived 15 seconds longer, he might have produced up to two more nice, loud piano sounds.
What a shame. It’s devastating to think we could have heard a couple more amazing plinks and clangs from Mozart on the piano if he had held on a quarter minute longer.
Music historians at Boston College who have been studying Mozart’s life and work for decades have concluded that if the prodigious composer had lived to be just 15 seconds older, the extra time afforded to him to hone his craft might have allowed him to grace the world with a pair of great big, thunderous piano noises by banging upon the keyboard with his mighty fists.
“It can be tough to answer ‘what if’ questions in history, but we feel confident that if Mozart had succumbed to his final illness a few moments later than he did, both his musical training and his pure creative talent would have converged to give him the chance to bang out a really loud low note on the piano, and then maybe a nice tinkly high one after that,” said lead researcher Max Boyle. “If he had lived just a few more moments, there’s no limit to how noisily Mozart could have possibly slammed his hand down on his keyboard, or how booming the resulting ‘bwaaangggg’ sounds might have been. It’s possible that if Mozart had survived even seven additional seconds, he might have been able to make a piano noise that sounded something like, ‘bodooonga.’ Due to Mozart’s premature death, the world has truly missed out on a couple astonishing piano noises.”
This is completely heartbreaking! It would be any classical music lover’s dream to change history so that we could hear just two more piano sounds to round out Mozart’s storied career. This research is truly fascinating—as much incredible piano noise as Mozart produced in his time, there was still more in him, and we truly wish the world could have heard it. | 466 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In the latter stages of the Dakota War of 1862, Minnesotan members of the United States military were in pursuit of the native Dakota tribe, led by their chief, Little Crow. Within this conflict, there was a multitude of factors that were contributing to hostile attitudes from both sides, from American hostages to the ideas behind “Manifest Destiny”, the Battle of Wood Lake is a conflict that is far more complex than many realize.
To begin, it is important to understand the cause of the Dakota War, especially considering the fact that the forces of the Union were mostly occupied in their efforts against the Confederacy in the Civil War. The war was started due to the United States not upholding their promises from treaties that were signed with the natives in 1851. According to these treaties, the Native Dakota “ceded twenty-four million acres to the U.S. government in exchange for a reservation along the Minnesota River and a settlement of $21 million, in the form of yearly annuities”(Nathanson, 2013). However, with the introduction of the Civil War, the United States found itself unable to keep up with these annuities. Because of this, the native tribe members found themselves suffering from a lack of food due to their decreased land holdings and their lack of monetary wealth in the early 1860s.
Upset with these conditions, the Dakota came together to discuss the possibility of going to war against the United States. These heated debates were carried out between factions that were for war and those who were against using hostilities, and when the Lower Sioux rejected the propositions for war, the hostile factions proceeded anyway, with Chief “Little Crow” (Ta Oyate Duta) appointed as their leader (Lawrence, 2005). The strategy for the Dakota people was simple: drive the Americans out of Minnesota, and at the start of the war, things were looking promising after their victory in Lower Agency. Another victory was gained in their surprise attack of Birch Coulee, as Alonzo P. Connolly recalled in the aftermath of the battle, “we found ninety-five horses killed of our ninety-six; and of the 153 men, 65 were killed or so badly wounded, as to be non-effective, while only six or eight actually escaped being wounded in some way”(Connolly, 1906).
As these violent outbreaks continued, Alexander Ramsey, the governor of Minnesota, appointed Colonel Henry Sibley was appointed to lead the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Minnesota Infantry units (a combined force of 1,400). The creation of these units was done rapidly, as Amos Watson described it, after having enlisted on the 14th of August, 1862, and arriving at Fort Snelling a mere 10 days later, “on the 27th we received marching orders; and at 6 o’clock p.m. all of the Seventh Regiment then at the fort started by boat, arriving at Shakopee next morning”(Watson). Many of these soldiers had no experience in the military, and the evidence of that became more apparent as they began their march towards Birch Coulee. As Watson recalled their first night of marching, they found themselves struggling to properly pitch up their own tents. Not only were the volunteer soldiers inexperienced, but so was Sibley, who had no experience with the military; however, he and the forces under his leadership helped play a key role in reinforcing the severely wounded troops at Birch Coulee, driving the natives westward before continuing their harrowing march.
“At dawn on September 23, 1862, hundreds of Dakota warriors prepared to attack from the tall grass near Sibley’s encampment, three miles south of the Yellow Medicine Agency, known today as the Upper Sioux Community. The ambush was thwarted when several men from Sibley’s camp left in a wagon in search of potatoes”(MNHS, 2012).
This quote comes directly from a sign located outside of the present-day Wood Lake Battlefield Monument, and it speaks to the absurd truth of how this battle began. As Watson put into detail, “while the Seventh was eating breakfast, some of the Third boys started ahead with a wagon in order to forage. They went without orders… a half-mile from camp, the Indians attacked them”. The rest of the force, hearing the gunfire from the campsite, gathered their equipment and hurried to join the small group as the Indians rose out of the grass to begin their assault.
This accidental run-in with American soldiers had completely thrown the battle tactics of the Indians into disarray, as their plan had been to use surprise tactics to gain an advantage over the substantially larger Union force, but with the threat of some soldiers being run over by the approaching wagons, they had to rise and fight earlier than anticipated. With their plans foiled, inferior firepower, and the fact that they were massively outnumbered, the Battle of Wood Lake became an overwhelmingly one-sided battle in favor of the United States. So much so that the fighting lasted only two hours, with many Indian forces, including Chief Little Crow, retreating further west, deeper into Native-owned territories. Those who stayed and continued to fight faced devastating consequences, as Watson described it, they found one warrior that “had been pierced by seventeen balls, nine of which were in his body”. By the end of the fighting, Connolly found that the Native Indians had a total of 14 soldiers killed in action, while the U.S. had only 7 killed, but 34 were wounded. The number of Indians who surrendered totaled to nearly 400.
The treatment of Indian soldiers after the fighting ended at Wood Lake was very poor, the emotions of the soldiers had reached a boiling point after what had happened in Birch Coulee and Lower Agency. Alonzo Connolly mentioned that American soldiers “took great pleasure in procuring Indian scalps for trophies”. However, the poor treatment did not stop there, as when American troops were escorted by Indian troops to Hazelwood, about 10 miles away from the battle site, where it was discovered that nearly 300 Americans, mostly made up of women and children, were being held as hostages.
In the aftermath of the battle, a whole slew of events was undertaken, many of which can be thought of as massively controversial and a metaphorical shadow of this country. What is guarded as one of the greater successes of the military in the following weeks was the freeing of American hostages from what became known as Camp Release. As Amos Watson witnessed it, General Henry H. Sibley, as he had been promoted to, “went with an escort and received the white captives, about 300 women and children. I helped get dinner for them. They were a sorry looking crowd”. In their time spent at the camp, soldiers were found to be in much higher spirits, many of which “were content to throw off care for a time and entered upon a season of enjoyment… we became boys again and indulged in all sorts of games”(Connolly). By October 24th, Camp Release had been abandoned, American soldiers having moved the remaining hostages from the camp, and the next set of challenges began.
The next step was transporting the Indian prisoners to Mankato, where they were to be imprisoned and put on trial for their actions during the war. However, the problems were not with the prisoners themselves, but rather the citizens of the cities in which they had to pass through to get to Mankato. There were instances of citizens attacking the convoy of wagons as they passed by, some going as far as to try and murder the prisoners. By November 10th, they had completed the journey, and the worst was still yet to come. Throughout December, between 300-400 prisoners were tried and 303 Dakota soldiers were sentenced to hanging(MNHS, 2012). President Lincoln later reduced the sentences of many of these men, narrowing down the final number to 38 men. There in Mankato, “on the 26th day of December 1862, 38 Indians were hanged from the gallows… in front of the prison, and it was estimated that there were 4000 people on the ground”(Watson). This event became the largest mass execution in all of United States history, and afterward, they were buried in the sand along the Minnesota River. By the next morning, it was found that all of the bodies had been dug up by doctors, presumably for purposes of research.
In the years following, the westward expansion of the United States continued, but the scars of the war still remained, as well as tensions with the Native Indians. As Private John Busch described on his journey towards the Missouri River, “we arrived at Camp Wood Lake where the 3rd Regiment had a battle with the Indians 1½ years ago. The dugouts they are making there are long and stretched out. You can still see the Indian bones and skulls laying around”(Busch, 1864). Tensions between members of the Union and Indians would persist in the years after, however, these did not amount to the return of all-out war.
It would not be until 1907 when the Minnesota government would purchase the land for state use as a memorial to the battle that occurred, as it turned out, near Lone Tree Lake, about three miles East of Wood Lake. They would also take this time to fix several other errors from reports on the front lines, most of which involved the counts of manpower in different contexts, such as casualties and actual manpower involved in the conflicts.
Three years later, in 1910, the Wood Lake Battlefield Monument was erected in the modern town of Echo, Minnesota, in memory of those that fought and died in the battle of Wood Lake, with the front engraving reading “To the memory of the men who here lost their lives in an engagement between Minnesota volunteer soldiers and the Sioux Indians Sept. 23, 1862”. The project was supervised by commissioners which were appointed by the governor of Minnesota at the time, Adolph O. Eberhart.
- Busch, John. John Busch letter, June 9, 1864. Dakota Conflict of 1862 Manuscripts Collections. Minnesota Historical Society.
- Minnesota. Commission on the Wood Lake Battlefield. Report on the Battle of Wood Lake, circa 1907. Dakota Conflict of 1862 Manuscripts Collections. Minnesota Historical Society.
- Watson, Amos B. Reminiscences of the Sioux outbreak, undated. Dakota Conflict of 1862 Manuscripts Collections. Minnesota Historical Society.
- Connolly, Alonzo P, and Grand Army of the Republic. Minneapolis and the G.A.R.: With a Vivid Account of the Battle of Birch Coulee, Sept. 2 and 3, the Battle of Wood Lake, Sept. 23, the Release of the Women and Children Captives at Camp Release, Sept. 26, 1862. A.P. Connolly, 1906.
- Lawrence, Elden. History of Minnesota’s State War and the Battle of Wood Lake, September 23, 1862. 2005.
- Minnesota Historical Society, “The Wood Lake Battle” The U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, 2012
- Nathanson, Iric. “Battle of Wood Lake, September 23, 1862.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society.
- Battle of Wood Lake (Wikipedia) | <urn:uuid:60876dc6-b618-4119-bb18-1a0b5cb9603c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://ss.sites.mtu.edu/mhugl/2019/10/30/wood-lake-battlefield-monument/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681625.83/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125222506-20200126012506-00301.warc.gz | en | 0.9842 | 2,346 | 4.125 | 4 | [
-0.3175230920314789,
0.26712173223495483,
0.10487854480743408,
-0.20868387818336487,
0.17399784922599792,
-0.01310027576982975,
-0.25696679949760437,
0.14789626002311707,
-0.36090797185897827,
-0.06573818624019623,
0.18223297595977783,
-0.07243715226650238,
0.20417705178260803,
0.254886150... | 14 | In the latter stages of the Dakota War of 1862, Minnesotan members of the United States military were in pursuit of the native Dakota tribe, led by their chief, Little Crow. Within this conflict, there was a multitude of factors that were contributing to hostile attitudes from both sides, from American hostages to the ideas behind “Manifest Destiny”, the Battle of Wood Lake is a conflict that is far more complex than many realize.
To begin, it is important to understand the cause of the Dakota War, especially considering the fact that the forces of the Union were mostly occupied in their efforts against the Confederacy in the Civil War. The war was started due to the United States not upholding their promises from treaties that were signed with the natives in 1851. According to these treaties, the Native Dakota “ceded twenty-four million acres to the U.S. government in exchange for a reservation along the Minnesota River and a settlement of $21 million, in the form of yearly annuities”(Nathanson, 2013). However, with the introduction of the Civil War, the United States found itself unable to keep up with these annuities. Because of this, the native tribe members found themselves suffering from a lack of food due to their decreased land holdings and their lack of monetary wealth in the early 1860s.
Upset with these conditions, the Dakota came together to discuss the possibility of going to war against the United States. These heated debates were carried out between factions that were for war and those who were against using hostilities, and when the Lower Sioux rejected the propositions for war, the hostile factions proceeded anyway, with Chief “Little Crow” (Ta Oyate Duta) appointed as their leader (Lawrence, 2005). The strategy for the Dakota people was simple: drive the Americans out of Minnesota, and at the start of the war, things were looking promising after their victory in Lower Agency. Another victory was gained in their surprise attack of Birch Coulee, as Alonzo P. Connolly recalled in the aftermath of the battle, “we found ninety-five horses killed of our ninety-six; and of the 153 men, 65 were killed or so badly wounded, as to be non-effective, while only six or eight actually escaped being wounded in some way”(Connolly, 1906).
As these violent outbreaks continued, Alexander Ramsey, the governor of Minnesota, appointed Colonel Henry Sibley was appointed to lead the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Minnesota Infantry units (a combined force of 1,400). The creation of these units was done rapidly, as Amos Watson described it, after having enlisted on the 14th of August, 1862, and arriving at Fort Snelling a mere 10 days later, “on the 27th we received marching orders; and at 6 o’clock p.m. all of the Seventh Regiment then at the fort started by boat, arriving at Shakopee next morning”(Watson). Many of these soldiers had no experience in the military, and the evidence of that became more apparent as they began their march towards Birch Coulee. As Watson recalled their first night of marching, they found themselves struggling to properly pitch up their own tents. Not only were the volunteer soldiers inexperienced, but so was Sibley, who had no experience with the military; however, he and the forces under his leadership helped play a key role in reinforcing the severely wounded troops at Birch Coulee, driving the natives westward before continuing their harrowing march.
“At dawn on September 23, 1862, hundreds of Dakota warriors prepared to attack from the tall grass near Sibley’s encampment, three miles south of the Yellow Medicine Agency, known today as the Upper Sioux Community. The ambush was thwarted when several men from Sibley’s camp left in a wagon in search of potatoes”(MNHS, 2012).
This quote comes directly from a sign located outside of the present-day Wood Lake Battlefield Monument, and it speaks to the absurd truth of how this battle began. As Watson put into detail, “while the Seventh was eating breakfast, some of the Third boys started ahead with a wagon in order to forage. They went without orders… a half-mile from camp, the Indians attacked them”. The rest of the force, hearing the gunfire from the campsite, gathered their equipment and hurried to join the small group as the Indians rose out of the grass to begin their assault.
This accidental run-in with American soldiers had completely thrown the battle tactics of the Indians into disarray, as their plan had been to use surprise tactics to gain an advantage over the substantially larger Union force, but with the threat of some soldiers being run over by the approaching wagons, they had to rise and fight earlier than anticipated. With their plans foiled, inferior firepower, and the fact that they were massively outnumbered, the Battle of Wood Lake became an overwhelmingly one-sided battle in favor of the United States. So much so that the fighting lasted only two hours, with many Indian forces, including Chief Little Crow, retreating further west, deeper into Native-owned territories. Those who stayed and continued to fight faced devastating consequences, as Watson described it, they found one warrior that “had been pierced by seventeen balls, nine of which were in his body”. By the end of the fighting, Connolly found that the Native Indians had a total of 14 soldiers killed in action, while the U.S. had only 7 killed, but 34 were wounded. The number of Indians who surrendered totaled to nearly 400.
The treatment of Indian soldiers after the fighting ended at Wood Lake was very poor, the emotions of the soldiers had reached a boiling point after what had happened in Birch Coulee and Lower Agency. Alonzo Connolly mentioned that American soldiers “took great pleasure in procuring Indian scalps for trophies”. However, the poor treatment did not stop there, as when American troops were escorted by Indian troops to Hazelwood, about 10 miles away from the battle site, where it was discovered that nearly 300 Americans, mostly made up of women and children, were being held as hostages.
In the aftermath of the battle, a whole slew of events was undertaken, many of which can be thought of as massively controversial and a metaphorical shadow of this country. What is guarded as one of the greater successes of the military in the following weeks was the freeing of American hostages from what became known as Camp Release. As Amos Watson witnessed it, General Henry H. Sibley, as he had been promoted to, “went with an escort and received the white captives, about 300 women and children. I helped get dinner for them. They were a sorry looking crowd”. In their time spent at the camp, soldiers were found to be in much higher spirits, many of which “were content to throw off care for a time and entered upon a season of enjoyment… we became boys again and indulged in all sorts of games”(Connolly). By October 24th, Camp Release had been abandoned, American soldiers having moved the remaining hostages from the camp, and the next set of challenges began.
The next step was transporting the Indian prisoners to Mankato, where they were to be imprisoned and put on trial for their actions during the war. However, the problems were not with the prisoners themselves, but rather the citizens of the cities in which they had to pass through to get to Mankato. There were instances of citizens attacking the convoy of wagons as they passed by, some going as far as to try and murder the prisoners. By November 10th, they had completed the journey, and the worst was still yet to come. Throughout December, between 300-400 prisoners were tried and 303 Dakota soldiers were sentenced to hanging(MNHS, 2012). President Lincoln later reduced the sentences of many of these men, narrowing down the final number to 38 men. There in Mankato, “on the 26th day of December 1862, 38 Indians were hanged from the gallows… in front of the prison, and it was estimated that there were 4000 people on the ground”(Watson). This event became the largest mass execution in all of United States history, and afterward, they were buried in the sand along the Minnesota River. By the next morning, it was found that all of the bodies had been dug up by doctors, presumably for purposes of research.
In the years following, the westward expansion of the United States continued, but the scars of the war still remained, as well as tensions with the Native Indians. As Private John Busch described on his journey towards the Missouri River, “we arrived at Camp Wood Lake where the 3rd Regiment had a battle with the Indians 1½ years ago. The dugouts they are making there are long and stretched out. You can still see the Indian bones and skulls laying around”(Busch, 1864). Tensions between members of the Union and Indians would persist in the years after, however, these did not amount to the return of all-out war.
It would not be until 1907 when the Minnesota government would purchase the land for state use as a memorial to the battle that occurred, as it turned out, near Lone Tree Lake, about three miles East of Wood Lake. They would also take this time to fix several other errors from reports on the front lines, most of which involved the counts of manpower in different contexts, such as casualties and actual manpower involved in the conflicts.
Three years later, in 1910, the Wood Lake Battlefield Monument was erected in the modern town of Echo, Minnesota, in memory of those that fought and died in the battle of Wood Lake, with the front engraving reading “To the memory of the men who here lost their lives in an engagement between Minnesota volunteer soldiers and the Sioux Indians Sept. 23, 1862”. The project was supervised by commissioners which were appointed by the governor of Minnesota at the time, Adolph O. Eberhart.
- Busch, John. John Busch letter, June 9, 1864. Dakota Conflict of 1862 Manuscripts Collections. Minnesota Historical Society.
- Minnesota. Commission on the Wood Lake Battlefield. Report on the Battle of Wood Lake, circa 1907. Dakota Conflict of 1862 Manuscripts Collections. Minnesota Historical Society.
- Watson, Amos B. Reminiscences of the Sioux outbreak, undated. Dakota Conflict of 1862 Manuscripts Collections. Minnesota Historical Society.
- Connolly, Alonzo P, and Grand Army of the Republic. Minneapolis and the G.A.R.: With a Vivid Account of the Battle of Birch Coulee, Sept. 2 and 3, the Battle of Wood Lake, Sept. 23, the Release of the Women and Children Captives at Camp Release, Sept. 26, 1862. A.P. Connolly, 1906.
- Lawrence, Elden. History of Minnesota’s State War and the Battle of Wood Lake, September 23, 1862. 2005.
- Minnesota Historical Society, “The Wood Lake Battle” The U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, 2012
- Nathanson, Iric. “Battle of Wood Lake, September 23, 1862.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society.
- Battle of Wood Lake (Wikipedia) | 2,453 | ENGLISH | 1 |
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), whose feast is celebrated March 18th, was bishop of Jerusalem. In his day the Holy Land was a center for Christian pilgrims and scholars, like Jerome and Paula, who came to pray and study at the places where Jesus was born and died and rose again. His church influenced the liturgical, catechetical and devotional life in churches throughout the world. The Stations of the Cross originated here, for example. He’s honored as a Doctor of the Church.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, built by the Emperor Constantine over the tomb of Jesus and calvary where he died, still stands today. It was the principal place Cyril preached and celebrated the liturgy
Here’s an excerpt from one of his catechetical sermons, which he preached in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, near the places where the relic of the cross and the tomb of Jesus were honored.
“The Catholic Church glories in every deed of Christ. Her supreme glory, however, is the cross. Well aware of this, Paul says: God forbid that I glory in anything but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ!
“At Siloam, there was a sense of wonder, and rightly so: a man born blind recovered his sight. But of what importance is this, when there are so many blind people in the world? Lazarus rose from the dead, but even this affected only Lazarus: what of those countless numbers who have died because of their sins? Those miraculous loaves fed five thousand people; yet this is a small number compared to those all over the world who were starved by ignorance. After eighteen years a woman was freed from the bondage of Satan; but are we not all shackled by the chains of our own sins?
“For us all, however, the cross is the crown of victory. It has brought light to those blinded by ignorance. It has released those enslaved by sin. Indeed, it has redeemed the whole of mankind!”
The relic of the cross honored by Cyril in this church was not just a grim reminder of the suffering of Jesus; it was bathed in the glorious memory of Jesus’ resurrection celebrated close by in his empty tomb. | <urn:uuid:718ea1f9-28e2-4094-8afb-dfc9f309fd35> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://vhoagland.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/the-power-of-the-cross/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00299.warc.gz | en | 0.982788 | 469 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.08540429919958115,
0.5693380832672119,
-0.07857974618673325,
-0.11043772101402283,
-0.02856442518532276,
-0.07478953152894974,
0.188085675239563,
0.18679387867450714,
0.35571053624153137,
0.1522245556116104,
-0.31064751744270325,
-0.06850015372037888,
0.2213922142982483,
0.0714958384633... | 2 | St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), whose feast is celebrated March 18th, was bishop of Jerusalem. In his day the Holy Land was a center for Christian pilgrims and scholars, like Jerome and Paula, who came to pray and study at the places where Jesus was born and died and rose again. His church influenced the liturgical, catechetical and devotional life in churches throughout the world. The Stations of the Cross originated here, for example. He’s honored as a Doctor of the Church.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, built by the Emperor Constantine over the tomb of Jesus and calvary where he died, still stands today. It was the principal place Cyril preached and celebrated the liturgy
Here’s an excerpt from one of his catechetical sermons, which he preached in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, near the places where the relic of the cross and the tomb of Jesus were honored.
“The Catholic Church glories in every deed of Christ. Her supreme glory, however, is the cross. Well aware of this, Paul says: God forbid that I glory in anything but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ!
“At Siloam, there was a sense of wonder, and rightly so: a man born blind recovered his sight. But of what importance is this, when there are so many blind people in the world? Lazarus rose from the dead, but even this affected only Lazarus: what of those countless numbers who have died because of their sins? Those miraculous loaves fed five thousand people; yet this is a small number compared to those all over the world who were starved by ignorance. After eighteen years a woman was freed from the bondage of Satan; but are we not all shackled by the chains of our own sins?
“For us all, however, the cross is the crown of victory. It has brought light to those blinded by ignorance. It has released those enslaved by sin. Indeed, it has redeemed the whole of mankind!”
The relic of the cross honored by Cyril in this church was not just a grim reminder of the suffering of Jesus; it was bathed in the glorious memory of Jesus’ resurrection celebrated close by in his empty tomb. | 456 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The First Liberian Civil War (1989-1997)
The First Liberian Civil War was fought along ethno-religious lines. Samuel Doe, a sergeant in the Liberian army, had led a coup that overthrew the government of President William R. Tolbert. Doe became the first indigenous head of state of Liberia. Accused of corruption and favouritism towards his native Krahn ethnic group, President Doe’s highhandedness against the Gio and Mano tribes led to widespread resentment against his regime. Bands of guerrilla fighters from the oppressed ethnic groups soon took up arms against his regime and civil war broke out.
More about this
At the end of the extremely vicious hostilities in the first Liberian civil war, an estimated 600,000 people had lost their lives with several hundreds of thousands more dispersed all over West Africa as refugees. | <urn:uuid:530e5062-6cdb-4178-b8b5-9188804dac07> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://face2faceafrica.com/article/6-deadliest-conflicts-africa/3 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00130.warc.gz | en | 0.981035 | 174 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
-0.17090214788913727,
0.31480860710144043,
0.42143645882606506,
0.14327342808246613,
0.14043675363063812,
0.12492474913597107,
-0.11039242148399353,
0.06311801075935364,
-0.2672445774078369,
0.36888304352760315,
0.0073406328447163105,
-0.16348502039909363,
-0.16923397779464722,
0.285093873... | 3 | The First Liberian Civil War (1989-1997)
The First Liberian Civil War was fought along ethno-religious lines. Samuel Doe, a sergeant in the Liberian army, had led a coup that overthrew the government of President William R. Tolbert. Doe became the first indigenous head of state of Liberia. Accused of corruption and favouritism towards his native Krahn ethnic group, President Doe’s highhandedness against the Gio and Mano tribes led to widespread resentment against his regime. Bands of guerrilla fighters from the oppressed ethnic groups soon took up arms against his regime and civil war broke out.
More about this
At the end of the extremely vicious hostilities in the first Liberian civil war, an estimated 600,000 people had lost their lives with several hundreds of thousands more dispersed all over West Africa as refugees. | 183 | ENGLISH | 1 |
How does Shakespeare present the development of Juliet's character for Act 1, Scene 3, to Act 3, Scene 5 in Romeo and Juliet?
Even in the very first scene in which we meet Juliet, Act 1, Scene 3, she shows a bit of a rebellious streak. It is evident that, as expected by society, she wants to please her parents, but she is also a budding woman who is learning her own mind and places more value on her own desires than anything her parents wish. Therefore, it is not really any surprise when we see Juliet rebelling against her parents in Act 3, Scene 5, after she has married Romeo. The main difference we see is that in Act 3, she is a bit more forceful about her opinion. It seems that the combination of defying her parents through her secret marriage and the tribulations she has undergone over the past 24 hours have matured her into a woman who can find her own voice. Not only that, desperation to prevent sin and remain faithful to her husband also drive her to find her own voice.
Juliet's rebellious streak is especially evident in Act 3, Scene 1 when Lady Capulet tries to persuade Juliet to consider marrying Paris . When Lady Capulet asks her, "[C]an you like of Paris' love?," Juliet's only reply is that she'll "look to like, if looking liking move," meaning that, as her mother suggests, she'll take note of Paris at the ball to see what she thinks of him (I.iii.100-01). However, hidden rebellion can be seen in her next two lines: "But no more deep will I endart mine eye / Than your consent gives strength to make it fly," meaning that since Lady Capulet is only telling her to see if she can like him, whether or not...
(The entire section contains 549 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | <urn:uuid:4bf1ef08-f6be-48e9-8383-4db17da13e1c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-does-shakespeare-present-development-juliets-421594?en_action=hh-question_click&en_label=hh-sidebar&en_category=internal_campaign | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00273.warc.gz | en | 0.982632 | 386 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.2927321493625641,
-0.5837680697441101,
0.5037978291511536,
-0.08088912814855576,
-0.6368377208709717,
0.2710045874118805,
0.35886073112487793,
0.10990287363529205,
0.07655902951955795,
0.037793710827827454,
0.27642643451690674,
-0.3170807957649231,
-0.10645933449268341,
0.05895525589585... | 1 | How does Shakespeare present the development of Juliet's character for Act 1, Scene 3, to Act 3, Scene 5 in Romeo and Juliet?
Even in the very first scene in which we meet Juliet, Act 1, Scene 3, she shows a bit of a rebellious streak. It is evident that, as expected by society, she wants to please her parents, but she is also a budding woman who is learning her own mind and places more value on her own desires than anything her parents wish. Therefore, it is not really any surprise when we see Juliet rebelling against her parents in Act 3, Scene 5, after she has married Romeo. The main difference we see is that in Act 3, she is a bit more forceful about her opinion. It seems that the combination of defying her parents through her secret marriage and the tribulations she has undergone over the past 24 hours have matured her into a woman who can find her own voice. Not only that, desperation to prevent sin and remain faithful to her husband also drive her to find her own voice.
Juliet's rebellious streak is especially evident in Act 3, Scene 1 when Lady Capulet tries to persuade Juliet to consider marrying Paris . When Lady Capulet asks her, "[C]an you like of Paris' love?," Juliet's only reply is that she'll "look to like, if looking liking move," meaning that, as her mother suggests, she'll take note of Paris at the ball to see what she thinks of him (I.iii.100-01). However, hidden rebellion can be seen in her next two lines: "But no more deep will I endart mine eye / Than your consent gives strength to make it fly," meaning that since Lady Capulet is only telling her to see if she can like him, whether or not...
(The entire section contains 549 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | 402 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Civil wars in America marked as a very crucial time in the history of the nation. Civil wars left behind wounds in America that took many years to heal. Even though, America as a nation has come from far, the ideological mindset that existed during the civil war is still manifesting itself in the form of covert and overt racism.
The civil wars in America ended around 1865. During this period, there were two main turning points, which were Industrialization and Reconstruction. Physical rebuilding in the Southern region began fast and proceeded rapidly. The political, as well as the social organization also advanced quickly during this period between the years 1865 and 1990 (Fisher, 2008). Proper political organization was vital in ensuring that all the rebel states were integrated into a nation and also it was necessary to develop an effective social organization system in ensuring that all the four million slaves that were released could be integrated in the society.
Buy America’s Post-Civil War Growing Pains essay paper online
Differences like the ones that were being experienced during the civil war can affect the political environment where voters are divided causing conflict among themselves. This paper looks into the Reconstruction and Civil War as an Era that was a crucial turning point in the history of America since it had effects that were long lasting to the social, economic and political systems in America (Fisher, 2008).
War had destroyed most of the infrastructure in the South including factories, bridges, railway transport and the entire infrastructure. Rebuilding began after 1865, yet rebuilding the Southern society proved to be a challenge since the states that were rebels, at the same period the freed black slaves were required to be integrated into the Southern society. This led President Abraham Lincoln to the Ten Percent Plan. This plan was aimed at helping the released black slaves to be integrated into the Southern Society. The plan was to allow the Southern State to form its own government if only it supported the emancipation of the black slaves (Springer, 2010).
The plan also aimed at abolishing slavery and allowed states back into reunion with all the full privileges (Fisher, 2008). President Lincoln together with the other Republican leaders such as Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Summer felt that the emancipation was a way of guaranteeing political and civil rights of freed men and promote equality among all the citizens. These attempts by President Abraham Lincoln were aimed at draining the confederacy and also shortening the civil wars.
Civil wars were fought between the North Union Sates and the South Slave States. The South State that was dominated by the slaves declared secession from the United States and formed the confederate States of America. It led to a bloody war since the North and the South were both on separate paths. The war lasted for four years. The South was a plantation and followed agriculture economy, whose population growth rate was slow. Since the invention of the cotton gin, cotton farming had proved to be one of the most profitable ventures in the South. With the increase in the number of plantations, there was a need for more labor and this called for more slaves. On the other hand, the North had a large population, developed infrastructure and many urban areas. North America was industrialized and many large factories that were set were run by machines (Fisher, 2008).
Civil wars in America came to be known as the war between States, which were based on the conflicts that existed between the Confederacy and the Union. Before the war, the Union had advantages over the Confederacy, because it had a large population that was about 22 million of which 3,5 million were slaves (Logue & Barton, 2007). This was advantageous to the Union, because they had a high probability of winning the war. The North also had many factories and companies compared to the South, and this meant greater production. Most of firearms and rail equipment’s were produced by the North hence the Confederacy was weaker compared to the Union. Efficient railroad network in the North eased the movement of troops and their materials as compared to the South.
The federal government was equal in that, moreover, it had many Free State representatives who were represented equally like the slave state representatives. The situation changed when California was allowed to become a free state by the South. This affected the balance in the federal government since slavery was the driving force and also the backbone of the economy of the Southern States. With the abolishing of slavery, the Southern States would not be able to function properly, and this led to bloody war (Logue & Barton, 2007).
The African Americans were engaged in the war, and they embraced the idea hoping that they would be free to live anywhere within the United States. Slaves both in the North and the South supported their sides with an aim of earning their freedom. Many of the slaves, who were in the North escaped, while those in the Southern and continued offering their services to the South.
President Lincoln wanted reconstruction to help the freed slaves in purchasing land, voting rights and education. This was never the case, because the president was assassinated in 1865. If the president was not assassinated, it would have been remarkably different to the slaves since the needed change would have been attained (Springer, 2010). If not for the reconstruction that took place during that era, there would not have been the main achievements that were experienced, including, the law on civil rights and the abolition of slavery. On the other hand, Industrialization helped to mold the United States into a world power.
After the civil wars, many changes happened in the American society where there was experienced rapid urbanization and expansion of industries. The cities in America grew not only in population numbers but also in terms of skyscrapers and new means of transport. Many people immigrated to the urban centers in the United States. By the 19th century, there was already a new American culture that had developed from a mix of various religious and ethnic groups. Between the years 1880 and 1922, there were constant conflicts between the management and the laborers in the United States (Logue & Barton, 2007).
Those working in the mining and steel factories faced economic uncertainties, physical danger and were forced to bear with the exploitative work conditions at their workplaces. The families of those who worked in factories as well as in the mines were always in debt; since, they found it hard to clear debts and they were constantly evacuated from homes that were owned by the companies. As a result, the workers were organized to fight against the long working hours, poor pay and dangerous working conditions that the companies were subjecting the workers.
The end of reconstruction was marked with the incorporation of the ex-slaves into the republic where they were granted all the rights as well as privileges of a citizen of the United States. With the reunification of the North and the South, the four million freed slaves were incorporated in the American society. There was experienced rapid immigration, urbanization and industrialization (Springer, 2010).
Most popular orders | <urn:uuid:a89080ba-f3a5-40cc-b05f-87ac97a49922> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://exclusivepapers.com/essays/informative/america-s-post-civil-war-growing-pains.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00379.warc.gz | en | 0.988256 | 1,400 | 4.03125 | 4 | [
-0.32189658284187317,
0.18413425981998444,
0.21950680017471313,
0.1740853190422058,
-0.08698926866054535,
0.2761971652507782,
-0.2864743769168854,
-0.09526598453521729,
-0.3053846061229706,
0.0958147644996643,
0.09497638046741486,
0.19454911351203918,
-0.01566830277442932,
0.59530293941497... | 1 | Civil wars in America marked as a very crucial time in the history of the nation. Civil wars left behind wounds in America that took many years to heal. Even though, America as a nation has come from far, the ideological mindset that existed during the civil war is still manifesting itself in the form of covert and overt racism.
The civil wars in America ended around 1865. During this period, there were two main turning points, which were Industrialization and Reconstruction. Physical rebuilding in the Southern region began fast and proceeded rapidly. The political, as well as the social organization also advanced quickly during this period between the years 1865 and 1990 (Fisher, 2008). Proper political organization was vital in ensuring that all the rebel states were integrated into a nation and also it was necessary to develop an effective social organization system in ensuring that all the four million slaves that were released could be integrated in the society.
Buy America’s Post-Civil War Growing Pains essay paper online
Differences like the ones that were being experienced during the civil war can affect the political environment where voters are divided causing conflict among themselves. This paper looks into the Reconstruction and Civil War as an Era that was a crucial turning point in the history of America since it had effects that were long lasting to the social, economic and political systems in America (Fisher, 2008).
War had destroyed most of the infrastructure in the South including factories, bridges, railway transport and the entire infrastructure. Rebuilding began after 1865, yet rebuilding the Southern society proved to be a challenge since the states that were rebels, at the same period the freed black slaves were required to be integrated into the Southern society. This led President Abraham Lincoln to the Ten Percent Plan. This plan was aimed at helping the released black slaves to be integrated into the Southern Society. The plan was to allow the Southern State to form its own government if only it supported the emancipation of the black slaves (Springer, 2010).
The plan also aimed at abolishing slavery and allowed states back into reunion with all the full privileges (Fisher, 2008). President Lincoln together with the other Republican leaders such as Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Summer felt that the emancipation was a way of guaranteeing political and civil rights of freed men and promote equality among all the citizens. These attempts by President Abraham Lincoln were aimed at draining the confederacy and also shortening the civil wars.
Civil wars were fought between the North Union Sates and the South Slave States. The South State that was dominated by the slaves declared secession from the United States and formed the confederate States of America. It led to a bloody war since the North and the South were both on separate paths. The war lasted for four years. The South was a plantation and followed agriculture economy, whose population growth rate was slow. Since the invention of the cotton gin, cotton farming had proved to be one of the most profitable ventures in the South. With the increase in the number of plantations, there was a need for more labor and this called for more slaves. On the other hand, the North had a large population, developed infrastructure and many urban areas. North America was industrialized and many large factories that were set were run by machines (Fisher, 2008).
Civil wars in America came to be known as the war between States, which were based on the conflicts that existed between the Confederacy and the Union. Before the war, the Union had advantages over the Confederacy, because it had a large population that was about 22 million of which 3,5 million were slaves (Logue & Barton, 2007). This was advantageous to the Union, because they had a high probability of winning the war. The North also had many factories and companies compared to the South, and this meant greater production. Most of firearms and rail equipment’s were produced by the North hence the Confederacy was weaker compared to the Union. Efficient railroad network in the North eased the movement of troops and their materials as compared to the South.
The federal government was equal in that, moreover, it had many Free State representatives who were represented equally like the slave state representatives. The situation changed when California was allowed to become a free state by the South. This affected the balance in the federal government since slavery was the driving force and also the backbone of the economy of the Southern States. With the abolishing of slavery, the Southern States would not be able to function properly, and this led to bloody war (Logue & Barton, 2007).
The African Americans were engaged in the war, and they embraced the idea hoping that they would be free to live anywhere within the United States. Slaves both in the North and the South supported their sides with an aim of earning their freedom. Many of the slaves, who were in the North escaped, while those in the Southern and continued offering their services to the South.
President Lincoln wanted reconstruction to help the freed slaves in purchasing land, voting rights and education. This was never the case, because the president was assassinated in 1865. If the president was not assassinated, it would have been remarkably different to the slaves since the needed change would have been attained (Springer, 2010). If not for the reconstruction that took place during that era, there would not have been the main achievements that were experienced, including, the law on civil rights and the abolition of slavery. On the other hand, Industrialization helped to mold the United States into a world power.
After the civil wars, many changes happened in the American society where there was experienced rapid urbanization and expansion of industries. The cities in America grew not only in population numbers but also in terms of skyscrapers and new means of transport. Many people immigrated to the urban centers in the United States. By the 19th century, there was already a new American culture that had developed from a mix of various religious and ethnic groups. Between the years 1880 and 1922, there were constant conflicts between the management and the laborers in the United States (Logue & Barton, 2007).
Those working in the mining and steel factories faced economic uncertainties, physical danger and were forced to bear with the exploitative work conditions at their workplaces. The families of those who worked in factories as well as in the mines were always in debt; since, they found it hard to clear debts and they were constantly evacuated from homes that were owned by the companies. As a result, the workers were organized to fight against the long working hours, poor pay and dangerous working conditions that the companies were subjecting the workers.
The end of reconstruction was marked with the incorporation of the ex-slaves into the republic where they were granted all the rights as well as privileges of a citizen of the United States. With the reunification of the North and the South, the four million freed slaves were incorporated in the American society. There was experienced rapid immigration, urbanization and industrialization (Springer, 2010).
Most popular orders | 1,467 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Abraham Lincoln was President and therefore Commander-in-Chief of Federal (Union) forces during the American Civil War. Lincoln was a Republican who put reconciliation with the South (Confederacy) at the top of his agenda as the war drew to a close. Many other Republicans were not as sympathetic to the South but Lincoln knew that if America was to progress and move on from the American Civil War once it had finished, reconciliation was the way ahead. What Abraham Lincoln would have achieved in the immediate years after April 1865 is open to speculation. However, John Wilkes Booth ended Lincoln’s life at the Ford’s Theatre in Washington DC and many ‘Northerners’ were unwilling to be as compassionate to the South post-1865 as Lincoln was.
Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12th 1809 in Hodgenville, Hardin County, Kentucky. His parents were poor and lived on the frontier lands. Lincoln moved to Indiana when he was eight and his mother died when he was ten. Lincoln had little choice as a child but to learn how to hunt as wherever he lived the lands were full of wild animals. By 1830, Lincoln lived in Illinois.
Despite this background – working on farms, splitting wood for a living, working in a store etc – Lincoln taught himself to read and write and became fascinated by Law and Politics. He was sympathetic to the views of the Whig Party and in 1834 Lincoln was elected to the Illinois State Legislature. Despite the work involved, Lincoln maintained his interest in Law as a subject and in 1836 passed his bar examinations. He then became a lawyer. The amount of work he did as a lawyer was restricted to the size of the population where he lived – New Salem. Lincoln therefore decided to move to the state capital, Springfield.
In 1842, Lincoln married Mary Todd and two years later he went into partnership with William Herndon. Both men got on well together and in later years Herndon claimed that it was his views on slavery that helped to shape the future President’s views, as it was a topic they discussed.
Between 1844 and 1850, Lincoln worked to build up his law firm. In 1850 he was appointed attorney to the Illinois Central Railroad. Lincoln quickly gained a reputation as a driven man who rarely stopped work.
In the Illinois State Legislature Lincoln spoke out against slavery but also made it clear that he believed that the South had the right to use slaves as it was part of their current system. Lincoln was also critical of the activities of the American Anti-Slavery Society.
In 1856 Lincoln joined the newly formed Republican Party. He challenged the incumbent Senator for Illinois, Stephen Douglas, for a place in the Senate. Both men clashed over the Louisiana Purchase. Douglas believed that anyone who moved to the states covered by the Purchase had the right to own slaves. Lincoln believed differently and believed that land covered by the Purchase should be slave free.
In 1858, Lincoln made it clear in a speech he made in Quincy, Illinois, what he thought about slavery:
“The Republican Party think it (slavery) wrong – we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. We will deal with it as with any other wrong…..and so deal with it that in the end of time there may be some promise of an end to it.”
The speech angered Southern slave owners. Their anger became much greater in 1860 when Lincoln was nominated as the Republican Party’s Presidential candidate in the forthcoming national election. In that election, Lincoln polled 1.8 million votes and won the election as he won more states than his nearest opponent.
However, a much larger number of people did not vote for Lincoln – a total of 2.8 million – in a sign that many in the US did not agree with his views but that the voting system was swayed in his favour via the Electoral College system.
What the election did show was the America was divided down the lines of slavery. All those states that voted for Lincoln were slave free states. All those that voted for one of his opponents (there were three in total) were slave states.
Lincoln won 18 states while his opponents won 17. Perhaps more ominously, the official Democrat candidate (Stephen Douglas) won just one state while the Deep South’s candidate (John Beckenridge) won thirteen. John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party won the other three. The Deep South had not accepted the nomination of Douglas to be the Democrats choice as he was seen as being too liberal and too influenced by the North. Beckenridge was their choice – a hard-line pro-slavery man.
Lincoln selected his Cabinet with care as he wanted it to be as fully represented of all views as was possible. However, it did not include anyone who was an advocate of slavery. There were those who believed things should be left as they were and that slavery could remain where it was an integral part of the state economy. However, none of them believed in expanding slavery across the continent as the frontier moved further west.
Lincoln very quickly faced a very serious problem that threatened to break up the Union. Seven states, starting with South Carolina, seceded from the Union. These were states that believed that their very way of life was going to be altered by a Federal government that existed in Washington DC but had no knowledge about the way of life in the South. The seven states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and Florida) formed the Confederate States of America. At its head was President Jefferson Davis and he was given the go-ahead to create a Confederate Army that totalled 100,000. Davis believed that all Federal property in the Confederacy now belonged to it and this included all Federal forts.
On April 12th 1861, the Confederate government ordered the surrender of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbour. The commander there, Major Robert Anderson, refused and his fort was bombarded for 34 hours before he surrendered.
Lincoln saw this as a direct declaration of war. He called on all states loyal to the Union to provide men for the Federal Army. Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee refused and joined the Confederacy. Kentucky and Missouri refused to provide men but did not want to take sides.
Lincoln believed that one way to defeat the South was to strangle her economy. He therefore authorised the Anaconda Plan, which sort to blockade all Southern ports so that overseas trade was impossible. However, there were far too few ships in the Federal Navy to adequately cover the 3,000 miles of coastline. Blockade running was common and also highly lucrative for the crews involved.
Lincoln also persuaded the aged General Winfield Scott to retire as commander of the Federal (Union) Army. At 75 years, Scott was considered to be too old to be able to have the required energy to command the whole Union Army. General Irwin McDowell replaced him. He was urged by Lincoln to confront the Confederate Army near its new capital, Richmond. This resulted in both sides clashing at Bull Run (July 1861) and the defeat of the Union Army. It was a major blow to Lincoln and a huge boost to Jefferson Davis.
In November 1861, General George McClellan replaced McDowell. He wanted a major assault on Richmond, as he believed that if the Confederate capital fell, the whole secessionist movement would collapse. Lincoln enthusiastically endorsed McClellan’s plan. McClellan gathered an army of over 250,000 men for the attack on Richmond. Then nothing happened.
Lincoln was angered by McClellan’s reluctance to engage the enemy. Lincoln fought campaigns as a politician in Washington and not as a commander in the field. McClellan knew that if he lost a major battle, then the road to Washington would be open to Confederate forces. He was not willing to risk the Union’s capital until the circumstances suited him. McClellan’s intelligence also informed him (incorrectly as it happened) that the Confederate Army around Richmond was much larger than originally thought.
In January 1862, Lincoln summoned McClellan to Washington so that he could explain his lack of action. McClellan told those assembled that he needed to ensure that his withdrawal routes were adequate before he engaged the enemy. Some at the meeting accused McClellan of cowardice and Lincoln decided that he would use his position as Commander-in-Chief to force McClellan to act. He issued General War Order Number One on January 31st. This ordered McClellan to start an attack before February 22nd. He also made it clear that he did not approve of the way Richmond was going to be attacked. Lincoln only withdrew this reservation when the majority of senior commanders under McClellan offered their support to him and told Lincoln that what McClellan planned was the best way ahead. However, Lincoln did insist that McClellan left behind 30,000 troops for the defence of the capital and he removed him from overall command of the Union armies.
While Lincoln as President had the right to do these things, his judgment has to be questioned if only that it was he that appointed McClellan, despite his comparative youth at 35, to command the Union army and now Lincoln was very publicly undermining the man he appointed and attempting to interfere in tactical and strategic decisions. This was a theme that was to run throughout the war. Lincoln, correctly, believed that his generals were subordinate to him. However, his belief that military campaigns could only be won by constantly pushing forward and engaging the enemy, did not take into account what was actually going on in the field. Sherman, during his march through the South, was frequently hindered by appalling weather that was not conducive to an offensive campaign – yet his instructions from Lincoln was to advance on the enemy regardless. Lincoln seemed to have little idea as to how the individual in the field was affected – the lack of food, clothing, tents etc. Nor the sheer physical drain of marching. When Sherman tried to tempt his opposite, Johnston, to surrender in 1865 by offering peace terms that included how the South would be run after the war, Lincoln was furious. He could not tolerate a general interring in political issues but was quite willing to interfere in military ones – as McClellan, Sherman and Grant found out.
There was a great deal of sympathy in Washington for Lincoln in his dealings with McClellan. To many, McClellan did not seem to want to engage the South. On one occasion Lincoln said to McClellan: “If you do not want to use the army, I’d like to borrow it for a little while.” On November 7th 1862, Lincoln dismissed McClellan and replaced him with General Ambrose Burnside. He, in turn, was replaced by General JosephHooker after the Union defeat at Fredericksburg. Lincoln seemed to have a positive relationship with his generals when they were advancing and the enemy seemed to be retreating. However, while he applauded the victory at Gettysburg, Lincoln was also very conscious that the casualties at this battle were horrific. Months later when Lincoln attended the official opening of the Gettysburg Memorial, he gave what was to become one of the greatest speeches in History. However, at the time his ‘Gettysburg Address’ was actually heard by few people and Lincoln himself considered that it had been secondary to other speeches given there. It was only when it was printed in newspapers in the following days that people came to realise its qualities.
Lincoln’s belief in reconciliation also led him to reject the Wade-Davis Bill – passed by Congress in 1864; Lincoln refused to sign it into law.
However when it became obvious that the South was going to lose the war, Lincoln was heavily criticised in many areas for failing to push for a negotiated peace. He wanted unconditional surrender by the South and nothing less.
For the 1864 election campaign Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson as his running mate. He was opposed by General George McClellan – the man sacked by Lincoln for his ineffectual leadership of the Army of the Potomac. On the back of numerous victories by Grant and Sherman, the outcome of the election was rarely in doubt and Lincoln won a comfortable victory. Lincoln polled 2.2 million votes to McClellan’s 1.8 million.
On April 4th 1865 Lincoln visited Richmond – just days after it had fallen to Union troops. On April 14th, Lincoln said in Cabinet; “There are many in Congress who possess feelings of hate and vindictiveness in which I do not sympathise and cannot participate.”
On the night of April 14th Lincoln went to the Ford’s Theatre in Washington to watch ‘Our American Cousin’. Sometime during the third act Lincoln’s assigned bodyguard, John Parker, left his seat outside of the box Lincoln and his family were using to get a drink. During this lapse in security, John Wilkes Booth shot the President in the back of his head. Booth fled the theatre and was later shot by Federal troops. Lincoln was taken to a house opposite the theatre and died early on April 15th 1865.
- George McClellan, a senior Union general during the American Civil War, was the son of a surgeon, was born in Philadelphia on 3rd December, 1826.…
- October 1862 saw Robert E Lee move his army away from Washington and for the time being the capital was safe. At the end of October…
- July 1862 saw the end of the 'Seven Days Battle'. This battle saw Lee save Richmond and push back McClellan. But like so many other… | <urn:uuid:e745adb7-4167-4cc1-a10a-a283ef9d834c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/the-american-civil-war/abraham-lincoln/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597458.22/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120052454-20200120080454-00328.warc.gz | en | 0.990253 | 2,822 | 3.921875 | 4 | [
-0.23790669441223145,
0.33121228218078613,
0.2619776129722595,
0.08814316987991333,
-0.4754527509212494,
0.22554004192352295,
0.26585152745246887,
-0.08372749388217926,
-0.4644429683685303,
-0.12934786081314087,
-0.007122717797756195,
0.03919079527258873,
-0.2727123498916626,
0.65169906616... | 9 | Abraham Lincoln was President and therefore Commander-in-Chief of Federal (Union) forces during the American Civil War. Lincoln was a Republican who put reconciliation with the South (Confederacy) at the top of his agenda as the war drew to a close. Many other Republicans were not as sympathetic to the South but Lincoln knew that if America was to progress and move on from the American Civil War once it had finished, reconciliation was the way ahead. What Abraham Lincoln would have achieved in the immediate years after April 1865 is open to speculation. However, John Wilkes Booth ended Lincoln’s life at the Ford’s Theatre in Washington DC and many ‘Northerners’ were unwilling to be as compassionate to the South post-1865 as Lincoln was.
Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12th 1809 in Hodgenville, Hardin County, Kentucky. His parents were poor and lived on the frontier lands. Lincoln moved to Indiana when he was eight and his mother died when he was ten. Lincoln had little choice as a child but to learn how to hunt as wherever he lived the lands were full of wild animals. By 1830, Lincoln lived in Illinois.
Despite this background – working on farms, splitting wood for a living, working in a store etc – Lincoln taught himself to read and write and became fascinated by Law and Politics. He was sympathetic to the views of the Whig Party and in 1834 Lincoln was elected to the Illinois State Legislature. Despite the work involved, Lincoln maintained his interest in Law as a subject and in 1836 passed his bar examinations. He then became a lawyer. The amount of work he did as a lawyer was restricted to the size of the population where he lived – New Salem. Lincoln therefore decided to move to the state capital, Springfield.
In 1842, Lincoln married Mary Todd and two years later he went into partnership with William Herndon. Both men got on well together and in later years Herndon claimed that it was his views on slavery that helped to shape the future President’s views, as it was a topic they discussed.
Between 1844 and 1850, Lincoln worked to build up his law firm. In 1850 he was appointed attorney to the Illinois Central Railroad. Lincoln quickly gained a reputation as a driven man who rarely stopped work.
In the Illinois State Legislature Lincoln spoke out against slavery but also made it clear that he believed that the South had the right to use slaves as it was part of their current system. Lincoln was also critical of the activities of the American Anti-Slavery Society.
In 1856 Lincoln joined the newly formed Republican Party. He challenged the incumbent Senator for Illinois, Stephen Douglas, for a place in the Senate. Both men clashed over the Louisiana Purchase. Douglas believed that anyone who moved to the states covered by the Purchase had the right to own slaves. Lincoln believed differently and believed that land covered by the Purchase should be slave free.
In 1858, Lincoln made it clear in a speech he made in Quincy, Illinois, what he thought about slavery:
“The Republican Party think it (slavery) wrong – we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. We will deal with it as with any other wrong…..and so deal with it that in the end of time there may be some promise of an end to it.”
The speech angered Southern slave owners. Their anger became much greater in 1860 when Lincoln was nominated as the Republican Party’s Presidential candidate in the forthcoming national election. In that election, Lincoln polled 1.8 million votes and won the election as he won more states than his nearest opponent.
However, a much larger number of people did not vote for Lincoln – a total of 2.8 million – in a sign that many in the US did not agree with his views but that the voting system was swayed in his favour via the Electoral College system.
What the election did show was the America was divided down the lines of slavery. All those states that voted for Lincoln were slave free states. All those that voted for one of his opponents (there were three in total) were slave states.
Lincoln won 18 states while his opponents won 17. Perhaps more ominously, the official Democrat candidate (Stephen Douglas) won just one state while the Deep South’s candidate (John Beckenridge) won thirteen. John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party won the other three. The Deep South had not accepted the nomination of Douglas to be the Democrats choice as he was seen as being too liberal and too influenced by the North. Beckenridge was their choice – a hard-line pro-slavery man.
Lincoln selected his Cabinet with care as he wanted it to be as fully represented of all views as was possible. However, it did not include anyone who was an advocate of slavery. There were those who believed things should be left as they were and that slavery could remain where it was an integral part of the state economy. However, none of them believed in expanding slavery across the continent as the frontier moved further west.
Lincoln very quickly faced a very serious problem that threatened to break up the Union. Seven states, starting with South Carolina, seceded from the Union. These were states that believed that their very way of life was going to be altered by a Federal government that existed in Washington DC but had no knowledge about the way of life in the South. The seven states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and Florida) formed the Confederate States of America. At its head was President Jefferson Davis and he was given the go-ahead to create a Confederate Army that totalled 100,000. Davis believed that all Federal property in the Confederacy now belonged to it and this included all Federal forts.
On April 12th 1861, the Confederate government ordered the surrender of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbour. The commander there, Major Robert Anderson, refused and his fort was bombarded for 34 hours before he surrendered.
Lincoln saw this as a direct declaration of war. He called on all states loyal to the Union to provide men for the Federal Army. Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee refused and joined the Confederacy. Kentucky and Missouri refused to provide men but did not want to take sides.
Lincoln believed that one way to defeat the South was to strangle her economy. He therefore authorised the Anaconda Plan, which sort to blockade all Southern ports so that overseas trade was impossible. However, there were far too few ships in the Federal Navy to adequately cover the 3,000 miles of coastline. Blockade running was common and also highly lucrative for the crews involved.
Lincoln also persuaded the aged General Winfield Scott to retire as commander of the Federal (Union) Army. At 75 years, Scott was considered to be too old to be able to have the required energy to command the whole Union Army. General Irwin McDowell replaced him. He was urged by Lincoln to confront the Confederate Army near its new capital, Richmond. This resulted in both sides clashing at Bull Run (July 1861) and the defeat of the Union Army. It was a major blow to Lincoln and a huge boost to Jefferson Davis.
In November 1861, General George McClellan replaced McDowell. He wanted a major assault on Richmond, as he believed that if the Confederate capital fell, the whole secessionist movement would collapse. Lincoln enthusiastically endorsed McClellan’s plan. McClellan gathered an army of over 250,000 men for the attack on Richmond. Then nothing happened.
Lincoln was angered by McClellan’s reluctance to engage the enemy. Lincoln fought campaigns as a politician in Washington and not as a commander in the field. McClellan knew that if he lost a major battle, then the road to Washington would be open to Confederate forces. He was not willing to risk the Union’s capital until the circumstances suited him. McClellan’s intelligence also informed him (incorrectly as it happened) that the Confederate Army around Richmond was much larger than originally thought.
In January 1862, Lincoln summoned McClellan to Washington so that he could explain his lack of action. McClellan told those assembled that he needed to ensure that his withdrawal routes were adequate before he engaged the enemy. Some at the meeting accused McClellan of cowardice and Lincoln decided that he would use his position as Commander-in-Chief to force McClellan to act. He issued General War Order Number One on January 31st. This ordered McClellan to start an attack before February 22nd. He also made it clear that he did not approve of the way Richmond was going to be attacked. Lincoln only withdrew this reservation when the majority of senior commanders under McClellan offered their support to him and told Lincoln that what McClellan planned was the best way ahead. However, Lincoln did insist that McClellan left behind 30,000 troops for the defence of the capital and he removed him from overall command of the Union armies.
While Lincoln as President had the right to do these things, his judgment has to be questioned if only that it was he that appointed McClellan, despite his comparative youth at 35, to command the Union army and now Lincoln was very publicly undermining the man he appointed and attempting to interfere in tactical and strategic decisions. This was a theme that was to run throughout the war. Lincoln, correctly, believed that his generals were subordinate to him. However, his belief that military campaigns could only be won by constantly pushing forward and engaging the enemy, did not take into account what was actually going on in the field. Sherman, during his march through the South, was frequently hindered by appalling weather that was not conducive to an offensive campaign – yet his instructions from Lincoln was to advance on the enemy regardless. Lincoln seemed to have little idea as to how the individual in the field was affected – the lack of food, clothing, tents etc. Nor the sheer physical drain of marching. When Sherman tried to tempt his opposite, Johnston, to surrender in 1865 by offering peace terms that included how the South would be run after the war, Lincoln was furious. He could not tolerate a general interring in political issues but was quite willing to interfere in military ones – as McClellan, Sherman and Grant found out.
There was a great deal of sympathy in Washington for Lincoln in his dealings with McClellan. To many, McClellan did not seem to want to engage the South. On one occasion Lincoln said to McClellan: “If you do not want to use the army, I’d like to borrow it for a little while.” On November 7th 1862, Lincoln dismissed McClellan and replaced him with General Ambrose Burnside. He, in turn, was replaced by General JosephHooker after the Union defeat at Fredericksburg. Lincoln seemed to have a positive relationship with his generals when they were advancing and the enemy seemed to be retreating. However, while he applauded the victory at Gettysburg, Lincoln was also very conscious that the casualties at this battle were horrific. Months later when Lincoln attended the official opening of the Gettysburg Memorial, he gave what was to become one of the greatest speeches in History. However, at the time his ‘Gettysburg Address’ was actually heard by few people and Lincoln himself considered that it had been secondary to other speeches given there. It was only when it was printed in newspapers in the following days that people came to realise its qualities.
Lincoln’s belief in reconciliation also led him to reject the Wade-Davis Bill – passed by Congress in 1864; Lincoln refused to sign it into law.
However when it became obvious that the South was going to lose the war, Lincoln was heavily criticised in many areas for failing to push for a negotiated peace. He wanted unconditional surrender by the South and nothing less.
For the 1864 election campaign Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson as his running mate. He was opposed by General George McClellan – the man sacked by Lincoln for his ineffectual leadership of the Army of the Potomac. On the back of numerous victories by Grant and Sherman, the outcome of the election was rarely in doubt and Lincoln won a comfortable victory. Lincoln polled 2.2 million votes to McClellan’s 1.8 million.
On April 4th 1865 Lincoln visited Richmond – just days after it had fallen to Union troops. On April 14th, Lincoln said in Cabinet; “There are many in Congress who possess feelings of hate and vindictiveness in which I do not sympathise and cannot participate.”
On the night of April 14th Lincoln went to the Ford’s Theatre in Washington to watch ‘Our American Cousin’. Sometime during the third act Lincoln’s assigned bodyguard, John Parker, left his seat outside of the box Lincoln and his family were using to get a drink. During this lapse in security, John Wilkes Booth shot the President in the back of his head. Booth fled the theatre and was later shot by Federal troops. Lincoln was taken to a house opposite the theatre and died early on April 15th 1865.
- George McClellan, a senior Union general during the American Civil War, was the son of a surgeon, was born in Philadelphia on 3rd December, 1826.…
- October 1862 saw Robert E Lee move his army away from Washington and for the time being the capital was safe. At the end of October…
- July 1862 saw the end of the 'Seven Days Battle'. This battle saw Lee save Richmond and push back McClellan. But like so many other… | 2,908 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Slavery in the United States
Slavery in general term consist in the state of a person being a property of another person. It has appeared for thousands of years. From the old Roman emperor to nineteenth century. Regardless, it increased by the development of societies to make profit by cheap human labor. Slavery appeared in the United States in late of seventeen centuries as a result of the trade market. These slaves came from Africa to work in large plantations for free labor in America. Historians believe that the first ship of slaves to arrive in America was Dutch to the Virginia colony of Jamestown in 1619 with around 20 slaves. They were used slaves to work in the tobacco, sugar, rice, cotton, and coffee plantations. But slavery emerged the restriction of African’s lives in North America. Though slaves in North America had their rights prohibited by their owners, they could have a small land for their own work, having family, religion practices.
In the late of seventeen century most slaves worked on plantations ruled by their masters who had right to decide about Africans slave’s lives. As a matter of fact, slaves become an object of work. They were obligated to work without any payment. Mainly these labors were divided by gender, region and age. In most plantations in America, men slaves had to do all the hard work, children usually collect the crops, and women mostly did domestic task. For instance, in the New England women were much less likely to be used as field labor . According to historians "Slaves in the plantations had to work 18 hours daily without an appropriate meal. However, the slave system was different among South and North.
The increased demand of producers in the south led to increase the number of cheap labor emerged the number of slaves in the South. As a result, it led to the origin of the “Second middle passage” where it consisted of the sale of one of the enslaved family members who in most cases were the fathers, thus allowing the family runs out of defense. Inadequate nutrition, poor water quality and depletion of both the journey and the work weakened the newly arrived slaves and produced casualties. Many of the slaves were new to cotton fields and unaccustomed to the "sunrise-to-sunset labor" required by their new life. They were driven much harder than when they were involved in growing tobacco or wheat.
On the other hand, most slaves change its religion in order to escape slavery. “African American slaves converted to Christianity to obtain the salvation of their souls based on the Christian’s idea of a future reward in heaven or punishment in hell, which did not exist in their primary religion. The religious principles inherited from Africa sought purely physical salvation and excluded the salvation of the soul. However, they did believe in one supreme God, which made it easier for them to assimilate Christianity.
The obligation of slaves to work without any human rights has led to various forms of... | <urn:uuid:2e3e45fd-3f4f-46e3-8d4d-36433d0ded0b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/history-of-slavery-in-america | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00197.warc.gz | en | 0.984215 | 603 | 4.375 | 4 | [
-0.12622490525245667,
0.35222363471984863,
0.22912362217903137,
-0.08866029977798462,
-0.04653915762901306,
-0.028352927416563034,
-0.32543182373046875,
-0.4906367063522339,
-0.11228318512439728,
0.2263464629650116,
0.24639058113098145,
0.11195693910121918,
-0.46405643224716187,
0.20983842... | 1 | Slavery in the United States
Slavery in general term consist in the state of a person being a property of another person. It has appeared for thousands of years. From the old Roman emperor to nineteenth century. Regardless, it increased by the development of societies to make profit by cheap human labor. Slavery appeared in the United States in late of seventeen centuries as a result of the trade market. These slaves came from Africa to work in large plantations for free labor in America. Historians believe that the first ship of slaves to arrive in America was Dutch to the Virginia colony of Jamestown in 1619 with around 20 slaves. They were used slaves to work in the tobacco, sugar, rice, cotton, and coffee plantations. But slavery emerged the restriction of African’s lives in North America. Though slaves in North America had their rights prohibited by their owners, they could have a small land for their own work, having family, religion practices.
In the late of seventeen century most slaves worked on plantations ruled by their masters who had right to decide about Africans slave’s lives. As a matter of fact, slaves become an object of work. They were obligated to work without any payment. Mainly these labors were divided by gender, region and age. In most plantations in America, men slaves had to do all the hard work, children usually collect the crops, and women mostly did domestic task. For instance, in the New England women were much less likely to be used as field labor . According to historians "Slaves in the plantations had to work 18 hours daily without an appropriate meal. However, the slave system was different among South and North.
The increased demand of producers in the south led to increase the number of cheap labor emerged the number of slaves in the South. As a result, it led to the origin of the “Second middle passage” where it consisted of the sale of one of the enslaved family members who in most cases were the fathers, thus allowing the family runs out of defense. Inadequate nutrition, poor water quality and depletion of both the journey and the work weakened the newly arrived slaves and produced casualties. Many of the slaves were new to cotton fields and unaccustomed to the "sunrise-to-sunset labor" required by their new life. They were driven much harder than when they were involved in growing tobacco or wheat.
On the other hand, most slaves change its religion in order to escape slavery. “African American slaves converted to Christianity to obtain the salvation of their souls based on the Christian’s idea of a future reward in heaven or punishment in hell, which did not exist in their primary religion. The religious principles inherited from Africa sought purely physical salvation and excluded the salvation of the soul. However, they did believe in one supreme God, which made it easier for them to assimilate Christianity.
The obligation of slaves to work without any human rights has led to various forms of... | 598 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In 1825 London’s Humane Society held its anniversary dinner, which was followed by a procession of 530 persons who had been returned from the dead by this benevolent charity. Since its founding in 1776 they claimed to have reanimated over 5,000 people in London alone. Add to this all the societies in Britain, North America etc., this makes today’s zombie parades for halloween pretty tame stuff, but there is much importance here.
The first Humane Society was founded in Amsterdam, largely aimed at reviving those accidentally drowned. The first London House of Recovery was on the banks of the Serpentine, where a physician was on duty summer and winter where victims were taken and treated. Victims of drowning were dried out and warmed, lightning tended to be shocked back to life with electricity, both of which were considered far more humane than the peasant habit of beating people back to life.
This could be shrugged off as the strange and varied realms of science in the eighteenth century, but there were important aspects to this which we still struggle with. The revival techniques were often used on suicides, or self murderers, some of whom were very angry at being saved. People who committed suicide were still seen as being denied resurrection in the afterlife for all time, and were often buried at crossroads or in unconsecrated ground. If a suicide was revived, were they still damned? This was a huge moral question.
There was also links between murder and self murder. Since suicide was such a moral crime, those who opposed the death penalty also promoted the idea that people were pushed by circumstances to self murder, so those responsible for making lives unbearable should have been punished, a notion which is seldom considered today.
The Humane Society was on thin ice when some members suggested reviving criminals recently hanged, which would totally change the punishment of hanging, so their actions here were seen as a threat to national security. But it was suggested that such attempts could advance the science and help revive those who accidentally died. Since 1650 there had been a number of famous hangings where the victim survived, so this was not completely far fetched.
This notion was put to the test when one of their founders, a prominent opponent of the death penalty, Rev. William Dodd was convicted of forgery. He was sentenced to death but believed he would be saved by his supporters. But this failed to happen, and one of the great opponents of the death penalty was lost, though his sermons survive as a document of the Humane Society’s early days. | <urn:uuid:16951687-c4c1-44b1-8be9-3148f6631fb4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://barbdrummondcurioushistorian.com/2019/12/16/londons-undead-the-humane-society/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00021.warc.gz | en | 0.993413 | 516 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.42527517676353455,
-0.030199134722352028,
0.34524524211883545,
0.13623185455799103,
0.150971457362175,
-0.08140099793672562,
0.3668869435787201,
0.45787566900253296,
0.24299955368041992,
-0.08974120020866394,
0.08059010654687881,
-0.000396779301809147,
-0.03402720391750336,
0.4048924148... | 12 | In 1825 London’s Humane Society held its anniversary dinner, which was followed by a procession of 530 persons who had been returned from the dead by this benevolent charity. Since its founding in 1776 they claimed to have reanimated over 5,000 people in London alone. Add to this all the societies in Britain, North America etc., this makes today’s zombie parades for halloween pretty tame stuff, but there is much importance here.
The first Humane Society was founded in Amsterdam, largely aimed at reviving those accidentally drowned. The first London House of Recovery was on the banks of the Serpentine, where a physician was on duty summer and winter where victims were taken and treated. Victims of drowning were dried out and warmed, lightning tended to be shocked back to life with electricity, both of which were considered far more humane than the peasant habit of beating people back to life.
This could be shrugged off as the strange and varied realms of science in the eighteenth century, but there were important aspects to this which we still struggle with. The revival techniques were often used on suicides, or self murderers, some of whom were very angry at being saved. People who committed suicide were still seen as being denied resurrection in the afterlife for all time, and were often buried at crossroads or in unconsecrated ground. If a suicide was revived, were they still damned? This was a huge moral question.
There was also links between murder and self murder. Since suicide was such a moral crime, those who opposed the death penalty also promoted the idea that people were pushed by circumstances to self murder, so those responsible for making lives unbearable should have been punished, a notion which is seldom considered today.
The Humane Society was on thin ice when some members suggested reviving criminals recently hanged, which would totally change the punishment of hanging, so their actions here were seen as a threat to national security. But it was suggested that such attempts could advance the science and help revive those who accidentally died. Since 1650 there had been a number of famous hangings where the victim survived, so this was not completely far fetched.
This notion was put to the test when one of their founders, a prominent opponent of the death penalty, Rev. William Dodd was convicted of forgery. He was sentenced to death but believed he would be saved by his supporters. But this failed to happen, and one of the great opponents of the death penalty was lost, though his sermons survive as a document of the Humane Society’s early days. | 526 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Hammurabi was the sixth ruler of the First Dynasty of Babylon. He hailed from the Amorite tribe. He took over the kingdom from his father Sin-Muballit. During his reign, Hammurabi expanded the kingdom to take control of ancient Mesopotamia. When he came to the throne, the kingdom of Babylon along the Euphrates River only consisted of the cities of Babylon, Kish, Sippar, and Borsippa. With his military prowess and successive military campaigns, he conquered other states in the Babylonian kingdom as well. He is also remembered for his code of laws that has 282 rules. It is believed that the Hammurabi code of laws was a benchmark for commercial interactions and it levied fines on those who failed to meet its conditions. The code was carved onto a black stone pillar. However, it was stolen by invaders. It was only rediscovered at the start of the 20th century. His laws were also used to improve the lives of the people in his kingdom. His code was so influential that numerous other cultures were also inspired to formulate similar codes of law. The influence of Hammurabi’s code can be seen in the biblical Book of Exodus as well. Hammurabi was also revered by many as a god during his lifetime. After his death, he came to be considered a great conqueror who managed to spread his rule across vast expanses of land.
- Hammurabi was born in Babylon in c. 1810 BC. He was the son of Sin-Muballit, the fifth king of a dynasty that ruled over central Mesopotamia from c. 1894 to 1595 BC. His family belonged to the Amorites, a semi-nomadic tribe originating in northeastern Syria.His name is derived from various cultures: Hammu means “family” in Amorite, and Rapi means “great” in Akkadian. The latter was the language spoken in Babylon.The Amorites ruled over Babylon that was situated in the central and southern Mesopotamian plains. Many cultures coexisted in Mesopotamia and they waged wars against each other to take control over the agricultural land.Continue Reading BelowAccession & Reign
- During his reign, Hammurabi's father Sin-Muballit controlled small areas in south-central Mesopotamia under Babylonian hegemony. Within a few years, he acquired complete control over minor city-states like Borsippa, Kish, and Sippar.Hammurabi inherited the power from his father in c. 1792 BC. He made quite a few allies including Larsa. They defeated the Elamites who were trying to invade the central plains of Mesopotamia from the east. Following this, he broke the alliance with Larsa and took over the cities of Uruk and Isin with the help of Nippur and Lagash. These two cities were under the control of Larsa previously.Interestingly, Hammurabi kept on breaking alliances with the other states after taking over his rivals. Minor rulers continued to join hands with Hammurabi, unaware of Hammurabi’s habit of breaking alliances once he gained control over more territories. He eventually conquered his former ally Larsa as well.Hammurabis Code
- According to Hammurabi's biographers, there have been letters and administrative documents that suggest he provided for his people and took care of them. He spent a lot of time in campaigns but also ensured his citizens were well provided for. Numerous building projects and canals were built throughout the region.Hammurabi was called 'bani matim', which translates to 'builder of the land,' for all the construction works he spearheaded in the region.He established a code of laws that came to be known as the “Code of Hammurabi.” These laws epitomized the principle “Lex Talionis”, which roughly translates to “the law of retributive justice.” Similar to the principle of “an eye for an eye,” these rules dictated punishments that corresponded directly to the crime.Death & Legacy
- By 1750 BC, Hammurabi had become old and sick. Even though he was the undisputed leader of Mesopotamia, he realized that it was time to give up his powers to his successor.The news of Hammurabi becoming weak spread across the region and the eastern tribes decided to wage a war and invade the kingdom. In 1750 BC, Hammurabi passed away due to natural causes and his son Samsu-Iluna had to fight for his kingdom against the invading forces.Unlike his father, Samsu-Iluna was not a great ruler. Slowly, the kingdom that Hammurabi had built was taken over by the invaders. None of his successors was able to win back the kingdom after the multiple invasions.Hammurabi is best remembered as a king whose code served as the standard for many laws. He is also known for uniting Mesopotamia under a single governing body.He is considered one of the greatest kings of Mesopotamia. He is still revered for being an excellent diplomat and negotiator.Hammurabi was committed to improving the standard of living of the inhabitants under the Babylonian rule. He left behind a legacy as a king who fought for social justice and the betterment of the lives of his people.
How To CiteArticle Title- Hammurabi BiographyAuthor- Editors, TheFamousPeople.comWebsite- TheFamousPeople.comURL- https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/hammurabi-36887.phpLast Updated- November 18, 2019
People Also Viewed | <urn:uuid:c2ef4d3d-1dda-4501-8951-2b7fde97975a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/hammurabi-36887.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00102.warc.gz | en | 0.986367 | 1,179 | 3.96875 | 4 | [
-0.3042847216129303,
0.44177794456481934,
0.09005182981491089,
-0.8470805287361145,
-0.47968584299087524,
-0.18499301373958588,
0.4638315439224243,
-0.07356984168291092,
-0.07125179469585419,
0.12800103425979614,
-0.3295549750328064,
-0.3268762230873108,
0.3785802721977234,
0.1303338557481... | 1 | Hammurabi was the sixth ruler of the First Dynasty of Babylon. He hailed from the Amorite tribe. He took over the kingdom from his father Sin-Muballit. During his reign, Hammurabi expanded the kingdom to take control of ancient Mesopotamia. When he came to the throne, the kingdom of Babylon along the Euphrates River only consisted of the cities of Babylon, Kish, Sippar, and Borsippa. With his military prowess and successive military campaigns, he conquered other states in the Babylonian kingdom as well. He is also remembered for his code of laws that has 282 rules. It is believed that the Hammurabi code of laws was a benchmark for commercial interactions and it levied fines on those who failed to meet its conditions. The code was carved onto a black stone pillar. However, it was stolen by invaders. It was only rediscovered at the start of the 20th century. His laws were also used to improve the lives of the people in his kingdom. His code was so influential that numerous other cultures were also inspired to formulate similar codes of law. The influence of Hammurabi’s code can be seen in the biblical Book of Exodus as well. Hammurabi was also revered by many as a god during his lifetime. After his death, he came to be considered a great conqueror who managed to spread his rule across vast expanses of land.
- Hammurabi was born in Babylon in c. 1810 BC. He was the son of Sin-Muballit, the fifth king of a dynasty that ruled over central Mesopotamia from c. 1894 to 1595 BC. His family belonged to the Amorites, a semi-nomadic tribe originating in northeastern Syria.His name is derived from various cultures: Hammu means “family” in Amorite, and Rapi means “great” in Akkadian. The latter was the language spoken in Babylon.The Amorites ruled over Babylon that was situated in the central and southern Mesopotamian plains. Many cultures coexisted in Mesopotamia and they waged wars against each other to take control over the agricultural land.Continue Reading BelowAccession & Reign
- During his reign, Hammurabi's father Sin-Muballit controlled small areas in south-central Mesopotamia under Babylonian hegemony. Within a few years, he acquired complete control over minor city-states like Borsippa, Kish, and Sippar.Hammurabi inherited the power from his father in c. 1792 BC. He made quite a few allies including Larsa. They defeated the Elamites who were trying to invade the central plains of Mesopotamia from the east. Following this, he broke the alliance with Larsa and took over the cities of Uruk and Isin with the help of Nippur and Lagash. These two cities were under the control of Larsa previously.Interestingly, Hammurabi kept on breaking alliances with the other states after taking over his rivals. Minor rulers continued to join hands with Hammurabi, unaware of Hammurabi’s habit of breaking alliances once he gained control over more territories. He eventually conquered his former ally Larsa as well.Hammurabis Code
- According to Hammurabi's biographers, there have been letters and administrative documents that suggest he provided for his people and took care of them. He spent a lot of time in campaigns but also ensured his citizens were well provided for. Numerous building projects and canals were built throughout the region.Hammurabi was called 'bani matim', which translates to 'builder of the land,' for all the construction works he spearheaded in the region.He established a code of laws that came to be known as the “Code of Hammurabi.” These laws epitomized the principle “Lex Talionis”, which roughly translates to “the law of retributive justice.” Similar to the principle of “an eye for an eye,” these rules dictated punishments that corresponded directly to the crime.Death & Legacy
- By 1750 BC, Hammurabi had become old and sick. Even though he was the undisputed leader of Mesopotamia, he realized that it was time to give up his powers to his successor.The news of Hammurabi becoming weak spread across the region and the eastern tribes decided to wage a war and invade the kingdom. In 1750 BC, Hammurabi passed away due to natural causes and his son Samsu-Iluna had to fight for his kingdom against the invading forces.Unlike his father, Samsu-Iluna was not a great ruler. Slowly, the kingdom that Hammurabi had built was taken over by the invaders. None of his successors was able to win back the kingdom after the multiple invasions.Hammurabi is best remembered as a king whose code served as the standard for many laws. He is also known for uniting Mesopotamia under a single governing body.He is considered one of the greatest kings of Mesopotamia. He is still revered for being an excellent diplomat and negotiator.Hammurabi was committed to improving the standard of living of the inhabitants under the Babylonian rule. He left behind a legacy as a king who fought for social justice and the betterment of the lives of his people.
How To CiteArticle Title- Hammurabi BiographyAuthor- Editors, TheFamousPeople.comWebsite- TheFamousPeople.comURL- https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/hammurabi-36887.phpLast Updated- November 18, 2019
People Also Viewed | 1,186 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This object is a reproduction of a hocking knife. Hocking knives are ranching tools that would have been used to cut the ligaments on a cow’s back legs making it impossible for the animal to run. This was only used on cattle that were going to be butchered. Hocking knives would have been attached to a pole about eight to ten feet long. As the rancher rode up on a horse behind his chosen cow he could easily stop the animal and return to for it later to take it to the next phase for slaughter and butchering. This is no longer practiced today as it is considered inhumane. It was replaced with the lariat or lasso, which is used to rope cattle.
The ranching and butchering of cattle, or cows, in Texas goes back to the time of the conquistadors. The word ranch comes from the Mexican-Spanish word rancho which meant a place involved with livestock, which included cows, goats, sheep, and horses. Once Hernan Cortes conquered the Aztecs, in what is now central Mexico, he and his men moved quickly to claim the surrounding area for the Spanish crown. The Spanish were used to a diet that included beef and Cortez soon established cattle herds which spread across Mexico.
Texas had been claimed but mostly ignored through the 1500s as the Spanish focused on their Central American investments which contained silver mines. However, French presence in Louisiana made the Spanish nervous. In 1685, a Frenchman named René Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle had accidentally landed at Matagorda Bay on the east coast of Texas. By 1687 the Spanish had heard the news and sent out expeditions until they finally found the failed settlement, which had been wiped out by local East Texas Indians. Paranoid that the French would try and take Mexico and the valuable silver mines, the Spanish began to establish missions in Texas in order to create a buffer between the French in Louisiana and their favored property in Mexico.
The creation of missions from the late 17th century and into the 18th century was put in the hands of Franciscan missionaries. These missionaries brought settlers along with Spanish soldiers, and converted Native Americans to populate what would later become the cities of San Antonio, Goliad, El Paso, and Presidio. Many more missions were established during this period that would ultimately fail because of clashes with Native Americans and Spain’s disinterest in the area once the French threat was over. However, these missions also brought cattle and ranching into the area and lead to greater population growth as land and ranching became a source of wealth.
Cattle and ranching remain an important component of Texan culture and economy. Although they’re different from the early ranches in the 1700s, ranches continue to operate today. In 1995, Texas was known for having the most farm and ranch land, as well as cattle in the nation. Today you can still visit some of the great ranches like King Ranch established in 1852 in southern Texas by Richard King. It is larger than the state of Rhode Island and has become much more diversified. Besides agriculture and ranching, King Ranch is also involved in the production of home and leather goods. In 2001 it also began a relationship with Ford trucks with the King Ranch edition which has continued to promote the brand of King Ranch and Texas ranching culture today. [Briana Miano, edited by Joscelynn Garcia] | <urn:uuid:9f2472c8-c3b9-46d4-a1bc-7b4b392fa164> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.texancultures.com/object-hocking-knife/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00359.warc.gz | en | 0.98366 | 710 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
0.03332766517996788,
0.032369814813137054,
0.22573456168174744,
0.19967323541641235,
0.0780915692448616,
-0.3610534965991974,
-0.2274552285671234,
0.2972080111503601,
-0.07971041649580002,
-0.04703020304441452,
0.08080203086137772,
-0.4536508023738861,
0.20836108922958374,
0.07817319780588... | 9 | This object is a reproduction of a hocking knife. Hocking knives are ranching tools that would have been used to cut the ligaments on a cow’s back legs making it impossible for the animal to run. This was only used on cattle that were going to be butchered. Hocking knives would have been attached to a pole about eight to ten feet long. As the rancher rode up on a horse behind his chosen cow he could easily stop the animal and return to for it later to take it to the next phase for slaughter and butchering. This is no longer practiced today as it is considered inhumane. It was replaced with the lariat or lasso, which is used to rope cattle.
The ranching and butchering of cattle, or cows, in Texas goes back to the time of the conquistadors. The word ranch comes from the Mexican-Spanish word rancho which meant a place involved with livestock, which included cows, goats, sheep, and horses. Once Hernan Cortes conquered the Aztecs, in what is now central Mexico, he and his men moved quickly to claim the surrounding area for the Spanish crown. The Spanish were used to a diet that included beef and Cortez soon established cattle herds which spread across Mexico.
Texas had been claimed but mostly ignored through the 1500s as the Spanish focused on their Central American investments which contained silver mines. However, French presence in Louisiana made the Spanish nervous. In 1685, a Frenchman named René Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle had accidentally landed at Matagorda Bay on the east coast of Texas. By 1687 the Spanish had heard the news and sent out expeditions until they finally found the failed settlement, which had been wiped out by local East Texas Indians. Paranoid that the French would try and take Mexico and the valuable silver mines, the Spanish began to establish missions in Texas in order to create a buffer between the French in Louisiana and their favored property in Mexico.
The creation of missions from the late 17th century and into the 18th century was put in the hands of Franciscan missionaries. These missionaries brought settlers along with Spanish soldiers, and converted Native Americans to populate what would later become the cities of San Antonio, Goliad, El Paso, and Presidio. Many more missions were established during this period that would ultimately fail because of clashes with Native Americans and Spain’s disinterest in the area once the French threat was over. However, these missions also brought cattle and ranching into the area and lead to greater population growth as land and ranching became a source of wealth.
Cattle and ranching remain an important component of Texan culture and economy. Although they’re different from the early ranches in the 1700s, ranches continue to operate today. In 1995, Texas was known for having the most farm and ranch land, as well as cattle in the nation. Today you can still visit some of the great ranches like King Ranch established in 1852 in southern Texas by Richard King. It is larger than the state of Rhode Island and has become much more diversified. Besides agriculture and ranching, King Ranch is also involved in the production of home and leather goods. In 2001 it also began a relationship with Ford trucks with the King Ranch edition which has continued to promote the brand of King Ranch and Texas ranching culture today. [Briana Miano, edited by Joscelynn Garcia] | 731 | ENGLISH | 1 |
To begin with, African American citizens fought for a long time against the segregation that was in the state following Jim Crow's rules. Among the many segregation laws were the city rules which governed the transportation sector in any city. Following this point, all the buses in the city meant for the transportation of citizens had their seats divided into two. In each bus all the front and middle seats belonged to the white people while the back seats were meant for the blacks (Klarman, 2004). Surprisingly, any time the number of the white passangers surpassed their seats, the black people had to give up their seats even if they had already paid for them. Sometimes the drivers of these buses could just decide to leave before the black people board the bus yet they had already paid. It is these actions that made the black people to revolt against the rules of segregation.
Buy Montgomery Bus Boycott essay paper online
However, among the many revolts against these rules Rosa Sparks' refusal to give up her seat to a white man marked the peak of the whole process. Notably, Sparks' action was not the root cause of the whole problem but it acted as a precipitating factor toward the Montgomery bus boycott .This because even before Rosa's action the African American had tried to crop up a boycott through other people who had been victimized by the same rules but were unable due to the vulnerable personalities of those involved. Actually, plans for a boycott were underway as a result of Colvin's imprisonment but this could not work because it was later discovered that she had been impregnated by an old man (Phibbs, 2009). Therefore Colvin's case could not be used because it could have acted as a moral contravene to the black community who were really committed to religious issues.
More to this point, Sparks' refusal to give up her seat led to a great movement that resulted to the Montgomery bus boycott because the black people were tired of oppression (Tarsitano, Nichols & Matthews, 2002). At this point in time, the blacks got a good reason to use Sparks' case because she was regarded as a perfect test for the country and city isolation. She was also morally upright and her polical ability also assisted the black community to fight for their rights since she was updated in politics. It is these reasons that lead to the great Montgomery bus boycott.
Related Free Ethics Essays
- The Nazi Doctors by Robert Jay Lifton
- Public Relations Ethics
- Revenge is Justified
- Universitys War on Drinking and Partying
- The Ethical Impact of Gun Control in Life
- Ethical opinion piece
- Ethical conflict
- Challenges to women in attaining suffrage
- What should we look at when we Judge an Action
- Justice of Ethical Development
Most popular orders | <urn:uuid:8ec008a9-1352-481c-a156-8a40039d7906> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://exclusivepapers.com/essays/ethics/montgomery-bus-boycott.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00276.warc.gz | en | 0.985541 | 566 | 3.78125 | 4 | [
-0.2426157146692276,
0.06208440661430359,
0.10427384078502655,
0.027463145554065704,
-0.2802453339099884,
0.24939531087875366,
0.48892858624458313,
0.06254784017801285,
-0.05466107279062271,
0.2565579414367676,
0.011861883103847504,
0.2691165804862976,
-0.2539786100387573,
0.00255071045830... | 2 | To begin with, African American citizens fought for a long time against the segregation that was in the state following Jim Crow's rules. Among the many segregation laws were the city rules which governed the transportation sector in any city. Following this point, all the buses in the city meant for the transportation of citizens had their seats divided into two. In each bus all the front and middle seats belonged to the white people while the back seats were meant for the blacks (Klarman, 2004). Surprisingly, any time the number of the white passangers surpassed their seats, the black people had to give up their seats even if they had already paid for them. Sometimes the drivers of these buses could just decide to leave before the black people board the bus yet they had already paid. It is these actions that made the black people to revolt against the rules of segregation.
Buy Montgomery Bus Boycott essay paper online
However, among the many revolts against these rules Rosa Sparks' refusal to give up her seat to a white man marked the peak of the whole process. Notably, Sparks' action was not the root cause of the whole problem but it acted as a precipitating factor toward the Montgomery bus boycott .This because even before Rosa's action the African American had tried to crop up a boycott through other people who had been victimized by the same rules but were unable due to the vulnerable personalities of those involved. Actually, plans for a boycott were underway as a result of Colvin's imprisonment but this could not work because it was later discovered that she had been impregnated by an old man (Phibbs, 2009). Therefore Colvin's case could not be used because it could have acted as a moral contravene to the black community who were really committed to religious issues.
More to this point, Sparks' refusal to give up her seat led to a great movement that resulted to the Montgomery bus boycott because the black people were tired of oppression (Tarsitano, Nichols & Matthews, 2002). At this point in time, the blacks got a good reason to use Sparks' case because she was regarded as a perfect test for the country and city isolation. She was also morally upright and her polical ability also assisted the black community to fight for their rights since she was updated in politics. It is these reasons that lead to the great Montgomery bus boycott.
Related Free Ethics Essays
- The Nazi Doctors by Robert Jay Lifton
- Public Relations Ethics
- Revenge is Justified
- Universitys War on Drinking and Partying
- The Ethical Impact of Gun Control in Life
- Ethical opinion piece
- Ethical conflict
- Challenges to women in attaining suffrage
- What should we look at when we Judge an Action
- Justice of Ethical Development
Most popular orders | 578 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Children who played structured sports in kindergarten were found to be better at following instructions and staying focused in the classroom when they were in fourth grade.
Researchers at the University of Montreal and Sainte-Justine Children's Hospital studied 935 kids born in Quebec between the years of 1997 and 1998. The children's parents were asked about the time spent on sport and other physical activity, physical activity that was unstructured, and any other lessons the children took such as music lessons. Teachers rated the students on classroom engagement, aggression, and impulsivity, writes CBC News.
Children who are more engaged in the classroom setting are likely to work in a more cooperative manner, demonstrate more self-confidence, and follow directions and rules. These are behaviors that when practiced in childhood and adolescence will pay dividends on into adulthood.
"What we found was really a beautiful result," said the study's senior author, Linda Pagani, a professor of psychoeducation at the University of Montreal. "Kindergarten involvement in structured physical activity was associated or predicted better participation in classrooms as far as being engaged and involved in fourth grade, which is really good because the kids mentally, they're online in the classroom."
A structured activity, for this study, included practicing motor skills like batting a ball, doing hip-hop choreography, and practicing martial arts. In physical education class, students are told to run laps, but in a structured setting the coach or instructor guides the class on particular movements, placement, and following the directions for mastering a move.
Pagani says teachers who are instructing a physical activity are not only working on cardiovascular health but also on brain health, especially when kids are following instructions that involve "a sequence of different movements." She adds that the concentration skills needed for mastering reading comprehension, for example, can be developed when the brain gets a workout in other contexts like on the sports field.
The study found that in this case, more is better. Each time a child was involved in the structured activity, the level of "class engagement" went up 6%. Music lessons and unstructured play will probably show mental and physical benefits, but these activities did not have the pay off that structured physical activity had.
"In team sport, you have to show up on time, be ready and prepared," said Donald Mackey, director of the St. John's Soccer Club. "You work towards a certain objective as a team. That brings its challenges in communication."
Researchers accounted for other preexisting factors that could have influenced the study such as the child's physical fitness and cognitive abilities, the mother's education level, the level of the family's communication skills and general functioning. The team hopes the findings will assist authorities in reaching kids at risk for low levels of physical activity in order to fight against obesity and school drop-out rates.
US News and World Report's Mary Elizabeth Dallas quotes the study's leader:
"There is something specific to the sporting environment — perhaps the unique sense of belonging to a team, to a special group with a common goal — that appears to help kids understand the importance of respecting the rules and honoring responsibilities," Pagani noted.
The study, out this month, was published in the American Journal of Health Promotion. The subjects' kindergarten teachers were questioned, and parents were interviewed about their home life. After four years, the children's parents and teachers were re-surveyed. A cause-and-effect link was not proven, but the study did find an association between playing team sports and classroom success.
There was a second question the researchers were attempting to answer: Do kindergarten self-discipline characteristics predict fourth-grade participation in sports? The answer, according to the report was, "Children who were involved in sports at kindergarten, or in fact who were involved in any kind of structured activity, were likely to be involved in team sports by age ten. However, involvement in unstructured activities at kindergarten had no bearing on the child's future."
Researchers said they found that children who had better behavior in the kindergarten class were more likely to be involved in sports by age ten, Pagani said. They also discovered that children who were involved in team sports in kindergarten scored more highly in self-regulation by the time they reached fourth grade.
"Programs to help parents develop their child's self-regulation skills and the availability of extracurricular sports programs as early as kindergarten could help decrease the risk of kids being left behind," Pagani said. | <urn:uuid:2846d4ec-e42c-403b-8c0c-5cde9decc1d4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.educationnews.org/parenting/structured-sports-may-help-kids-with-academic-success/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00293.warc.gz | en | 0.980866 | 916 | 3.375 | 3 | [
0.12322907149791718,
-0.13912197947502136,
0.45876795053482056,
-0.5528985261917114,
-0.3396046757698059,
0.6944602727890015,
-0.33292657136917114,
0.16759906709194183,
0.27272486686706543,
0.1250516027212143,
0.3121015727519989,
0.022380363196134567,
-0.02597150206565857,
0.28577667474746... | 1 | Children who played structured sports in kindergarten were found to be better at following instructions and staying focused in the classroom when they were in fourth grade.
Researchers at the University of Montreal and Sainte-Justine Children's Hospital studied 935 kids born in Quebec between the years of 1997 and 1998. The children's parents were asked about the time spent on sport and other physical activity, physical activity that was unstructured, and any other lessons the children took such as music lessons. Teachers rated the students on classroom engagement, aggression, and impulsivity, writes CBC News.
Children who are more engaged in the classroom setting are likely to work in a more cooperative manner, demonstrate more self-confidence, and follow directions and rules. These are behaviors that when practiced in childhood and adolescence will pay dividends on into adulthood.
"What we found was really a beautiful result," said the study's senior author, Linda Pagani, a professor of psychoeducation at the University of Montreal. "Kindergarten involvement in structured physical activity was associated or predicted better participation in classrooms as far as being engaged and involved in fourth grade, which is really good because the kids mentally, they're online in the classroom."
A structured activity, for this study, included practicing motor skills like batting a ball, doing hip-hop choreography, and practicing martial arts. In physical education class, students are told to run laps, but in a structured setting the coach or instructor guides the class on particular movements, placement, and following the directions for mastering a move.
Pagani says teachers who are instructing a physical activity are not only working on cardiovascular health but also on brain health, especially when kids are following instructions that involve "a sequence of different movements." She adds that the concentration skills needed for mastering reading comprehension, for example, can be developed when the brain gets a workout in other contexts like on the sports field.
The study found that in this case, more is better. Each time a child was involved in the structured activity, the level of "class engagement" went up 6%. Music lessons and unstructured play will probably show mental and physical benefits, but these activities did not have the pay off that structured physical activity had.
"In team sport, you have to show up on time, be ready and prepared," said Donald Mackey, director of the St. John's Soccer Club. "You work towards a certain objective as a team. That brings its challenges in communication."
Researchers accounted for other preexisting factors that could have influenced the study such as the child's physical fitness and cognitive abilities, the mother's education level, the level of the family's communication skills and general functioning. The team hopes the findings will assist authorities in reaching kids at risk for low levels of physical activity in order to fight against obesity and school drop-out rates.
US News and World Report's Mary Elizabeth Dallas quotes the study's leader:
"There is something specific to the sporting environment — perhaps the unique sense of belonging to a team, to a special group with a common goal — that appears to help kids understand the importance of respecting the rules and honoring responsibilities," Pagani noted.
The study, out this month, was published in the American Journal of Health Promotion. The subjects' kindergarten teachers were questioned, and parents were interviewed about their home life. After four years, the children's parents and teachers were re-surveyed. A cause-and-effect link was not proven, but the study did find an association between playing team sports and classroom success.
There was a second question the researchers were attempting to answer: Do kindergarten self-discipline characteristics predict fourth-grade participation in sports? The answer, according to the report was, "Children who were involved in sports at kindergarten, or in fact who were involved in any kind of structured activity, were likely to be involved in team sports by age ten. However, involvement in unstructured activities at kindergarten had no bearing on the child's future."
Researchers said they found that children who had better behavior in the kindergarten class were more likely to be involved in sports by age ten, Pagani said. They also discovered that children who were involved in team sports in kindergarten scored more highly in self-regulation by the time they reached fourth grade.
"Programs to help parents develop their child's self-regulation skills and the availability of extracurricular sports programs as early as kindergarten could help decrease the risk of kids being left behind," Pagani said. | 894 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Hathor in the ancient Egyptian religion was presented as the Earth mother who was called in the Coffin Text "the Primeval or the Lady of All". The origin of Hathor is a highly controversial issue since some of the myths say that she came to the world at the same time with Ra and thus was regarded as the goddess of Sun and was always depicted as a black-skinned or reddish-black goddess. Yet other versions demonstrate that she was the daughter of Nut and Ra. One of the major myths say that she was the wife of Horus when he became the sun god and she was placed next to him on the solar boat with a solar disk over her head. The statue of Hathor and her pictures beautify the walls of many temples in Egypt. The temple of Ramsses II in Abu Simbel that he dedicated to Queen Nefertari and supplied it with a lot of the marvelous pictures of Hathor. The temple of Dandara is one of the major places that display the statues and pictures of this goddess since it was the center of its worship. The temple of Phyla in Aswan is another place that was established as a cult center for Hathor also and stands next to another one for the worship of Horus. The temple of Hatshepsut in Luxor also is rich with paintings for Hathor surrounded by the queen and other members of her family. One of the worth seeing statues of Hathor, is currently displayed in the Egyptian museum in which it is portrayed as a cow nursing the baby who was Amenophis II. Another statue for her with a wooden head of a cow with copper corns and eyes that look like those of Horus is shown in the Museum of Luxor.
- The Forms of Hathor
Among the depictions of Hathor the one that presents her as a cow and other times as a woman with the head of a cow. Another attractive form of Hathor is the one where she is depicted as a complete woman with a couple of horns holding the solar disk between them over her head. On the columns in the temples of Dandara and Phyla or Elephantine Island Hathor is portrayed as a remarkably beautiful woman with cow ears, and smiling face. In the Coffin Texts Hathor was presented as the goddess of love, music, dance, singing and beauty. This demonstrates the reason for using her usually as a symbol for pleasure and relief since she was the symbol of the wife, the daughter, and the woman in general. In the Book of the Dead, she was one of the goddesses who attend the trial of the dead people to testimony that they were fairly judged. Some of the paintings of her highlight the role she played in the underworld as the goddess who supplies the recently dead souls with food embodying her under the sycamore tree feeding the dead people who are sitting in the shadow of the There are some papyri that date back to the 21 dynasty that presents Hathor as the cow who stands in the entrance of the underworld greeting the dead souls. Some of these papyri relate between the rising and setting of the sun and the movement of the head of the cow that stands in the western mountain. In other paintings Hathor was wearing the menat necklace that was used as a symbol for resurrection and was known at that period as the Lady of the West and the Lady of the Holy Country. The ancient idea that Hathor represented the sky and was associated with the sun was here connected with her newer role in behalf of the dead at the entrance of the underworld. Hathor as the goddess of music was depicted as a woman with a round face and holding a musical instrument in her hand.
There are many myths that present the relation between Horus and Hathor and most of them contradict each other. Some of these myths present Horus as the son of Hathor and Hathor as the cow who supports the sky with her legs and in whose mouth Horus, the god sun, enters by the end of every day and comes out every morning. Of all these myths, the most well known story is the one saying that Horus was the husband of Hathor. This myth dates back to the Ptolemaic period and there are some spells that were uttered in the celebration of their marriage. It says that Horus married her after defeating his uncle Seth and being the heir of his father on the throne of earth and being identified with Osiris. It began when Hathor moved from her temple in Dandara and went to Horus in his temple in Edfu. The first day of celebration was the first day of spring and thus the celebration involves some events including the first fruits to be reaped and many other ceremonies and they passed the night in the Birth temple. The celebration lasted for about two weeks and many sacrifices and rituals had been made. Like any other festival in ancient Egypt the mortal humans were celebrating with singing, dancing and drinking win as it is depicted on the walls of the temples. Some of the ceremonial events were used symbolically to show that the enemies of Horus were killed and to announce him the ruler of the Upper and the Lower Egypt and the husband of Hathor. After the end of the celebration Hathor turned back to her temple in Dandara.
- Hathor Amulet
Hathor is also a mother goddess who protected women and children. Her name means 'Mansion of Horus.' Hathor was goddess of love and music; she is shown as a cow and often wears a headdress of horns and a disc. Placed on the chest in the row of gods . | <urn:uuid:03dd0b4e-d6f2-47f1-8058-4546b5685d21> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://egyptopia.com/en/articles/Egypt/The-Goddess-Hathor.s.29.13685/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00449.warc.gz | en | 0.986978 | 1,129 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
0.14947381615638733,
0.6959882974624634,
0.20268514752388,
0.06076555699110031,
-0.6042622923851013,
0.0004219899419695139,
0.7573439478874207,
-0.14461460709571838,
-0.11740235239267349,
0.006156421732157469,
-0.043888162821531296,
-0.7469779253005981,
0.05345703661441803,
0.0236198548227... | 3 | Hathor in the ancient Egyptian religion was presented as the Earth mother who was called in the Coffin Text "the Primeval or the Lady of All". The origin of Hathor is a highly controversial issue since some of the myths say that she came to the world at the same time with Ra and thus was regarded as the goddess of Sun and was always depicted as a black-skinned or reddish-black goddess. Yet other versions demonstrate that she was the daughter of Nut and Ra. One of the major myths say that she was the wife of Horus when he became the sun god and she was placed next to him on the solar boat with a solar disk over her head. The statue of Hathor and her pictures beautify the walls of many temples in Egypt. The temple of Ramsses II in Abu Simbel that he dedicated to Queen Nefertari and supplied it with a lot of the marvelous pictures of Hathor. The temple of Dandara is one of the major places that display the statues and pictures of this goddess since it was the center of its worship. The temple of Phyla in Aswan is another place that was established as a cult center for Hathor also and stands next to another one for the worship of Horus. The temple of Hatshepsut in Luxor also is rich with paintings for Hathor surrounded by the queen and other members of her family. One of the worth seeing statues of Hathor, is currently displayed in the Egyptian museum in which it is portrayed as a cow nursing the baby who was Amenophis II. Another statue for her with a wooden head of a cow with copper corns and eyes that look like those of Horus is shown in the Museum of Luxor.
- The Forms of Hathor
Among the depictions of Hathor the one that presents her as a cow and other times as a woman with the head of a cow. Another attractive form of Hathor is the one where she is depicted as a complete woman with a couple of horns holding the solar disk between them over her head. On the columns in the temples of Dandara and Phyla or Elephantine Island Hathor is portrayed as a remarkably beautiful woman with cow ears, and smiling face. In the Coffin Texts Hathor was presented as the goddess of love, music, dance, singing and beauty. This demonstrates the reason for using her usually as a symbol for pleasure and relief since she was the symbol of the wife, the daughter, and the woman in general. In the Book of the Dead, she was one of the goddesses who attend the trial of the dead people to testimony that they were fairly judged. Some of the paintings of her highlight the role she played in the underworld as the goddess who supplies the recently dead souls with food embodying her under the sycamore tree feeding the dead people who are sitting in the shadow of the There are some papyri that date back to the 21 dynasty that presents Hathor as the cow who stands in the entrance of the underworld greeting the dead souls. Some of these papyri relate between the rising and setting of the sun and the movement of the head of the cow that stands in the western mountain. In other paintings Hathor was wearing the menat necklace that was used as a symbol for resurrection and was known at that period as the Lady of the West and the Lady of the Holy Country. The ancient idea that Hathor represented the sky and was associated with the sun was here connected with her newer role in behalf of the dead at the entrance of the underworld. Hathor as the goddess of music was depicted as a woman with a round face and holding a musical instrument in her hand.
There are many myths that present the relation between Horus and Hathor and most of them contradict each other. Some of these myths present Horus as the son of Hathor and Hathor as the cow who supports the sky with her legs and in whose mouth Horus, the god sun, enters by the end of every day and comes out every morning. Of all these myths, the most well known story is the one saying that Horus was the husband of Hathor. This myth dates back to the Ptolemaic period and there are some spells that were uttered in the celebration of their marriage. It says that Horus married her after defeating his uncle Seth and being the heir of his father on the throne of earth and being identified with Osiris. It began when Hathor moved from her temple in Dandara and went to Horus in his temple in Edfu. The first day of celebration was the first day of spring and thus the celebration involves some events including the first fruits to be reaped and many other ceremonies and they passed the night in the Birth temple. The celebration lasted for about two weeks and many sacrifices and rituals had been made. Like any other festival in ancient Egypt the mortal humans were celebrating with singing, dancing and drinking win as it is depicted on the walls of the temples. Some of the ceremonial events were used symbolically to show that the enemies of Horus were killed and to announce him the ruler of the Upper and the Lower Egypt and the husband of Hathor. After the end of the celebration Hathor turned back to her temple in Dandara.
- Hathor Amulet
Hathor is also a mother goddess who protected women and children. Her name means 'Mansion of Horus.' Hathor was goddess of love and music; she is shown as a cow and often wears a headdress of horns and a disc. Placed on the chest in the row of gods . | 1,141 | ENGLISH | 1 |
It may make you wince, but when your preschooler boasts "My dad's stronger than your dad!" it's nothing to worry about. In fact, it's perfectly normal behavior for a child this age. It stems in part from his egocentrism — he has trouble seeing through others' eyes — and in part from the fact that he's working to find out exactly what kind of influence he has in the world. A preschooler's distorted, inflated sense of self and what he can do (cook dinner, paint the garage!) is healthy; he's learning that he can make things happen, and his confidence is soaring.
When you hear your child put himself on top ("I can run faster than you can!"), don't lecture him. Instead, help him develop the ability to see others' perspectives, to learn to cooperate, and to be kind. So rather than telling your preschooler, "You're not better than anybody else," for instance, focus on the consequences of his behavior. Help him identify — and empathize with — his friend's feelings. Start by asking, "Do you think Jake is sad now?" If he says he doesn't know, say, "He looks sad," or "Let's ask him." Gently point out to your child that yes, Jake is sad, and it's because of what he said.
You can also teach your preschooler by example. If he hears one of your friends telling you how wonderful her child is, be supportive rather than jumping in to point out your own child's better qualities. Later, when you and your preschooler are alone, talk about the exchange. "Did you hear what Susan said about Stewart? I didn't want to hurt her feelings by saying 'My son's better!' so I just listened and showed her that I was happy for her."
As your preschooler matures, he'll naturally gain a more realistic view of himself and be better able to adopt others' perspectives, too. In the meantime, guide him by being a good role model and by pointing out his friends' feelings when he boasts.
advertisement | page continues below | <urn:uuid:03173545-0cd2-498e-b748-e3a3a4f45734> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.babycenter.com/404_how-do-i-teach-my-preschooler-to-stop-one-upping-other-kids_70218.bc | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00078.warc.gz | en | 0.985192 | 435 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.09845519065856934,
-0.13234779238700867,
0.344174861907959,
-0.2613118588924408,
-0.3788624703884125,
0.3071778416633606,
0.38906994462013245,
-0.023723140358924866,
-0.048304349184036255,
-0.2621302604675293,
0.4343644082546234,
0.07171549648046494,
0.2093198001384735,
0.39618605375289... | 5 | It may make you wince, but when your preschooler boasts "My dad's stronger than your dad!" it's nothing to worry about. In fact, it's perfectly normal behavior for a child this age. It stems in part from his egocentrism — he has trouble seeing through others' eyes — and in part from the fact that he's working to find out exactly what kind of influence he has in the world. A preschooler's distorted, inflated sense of self and what he can do (cook dinner, paint the garage!) is healthy; he's learning that he can make things happen, and his confidence is soaring.
When you hear your child put himself on top ("I can run faster than you can!"), don't lecture him. Instead, help him develop the ability to see others' perspectives, to learn to cooperate, and to be kind. So rather than telling your preschooler, "You're not better than anybody else," for instance, focus on the consequences of his behavior. Help him identify — and empathize with — his friend's feelings. Start by asking, "Do you think Jake is sad now?" If he says he doesn't know, say, "He looks sad," or "Let's ask him." Gently point out to your child that yes, Jake is sad, and it's because of what he said.
You can also teach your preschooler by example. If he hears one of your friends telling you how wonderful her child is, be supportive rather than jumping in to point out your own child's better qualities. Later, when you and your preschooler are alone, talk about the exchange. "Did you hear what Susan said about Stewart? I didn't want to hurt her feelings by saying 'My son's better!' so I just listened and showed her that I was happy for her."
As your preschooler matures, he'll naturally gain a more realistic view of himself and be better able to adopt others' perspectives, too. In the meantime, guide him by being a good role model and by pointing out his friends' feelings when he boasts.
advertisement | page continues below | 430 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Leon Theremin, also known as Lev Termen, demonstrates his musical instrument. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
Imagine a UFO descending from the heavens, its round disk pale against the night sky. What sound does it make? You’re likely imagining a keening whine in your head, like the howling of a haunted wind or the moans of a high-pitched ghost.
That’s the sound of the theremin, a musical instrument invented nearly a century ago. It was one of the first electronic musical instruments, and the first to be mass-produced. The theremin’s ethereal tones made it ubiquitous in science fiction film scores during the middle of the 20th century.
But the curious instrument was actually invented decades earlier, in 1920, by a Russian scientist named Lev Sergeyevich Termen. As a young man working at the Physical Technical Institute in Petrograd, he noticed that something odd happened when he hooked up audio circuits to an electrical device called an oscillator in a certain configuration. The oscillator produced an audible tone when he held his hands near it, and he could shift the tone just by waving his hands back and forth.
A classically trained cellist, Termen was immediately intrigued. Where other engineers may have seen a quirk of capacitators and circuits, he saw the opportunity to summon symphonies from the invisible.
Termen showed the device to his superiors and delivered the first concert with his device soon after. He followed with a private demonstration for Lenin in 1922, who was apparently intrigued by the strange device. The theremin — or etherphone, as it was originally called — had already become Termen’s calling card.
Musician Alexandra Stepanoff plays the theremin on NBC radio in 1930. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
The instrument became the forerunner of modern synthesizers, and had an indelible influence on the soundscapes of classic science fiction. Echoes of the theremin’s futuristic sounds appear everywhere, from the classic synth tones of ’90s-era G-funk to U.K. house music.
But all that came later. At the time of its creation, nearly 100 years ago, the theremin marked a seminal moment in the life of its young inventor. It was the beginning of a transcontinental voyage for Lev Termen, one that would make him a millionaire and a prisoner, a celebrated musician and a Soviet spy.
Cello in a Dense Fog
Termen, known also as Leon Theremin, was born in 1896 in St. Petersburg, Russia. A bright child, he took an interest in physics and astronomy from a young age — reportedly discovering a new star at the age of 15.
Termen enrolled in university classes at St. Petersburg University, as Albert Glinsky writes in his biography of Termen, Theremin: Ether Music and Espionage. But his studies were disrupted by World War I, for which he was conscripted as a radio technician. After the war ended, he began work in earnest in the promising new world of electrical devices, leading quickly to the invention of the theremin.
The instrument’s genesis was the product of a lingering dissatisfaction with the musical instruments of the time, Termen said. The bows, reeds and keys of the instruments of the day could only produce so many sounds — he wanted more.
“I realized there was a gap between music itself and its mechanical production, and I wanted to unite both of them,” Termen said of his invention in a 1989 interview. “I became interested in bringing about progress in music, so that there would be more musical resources. I was not satisfied with the mechanical instruments in existence.”
The theremin doesn’t look like an instrument. It’s nothing more than a box with two wires sticking out of it. But to people at the time, the sounds it made, summoned by the simple act of waving two hands near its antennae, were marvelous.
Descriptions of the theremin’s curious timbre are varied and expressive, though Harold C. Schonberg, then chief music critic for The New York Times, may have put it best in a 1967 profile. The device sounds something like “a cello lost in a dense fog and crying because it does not know how to get home,” he wrote, “not unlike an eerie, throbbing voice.”
In the years after the theremin’s invention in the early 1920s, at a time when electricity and devices that harnessed it were a source of constant fascination, Termen’s instrument must have seemed plucked from the future. The young scientist toured Russia, and eventually Europe, with his new device, giving concerts and demonstrations. His travels culminated with a move to New York City in 1927, where Termen and his instrument quickly became celebrities among the city’s artistic elite.
‘Ether Music’ Device
Soon after moving to the U.S. Termen was ensconced in a large house on 54th Street in New York, where he had a studio, entertaining musicians, scientists and more. Einstein was a guest, and, in Termen’s telling, maintained a studio there to work on concepts pairing geometry with music theory.
Just a year later, the electronics company RCA acquired the patent for the theremin, with the plan of mass-producing it for audiences worldwide. Because it required no actual contact, they assumed the device would be easy to learn to play — though later evidence would suggest otherwise.
“Anyone who is able to hum a tune, sing or whistle is likely to play the RCA theremin as well as a trained musician,” an RCA executive, quoted in The New York Times, said of the item, which cost $175. They called it an “ether music” device.
In fact, if you were a fan of the orchestra in New York City at the time, you were probably fairly familiar with the theremin. Thereminists were popping up in orchestras around the city, and well-known conductor Leopold Stokowski planned to write them into popular pieces of music. In 1929, Termen and three other thereminists played at Carnegie Hall, performing works by Chopin, Tchaikovsky and Bach, among others.
He also sought news ways of pushing the boundaries of musical instrumentation. Termen introduced a rudimentary drum machine, the rhythmicon, in 1931. He also created a kind of full-body theremin, called the terpsitone. Where a theremin responded to hand movements, his new creation would create music in response to a musician moving their entire body in and around the device. Termen foresaw an innovative pairing of dance and music, allowing a performer’s expressive movements to be translated into a song of their own.
Though he built a prototype, Termen never found much of an audience for the instrument. What he did find, however, was romance. A dancer named Lavinia Williams, from the American Negro Ballet, had been working with him in his studio, and Termen was smitten. They were eventually married — something that may have turned away potential business partners, the BBC reports, due to the fact that Williams was African-American.
Along with a new wife and an expanding social circle, Termen continued inventing. He created an electronic crib alarm in the wake of the Charles Lindbergh baby scandal, and won a contract to produce a metal detector for Alcatraz (though it never panned out). He was at times a reported millionaire, though debts hounded him constantly — Termen’s capacious intellect did not seem to encompass the world of business.
But his happiness in America was to be short-lived. In 1938, under mysterious circumstances, Termen returned abruptly to Russia, smuggled aboard a Soviet ship using an assumed identity. To his friends and colleagues in New York, he seemingly vanished for almost three decades. Williams, his wife, never saw him again.
The reasons for his departure remain murky and varied. Initial speculation held that he had been kidnapped by the Soviets and violently repatriated in the midst of Russia’s burgeoning involvement in World War II. Later reports suggested that he may simply have been fleeing his creditors in the U.S. Decades later, Termen insisted that his departure was motivated solely by patriotism. As Russia inched closer to war, he wanted to be there to help.
Whatever the reasons, Termen would soon find himself implicated as a traitor in Russia, perhaps because of his time in America. The one-time socialite was sentenced to hard labor in the country’s gulag system, which was often a death sentence. His time in the Soviet prisons would stretch for decades, stranding him oceans away from the life he had once lived in New York. But it would also be a kind of rebirth for the brilliant inventor — one that would tip his legacy into infamy.
Spycraft, and a Forerunner to RFID
Life in the Soviet gulags was relentlessly brutal. Prisoners did hard labor, often until their bodies wore down and they died. Though estimates vary, some put mortality rates as high as 20 percent during the system’s harshest years. It was hardly a place for a scientist, to say nothing of a man accustomed to the luxuries of the upper crust.
But Termen appears to have made the best of it. Originally assigned to a labor crew, he was soon made supervisor of the workers. And less than a year into his stay, he was brought back to Moscow to join a system of secret laboratories called sharashka, along with other top scientists. There, he began inventing again.
His creations included a system code-named BURAN, which used an infrared beam to pick up the vibrations that sound waves create on a pane of glass. It could be used to listen covertly to conversations inside buildings without risk of being detected. The device was put to use against the U.S., France and Britain during the Cold War, and even used to spy on Stalin himself.
A replica of the Great Seal with the listening device hidden inside. (Credit: Austin MIlls/Wikimedia Commons)
Termen’s most well-known invention during his time in the sharashka, however, was a device known simply as “The Thing.” It was a listening device of such simplicity and ingenuity that it would go undetected for seven years in the office of the U.S. ambassador to Russia, transmitting sensitive diplomatic information to the Russians and greatly embarrassing the U.S. upon its discovery.
The spy device was hidden inside a carved wooden Great Seal of the United States, given to the U.S. ambassador by a group of schoolchildren in 1945. It hung proudly in the ambassador’s office until 1952, when a British radio operator intercepted its transmissions and “The Thing” was uncovered.
The bug was a simple cavity resonator and circuit attached to an antenna that would only pick up signals when an electromagnetic signal of the correct frequency was aimed at it. Soviet agents outside the embassy only had to aim a radio beam through the windows, and the device would transmit back the voices inside.
It took the CIA years to successfully replicate the spying device, today heralded as a forerunner to modern radio frequency identification — or RFID — technology. The passive transmitters in our keycards, credit cards and more rely on the same principal as Termen’s Cold War-era listening bug.
Electricity is Not for Music
Termen was released from the sharashka laboratory in 1947, though he seems, if anything, to have missed it.
“It turned out that when I was free it was much more difficult to work in the lab,” he said years later.
Perhaps longing for a return to a life unburdened by anything but science, he asked the KGB to hire him after his release. Termen went on to work in secretive government labs, and for years likely dedicated himself purely to research, though little is known about his activities during this time.
In the early 1960s, Termen was officially cleared of the charges that had put him in the sharashka and allowed to return to a more public life. He took a position at the Moscow State Tchaikovsky Conservatory, where he returned to the experiments with electronic musical instruments that had captivated him as a young man.
His appointment there was to be short-lived, unfortunately. The New York Times published a short profile of him and his experiments in 1967 (the one calling the theremin a “cello lost in a dense fog”). It was the first time many acquaintances in New York had heard from him since he had left. But in Moscow the piece didn’t go over well: The conservatory decided his work didn’t fit with their mission and closed his lab down.
“Electricity is not good for music; electricity is to be used for electrocution,” Termen remembers being told.
Though he spent much of his later life in relative obscurity, a more hopeful coda to his long, tangled life did emerge. A trip to a European music festival in 1989, and a long-overdue return to America in 1991, reintroduced Termen and his inventions to the world. In 1990, well into his ninth decade, Termen performed at the Electronic Music Festival in Stockholm. A documentary on his life followed in 1993, airing two days before his death at 97.
The Theremin’s Legacy
Today, Termen remains best known for the instrument that bears his name. Theremins have left an indelible sonic fingerprint on popular culture, though their use has faded today. The most well-known touchstone for the instrument likely remains the Beach Boys’ 1966 hit “Good Vibrations.” (Though that instrument is not technically a theremin, but a variation known as an electro-theremin.) Five decades later, modern synthesizers can produce a far greater range of sounds and are far more easily controlled.
But the theremin remains just one facet of Lev Termen’s prodigious output. Throughout the course of his long life, as he moved between countries and political regimes, freedom and imprisonment, there was one constant: He never stopped inventing. His experiments and irrepressible curiosity led him to multiple technical breakthroughs, any of which would be impressive in its own right. It simply came as a byproduct that they also made him both a pioneering musician and an antagonist to the U.S. government. | <urn:uuid:2014f5e2-e4c1-4e43-ac25-7c182ed75980> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.foryoursociety.com/creepy-music-and-soviet-spycraft-the-amazing-life-of-leon-theremin/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00369.warc.gz | en | 0.981409 | 3,048 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.08478016406297684,
-0.07924570143222809,
0.2834961414337158,
-0.1853523552417755,
-0.3093053102493286,
0.17405588924884796,
0.2641140818595886,
-0.07545925676822662,
0.10789710283279419,
-0.13434842228889465,
0.1869794875383377,
0.5642147064208984,
0.22054238617420197,
0.012571155093610... | 2 | Leon Theremin, also known as Lev Termen, demonstrates his musical instrument. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
Imagine a UFO descending from the heavens, its round disk pale against the night sky. What sound does it make? You’re likely imagining a keening whine in your head, like the howling of a haunted wind or the moans of a high-pitched ghost.
That’s the sound of the theremin, a musical instrument invented nearly a century ago. It was one of the first electronic musical instruments, and the first to be mass-produced. The theremin’s ethereal tones made it ubiquitous in science fiction film scores during the middle of the 20th century.
But the curious instrument was actually invented decades earlier, in 1920, by a Russian scientist named Lev Sergeyevich Termen. As a young man working at the Physical Technical Institute in Petrograd, he noticed that something odd happened when he hooked up audio circuits to an electrical device called an oscillator in a certain configuration. The oscillator produced an audible tone when he held his hands near it, and he could shift the tone just by waving his hands back and forth.
A classically trained cellist, Termen was immediately intrigued. Where other engineers may have seen a quirk of capacitators and circuits, he saw the opportunity to summon symphonies from the invisible.
Termen showed the device to his superiors and delivered the first concert with his device soon after. He followed with a private demonstration for Lenin in 1922, who was apparently intrigued by the strange device. The theremin — or etherphone, as it was originally called — had already become Termen’s calling card.
Musician Alexandra Stepanoff plays the theremin on NBC radio in 1930. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
The instrument became the forerunner of modern synthesizers, and had an indelible influence on the soundscapes of classic science fiction. Echoes of the theremin’s futuristic sounds appear everywhere, from the classic synth tones of ’90s-era G-funk to U.K. house music.
But all that came later. At the time of its creation, nearly 100 years ago, the theremin marked a seminal moment in the life of its young inventor. It was the beginning of a transcontinental voyage for Lev Termen, one that would make him a millionaire and a prisoner, a celebrated musician and a Soviet spy.
Cello in a Dense Fog
Termen, known also as Leon Theremin, was born in 1896 in St. Petersburg, Russia. A bright child, he took an interest in physics and astronomy from a young age — reportedly discovering a new star at the age of 15.
Termen enrolled in university classes at St. Petersburg University, as Albert Glinsky writes in his biography of Termen, Theremin: Ether Music and Espionage. But his studies were disrupted by World War I, for which he was conscripted as a radio technician. After the war ended, he began work in earnest in the promising new world of electrical devices, leading quickly to the invention of the theremin.
The instrument’s genesis was the product of a lingering dissatisfaction with the musical instruments of the time, Termen said. The bows, reeds and keys of the instruments of the day could only produce so many sounds — he wanted more.
“I realized there was a gap between music itself and its mechanical production, and I wanted to unite both of them,” Termen said of his invention in a 1989 interview. “I became interested in bringing about progress in music, so that there would be more musical resources. I was not satisfied with the mechanical instruments in existence.”
The theremin doesn’t look like an instrument. It’s nothing more than a box with two wires sticking out of it. But to people at the time, the sounds it made, summoned by the simple act of waving two hands near its antennae, were marvelous.
Descriptions of the theremin’s curious timbre are varied and expressive, though Harold C. Schonberg, then chief music critic for The New York Times, may have put it best in a 1967 profile. The device sounds something like “a cello lost in a dense fog and crying because it does not know how to get home,” he wrote, “not unlike an eerie, throbbing voice.”
In the years after the theremin’s invention in the early 1920s, at a time when electricity and devices that harnessed it were a source of constant fascination, Termen’s instrument must have seemed plucked from the future. The young scientist toured Russia, and eventually Europe, with his new device, giving concerts and demonstrations. His travels culminated with a move to New York City in 1927, where Termen and his instrument quickly became celebrities among the city’s artistic elite.
‘Ether Music’ Device
Soon after moving to the U.S. Termen was ensconced in a large house on 54th Street in New York, where he had a studio, entertaining musicians, scientists and more. Einstein was a guest, and, in Termen’s telling, maintained a studio there to work on concepts pairing geometry with music theory.
Just a year later, the electronics company RCA acquired the patent for the theremin, with the plan of mass-producing it for audiences worldwide. Because it required no actual contact, they assumed the device would be easy to learn to play — though later evidence would suggest otherwise.
“Anyone who is able to hum a tune, sing or whistle is likely to play the RCA theremin as well as a trained musician,” an RCA executive, quoted in The New York Times, said of the item, which cost $175. They called it an “ether music” device.
In fact, if you were a fan of the orchestra in New York City at the time, you were probably fairly familiar with the theremin. Thereminists were popping up in orchestras around the city, and well-known conductor Leopold Stokowski planned to write them into popular pieces of music. In 1929, Termen and three other thereminists played at Carnegie Hall, performing works by Chopin, Tchaikovsky and Bach, among others.
He also sought news ways of pushing the boundaries of musical instrumentation. Termen introduced a rudimentary drum machine, the rhythmicon, in 1931. He also created a kind of full-body theremin, called the terpsitone. Where a theremin responded to hand movements, his new creation would create music in response to a musician moving their entire body in and around the device. Termen foresaw an innovative pairing of dance and music, allowing a performer’s expressive movements to be translated into a song of their own.
Though he built a prototype, Termen never found much of an audience for the instrument. What he did find, however, was romance. A dancer named Lavinia Williams, from the American Negro Ballet, had been working with him in his studio, and Termen was smitten. They were eventually married — something that may have turned away potential business partners, the BBC reports, due to the fact that Williams was African-American.
Along with a new wife and an expanding social circle, Termen continued inventing. He created an electronic crib alarm in the wake of the Charles Lindbergh baby scandal, and won a contract to produce a metal detector for Alcatraz (though it never panned out). He was at times a reported millionaire, though debts hounded him constantly — Termen’s capacious intellect did not seem to encompass the world of business.
But his happiness in America was to be short-lived. In 1938, under mysterious circumstances, Termen returned abruptly to Russia, smuggled aboard a Soviet ship using an assumed identity. To his friends and colleagues in New York, he seemingly vanished for almost three decades. Williams, his wife, never saw him again.
The reasons for his departure remain murky and varied. Initial speculation held that he had been kidnapped by the Soviets and violently repatriated in the midst of Russia’s burgeoning involvement in World War II. Later reports suggested that he may simply have been fleeing his creditors in the U.S. Decades later, Termen insisted that his departure was motivated solely by patriotism. As Russia inched closer to war, he wanted to be there to help.
Whatever the reasons, Termen would soon find himself implicated as a traitor in Russia, perhaps because of his time in America. The one-time socialite was sentenced to hard labor in the country’s gulag system, which was often a death sentence. His time in the Soviet prisons would stretch for decades, stranding him oceans away from the life he had once lived in New York. But it would also be a kind of rebirth for the brilliant inventor — one that would tip his legacy into infamy.
Spycraft, and a Forerunner to RFID
Life in the Soviet gulags was relentlessly brutal. Prisoners did hard labor, often until their bodies wore down and they died. Though estimates vary, some put mortality rates as high as 20 percent during the system’s harshest years. It was hardly a place for a scientist, to say nothing of a man accustomed to the luxuries of the upper crust.
But Termen appears to have made the best of it. Originally assigned to a labor crew, he was soon made supervisor of the workers. And less than a year into his stay, he was brought back to Moscow to join a system of secret laboratories called sharashka, along with other top scientists. There, he began inventing again.
His creations included a system code-named BURAN, which used an infrared beam to pick up the vibrations that sound waves create on a pane of glass. It could be used to listen covertly to conversations inside buildings without risk of being detected. The device was put to use against the U.S., France and Britain during the Cold War, and even used to spy on Stalin himself.
A replica of the Great Seal with the listening device hidden inside. (Credit: Austin MIlls/Wikimedia Commons)
Termen’s most well-known invention during his time in the sharashka, however, was a device known simply as “The Thing.” It was a listening device of such simplicity and ingenuity that it would go undetected for seven years in the office of the U.S. ambassador to Russia, transmitting sensitive diplomatic information to the Russians and greatly embarrassing the U.S. upon its discovery.
The spy device was hidden inside a carved wooden Great Seal of the United States, given to the U.S. ambassador by a group of schoolchildren in 1945. It hung proudly in the ambassador’s office until 1952, when a British radio operator intercepted its transmissions and “The Thing” was uncovered.
The bug was a simple cavity resonator and circuit attached to an antenna that would only pick up signals when an electromagnetic signal of the correct frequency was aimed at it. Soviet agents outside the embassy only had to aim a radio beam through the windows, and the device would transmit back the voices inside.
It took the CIA years to successfully replicate the spying device, today heralded as a forerunner to modern radio frequency identification — or RFID — technology. The passive transmitters in our keycards, credit cards and more rely on the same principal as Termen’s Cold War-era listening bug.
Electricity is Not for Music
Termen was released from the sharashka laboratory in 1947, though he seems, if anything, to have missed it.
“It turned out that when I was free it was much more difficult to work in the lab,” he said years later.
Perhaps longing for a return to a life unburdened by anything but science, he asked the KGB to hire him after his release. Termen went on to work in secretive government labs, and for years likely dedicated himself purely to research, though little is known about his activities during this time.
In the early 1960s, Termen was officially cleared of the charges that had put him in the sharashka and allowed to return to a more public life. He took a position at the Moscow State Tchaikovsky Conservatory, where he returned to the experiments with electronic musical instruments that had captivated him as a young man.
His appointment there was to be short-lived, unfortunately. The New York Times published a short profile of him and his experiments in 1967 (the one calling the theremin a “cello lost in a dense fog”). It was the first time many acquaintances in New York had heard from him since he had left. But in Moscow the piece didn’t go over well: The conservatory decided his work didn’t fit with their mission and closed his lab down.
“Electricity is not good for music; electricity is to be used for electrocution,” Termen remembers being told.
Though he spent much of his later life in relative obscurity, a more hopeful coda to his long, tangled life did emerge. A trip to a European music festival in 1989, and a long-overdue return to America in 1991, reintroduced Termen and his inventions to the world. In 1990, well into his ninth decade, Termen performed at the Electronic Music Festival in Stockholm. A documentary on his life followed in 1993, airing two days before his death at 97.
The Theremin’s Legacy
Today, Termen remains best known for the instrument that bears his name. Theremins have left an indelible sonic fingerprint on popular culture, though their use has faded today. The most well-known touchstone for the instrument likely remains the Beach Boys’ 1966 hit “Good Vibrations.” (Though that instrument is not technically a theremin, but a variation known as an electro-theremin.) Five decades later, modern synthesizers can produce a far greater range of sounds and are far more easily controlled.
But the theremin remains just one facet of Lev Termen’s prodigious output. Throughout the course of his long life, as he moved between countries and political regimes, freedom and imprisonment, there was one constant: He never stopped inventing. His experiments and irrepressible curiosity led him to multiple technical breakthroughs, any of which would be impressive in its own right. It simply came as a byproduct that they also made him both a pioneering musician and an antagonist to the U.S. government. | 2,998 | ENGLISH | 1 |
New research by British scientists has found that heavy wrinkles on the faces of smokers may be an early warning sign of a serious lung disease.
The researchers at the Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation in southwest England found that smokers with pronounced wrinkles are five times more likely than those without marked facial lines to suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
COPD is an umbrella term for a range of progressive chronic lung diseases, such as emphysema and bronchitis, which block the airways and restrict oxygen flow around the body.
COPD is a major cause of death worldwide and is caused by smoking, which also prematurely ages the skin; the researchers were interested to see whether there was a link between the two.
Dr. Bipen Patel who conducted the study says they found that cigarette smokers who had a large amount of facial wrinkling were five times more likely to have COPD than smokers who were less wrinkled.
COPD begins with a persistent cough and increased mucous and eventually leads to fatigue, shortness of breath and difficulty breathing as the lungs are destroyed.
The disease develops gradually and Patel and his team believe facial wrinkling could be an a sign of the illness before it is diagnosed.
The researchers studied 149 former and current middle-aged smokers and compared how much they smoked during their lifetime and their sun exposure, which also damages the skin.
Then two dermatologists scored the severity of wrinkling from photographs of the smokers and breathing tests and scans were also done to detect any signs of COPD.
According to the scientists the smokers who were the most wrinkled were far more likely to have changes in their lungs suggesting COPD, and they suggest there could be an unknown common mechanism linking COPD and wrinkling.
Facial wrinkling was also associated with triple the risk of more severe emphysema.
The World Health Organisation estimates COPD will become the third-biggest cause of death worldwide by 2020 and they say deaths from COPD are increasing in most countries.
One million people are thought to have COPD in the UK.
As a rule the illness afflicts people over 40 who have been smoking for many years and is a factor in other disorders such as pneumonia, heart disease and stroke.
Although there is no cure for COPD, treatment can relieve the symptoms and therapies to slow its progression are currently being tested.
The study is published in the journal Thorax. | <urn:uuid:6808eaba-9c28-4fd9-9388-3b538320401e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/06/14/18433.aspx | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594705.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119180644-20200119204644-00527.warc.gz | en | 0.983583 | 501 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
-0.23505781590938568,
0.03422753885388374,
0.4416391849517822,
0.03755935654044151,
0.20993921160697937,
0.412681519985199,
0.1102585569024086,
-0.2184993028640747,
-0.1946161389350891,
0.09877871721982956,
-0.0799366757273674,
-0.5668172240257263,
-0.030554665252566338,
0.3318484425544739... | 2 | New research by British scientists has found that heavy wrinkles on the faces of smokers may be an early warning sign of a serious lung disease.
The researchers at the Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation in southwest England found that smokers with pronounced wrinkles are five times more likely than those without marked facial lines to suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
COPD is an umbrella term for a range of progressive chronic lung diseases, such as emphysema and bronchitis, which block the airways and restrict oxygen flow around the body.
COPD is a major cause of death worldwide and is caused by smoking, which also prematurely ages the skin; the researchers were interested to see whether there was a link between the two.
Dr. Bipen Patel who conducted the study says they found that cigarette smokers who had a large amount of facial wrinkling were five times more likely to have COPD than smokers who were less wrinkled.
COPD begins with a persistent cough and increased mucous and eventually leads to fatigue, shortness of breath and difficulty breathing as the lungs are destroyed.
The disease develops gradually and Patel and his team believe facial wrinkling could be an a sign of the illness before it is diagnosed.
The researchers studied 149 former and current middle-aged smokers and compared how much they smoked during their lifetime and their sun exposure, which also damages the skin.
Then two dermatologists scored the severity of wrinkling from photographs of the smokers and breathing tests and scans were also done to detect any signs of COPD.
According to the scientists the smokers who were the most wrinkled were far more likely to have changes in their lungs suggesting COPD, and they suggest there could be an unknown common mechanism linking COPD and wrinkling.
Facial wrinkling was also associated with triple the risk of more severe emphysema.
The World Health Organisation estimates COPD will become the third-biggest cause of death worldwide by 2020 and they say deaths from COPD are increasing in most countries.
One million people are thought to have COPD in the UK.
As a rule the illness afflicts people over 40 who have been smoking for many years and is a factor in other disorders such as pneumonia, heart disease and stroke.
Although there is no cure for COPD, treatment can relieve the symptoms and therapies to slow its progression are currently being tested.
The study is published in the journal Thorax. | 492 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A Great Flood
In ancient times, there were so many people in the land that they lived everywhere. Soon hunting became bad and food scarce, so that the people quarreled over hunting territories.
Even in those days, the people were skilled in making fine canoes and paddles from cedars, and clothing and baskets from their bark. In dreams their wise old men could see the future, and there came a time when they all had similar bad dreams that kept coming to them over and over again. The dreams warned of a great flood. This troubled the wise men who told each other about their dreams. They found that they all had dreamed that rain fell for such a long time, or that the river rose, causing a great flood so that all of the people were drowned. They were much afraid and called a council to hear their dreams and decide what should be done. One said that they should build a great raft by tying many canoes together. Some of the people agreed, but others laughed at the old men and their dreams.
The people who believed in the dreams worked hard building the raft. It took many moons of hard work, lashing huge cedar log canoes together with strong ropes of cedar bark. When it was completed, they tied the raft with a great rope of cedar bark to the top of Mount Cowichan by passing one end of the rope through the center of a huge stone which can still be seen there.
During the time the people were working on the raft, those who did not believe in the dreams were idle and still laughed, but they did admire the fine, solid raft when it was at last finished and floated in Cowichan Bay.
Soon after the raft was ready, huge raindrops started falling, rivers overflowed, and the valleys were flooded. Although people climbed Mount Cowichan to avoid the great flood, it too was soon under water. But those who had believed the dreams took food to the raft and they and their families climbed into it as the waters rose. They lived on the raft many days and could see nothing but water. Even the mountain tops had disappeared beneath the flood.
The woman with three hundred and sixty-six children
Category: Dutch folktales
Read times: 7 | <urn:uuid:78ddddd8-5b2e-4696-a2d6-d976c45844be> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://english.skazk.ru/catalog/native-american-folktales/a-great-flood-836/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778272.69/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128122813-20200128152813-00111.warc.gz | en | 0.991179 | 462 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
0.18140362203121185,
0.24910420179367065,
0.08182880282402039,
0.03200310468673706,
-0.07498736679553986,
-0.32204627990722656,
0.13424380123615265,
-0.11778309941291809,
-0.30207693576812744,
-0.41091158986091614,
0.23375149071216583,
-0.5365351438522339,
-0.04144538566470146,
0.072282806... | 1 | A Great Flood
In ancient times, there were so many people in the land that they lived everywhere. Soon hunting became bad and food scarce, so that the people quarreled over hunting territories.
Even in those days, the people were skilled in making fine canoes and paddles from cedars, and clothing and baskets from their bark. In dreams their wise old men could see the future, and there came a time when they all had similar bad dreams that kept coming to them over and over again. The dreams warned of a great flood. This troubled the wise men who told each other about their dreams. They found that they all had dreamed that rain fell for such a long time, or that the river rose, causing a great flood so that all of the people were drowned. They were much afraid and called a council to hear their dreams and decide what should be done. One said that they should build a great raft by tying many canoes together. Some of the people agreed, but others laughed at the old men and their dreams.
The people who believed in the dreams worked hard building the raft. It took many moons of hard work, lashing huge cedar log canoes together with strong ropes of cedar bark. When it was completed, they tied the raft with a great rope of cedar bark to the top of Mount Cowichan by passing one end of the rope through the center of a huge stone which can still be seen there.
During the time the people were working on the raft, those who did not believe in the dreams were idle and still laughed, but they did admire the fine, solid raft when it was at last finished and floated in Cowichan Bay.
Soon after the raft was ready, huge raindrops started falling, rivers overflowed, and the valleys were flooded. Although people climbed Mount Cowichan to avoid the great flood, it too was soon under water. But those who had believed the dreams took food to the raft and they and their families climbed into it as the waters rose. They lived on the raft many days and could see nothing but water. Even the mountain tops had disappeared beneath the flood.
The woman with three hundred and sixty-six children
Category: Dutch folktales
Read times: 7 | 454 | ENGLISH | 1 |
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Spanish-American War of 1898
SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR OF 1898. For the causes leading up to the war see Cuba and United States: History. On the 15th of February 1898 the U.S. battleship "Maine," which had been sent to Havana on the 25th of January, was destroyed in Havana harbour by an explosion, with a loss of 266 lives. An American board of inquiry, of which Captain W. T. Sampson was president, made an extensive examination of the wreck, and reported to the navy department on the 21st of March that the explosion was caused by an exterior mine, the principal reason for this decision being the upheaval of the ship's bottom. On the 20th of April President McKinley approved a resolution demanding the withdrawal of Spain from Cuba and setting noon of the 23rd of April as the latest date for a reply to the demand. Before this could be delivered by the American minister in Madrid, the Spanish government sent him his passports. On the 22nd the president declared a blockade of Cuban ports; on the 24th the Spanish government declared war; and on the 25th the United States Congress declared that war had existed since the 21st.
The American government had begun to prepare for war as early as January: ships on several foreign stations had been drawn nearer home, and those in Chinese waters were collected at Hong-Kong; the North Atlantic squadron, the only powerful one, had been sent from Hampton Roads into the waters of Florida for manoeuvres; after the destruction of the " Maine " the chief part of the ships in the Atlantic were concentrated at Key West ; the battleship "Oregon" was ordered east from the Pacific; $50,000,000 was voted (March 9) " for the national defence "; steps were taken to purchase auxiliary cruisers, yachts and tugs, which were rapidly equipped; large supplies of ammunition were ordered, and Key West became an active base of preparation; Captain Sampson, senior officer of the North Atlantic squadron, was appointed its commander-in-chief with rank of acting rear- admiral; and a " flying squadron " composed of the armoured cruiser " Brooklyn " (flag), the battleships " Texas " and " Massachusetts," and the fast cruisers " Minneapolis " and " Columbia," with Commodore W. S. Schley in command, was stationed at Hampton Roads.
There was a great preponderance of large ships on the side of the United States; only in torpedo craft and small gunboats was Spain superior. The- American ships were highly efficient; in Spain everything was unready; Admiral Cervera felt that to send a Spanish squadron across the Atlantic was to send it to destruction, and when he had collected his squadron (including two cruisers from Havana) at the Cape Verde Islands in March, he renewed his expostulations, in which he was supported by a council of war. But on the 24th of April he was peremptorily ordered to leave for Porto Rico, without definite instructions or plan of campaign.
The American flying squadron was held at Hampton Roads, so great was the fear of attack by Spanish ships; and armed auxiliaries and fast cruisers were employed in patrolling the coast east of New York; these could have rendered good service else- where, but would have been of no use in repelling an attack by Cervera's squadron had it come that way.
The joint resolution of Congress of the 20th of April had declared that the relinquishment by Spain of authority in Cuba was the object of American action; the struggle thus naturally centred about the island. All operations were thus near at hand, Havana, the real objective in Cuba, being only about 100 m. from Key West. A political reason for confining action to the western Atlantic was that an immediate attack upon the coasts of Spain might have aroused the strongly pro-Spanish sympathy of continental Europe into greater activity. The regular United States army, the only available force until wax was declared and a volunteer force was authorized, had been assembled at lampa, Florida, New Orleans and Chickamauga, Georgia, but until the control of the sea was decided, the army could not prudently be moved across the Strait of Florida. Cervera's fleet was thus the real objective of the navy, and had to be settled with before any military action could be undertaken.
Rear-Admiral Sampson left Key West early on the 22nd, and began the blockade of Havana and the north coast of Cuba as far as Cardenas, 80 m. east, and Bahia Honda, 50 m. west. His North Atlantic squadron of 28 vessels of all kinds, of which the armoured cruiser "New York" (flag), the battleships "Iowa" and "Indiana," and the monitors "Puritan," "Terror" and "Amphitrite," were the most important, and which included six torpedo-boats, was increased to 1 24 vessels by the 1st of July, chiefly by the addition of extemporized cruisers, converted yachts, &c.
In the Pacific, the American squadron — the protected cruisers "Olympia" (flagship of Commodore George Dewey), "Baltimore," "Raleigh" and "Boston," the small unprotected cruiser "Concord," the gunboat " Petrel," the armed revenue cutter "Hugh M'Culloen," with a purchased collier "Nanshan" and a purchased supply ship "Zafiro"— left Hong-Kong at the request of the governor and went to Mirs Bay, some miles east on the Chinese coast. Ordered (April 25) to begin operations, particularly against the Spanish fleet, which he was directed to capture or destroy, Dewey left Mirs Bay on the 27th, and arrived off Luzon, in the Philippines, on the 30th of April. The Spanish admiral Montojo anchored to the eastward of the spit on which are the village and arsenal of Cavite, in a general east and west line, keeping his broadside to the northward. His force consisted of the "Reina Cristina," the "Castilla" (an old wooden steamer which had to be towed); the "Isla de Cuba" and "Isla de Luzon" (protected cruisers of 1050 tons); the "Don Juan de Austria" and the "Don Antonio de Ulloa" (gunboats of about 1150 tons), and the "Marques del Duero" (of 500 tons). There were six guns (3 breech-loaders) in battery at or near Cavite.
Dewey stood on during the night, and passed into the Boca Grande (about 5 m. broad), paying no attention to rumours of torpedoes in a channel so broad and deep, and at MaaUa" midnight passed El Fraile (a large rock, if 2½ m. from the south side), from which two shots were fired at him, and he was also fired at by the "Cavite" and one of the city batteries. When he sighted the Spanish squadron to the southward Le ordered his transports and the revenue cutter "Hugh M'Culloch" out into the hay, and stood down in column with the "Olympia," "Baltimore," "Raleigh," "Petrel," " Concord " and " Boston " at 400-yd. intervals. When within 5000 yds. he ported his helm, and at 5.41 a.m. opened fire. He stood westwards along the Spanish line, using his port batteries, turned to starboard and stood back, gradually decreasing his distance to 2000 yds. At 7 o'clock the Spanish flagship attempted to come out and engage at short range, but was driven back by the American fire. The Spanish squadron was now in very bad plight, but the seriousness of its condition was not fully known to the American commander. At 7.35 Dewey withdrew, gave his men breakfast, and had a consultation of commanding officers. Before he re-engaged at 11. 16 the "Cristina" and " Castilla " had broken into flames, so that the remainder of the action consisted in silencing the Cavite batteries and completing the destruction and demoralization of the smaller Spanish ships, which the "Petrel" was ordered in to burn. The victory was complete. All the Spanish ships were sunk or destroyed. The injury done the American ships was practically nil. The Spanish lost 167 killed and 214 wounded, out of a total of 1875. The Americans had 7 slightly wounded out of 1748 men in action. Dewey took possession of Cavite, paroled its garrison, and awaited the arrival of a land force to capture Manila.
The blockade of Havana had progressed without incident, beyond the capture of a number of Spanish steamers and sailing vessels, and the shelling of some new earthworks Blockade. at Matanzas on the 27th of April; but on the nth of May a small action was fought at Cardenas, in which the Americans were repulsed and Ensign Worth Bagley, the first American officer to lose his life in the war, was killed. On the same day a partially successful attempt was made, under a heavy fire from the shore, to cut the cable between Cienfuegos and Havana.
Cervera had left the Cape Verde Islands on the 29th of April with four armoured cruisers, the "Almiiante Oquendo," "Infanta Maria Theresa" and " Vizcaya " (sister ships of 7000 tons) and the " Cristobal Colon " (same size; differently equipped) and three torpedo-boat destroyers — a type not then represented in the American navy — "Furor," "Terror" and "Pluton." On hearing (May 1) of Cervera's departure, Sampson went east 1000 m. to San Juan, Porto Rico, with the armoured cruiser "New York," the battleships " Iowa " and " Indiana," the cruisers "Montgomery " and " Detroit," and one torpedo-boat. In going east he calculated on using a speed of 10 knots, on getting to San Juan on the 8th, about the time the Spaniards would reach its longitude, and if they were not there, on returning off Havana before they could get to Havana harbour. He wished to prevent Cervera's refitting at San Juan, from which place the American coast would be within easy reach, New York being only about 1400 m. away. But the speed of the American squadron fell short of Sampson's expectation; he reached San Juan on the 12th, stood in to see if Cervera was in the harbour, and opened fire upon the fortifications. He did not press the attack since Cervera was not present, and at once started back for Havana without news of Cervera, who was then in fact off Martinique, with orders to go to San Juan. When he heard that Sampson was at San Juan, he steamed to Curasao, where he arrived on the 14th of May and where the authorities allowed him to coal. He reached Santiago de Cuba early on the 1 9th without being sighted en route by any of the American scouts, though several were in the vicinity. Sampson thought the Spanish squadron might have returned to Spain. But he learned that the enemy had net turned back, on the night of the 15th, when a telegram from the navy department directed him to proceed with all despatch to Key West. He got there on the afternoon of the 18th, and found the flying The Search squadron ("Brooklyn" (flag), " Massachusetts," forCerrera's " Texas," and " Scorpion "), which left on the next Squadron. morning (19th) for Cienfuegos, then regarded by the navy department as the certain objective of the Spanish squadron. The battleship " Iowa," the gunboat " Castine," the torpedo- boat " Dupont " and the collier " Merrimac " sailed to join Schley on the 20th, and gave him a force sufficient to meet Cervera. Sampson was advised by the department (on the 20th) to " send by the ' Iowa ' to Schley to proceed off Santiago de Cuba with his whole command, leaving one small vessel off Cienfuegos," but he directed Schley in an order of the 21st if he was satisfied that Cervera was not at Cienfuegos, to proceed with all despatch to Santiago, and if the Spanish squadron was there, to blockade it.
Commodore Schley arrived off Cienfuegos on the 22nd, and held to the opinion that Cervera was there until the 24th, when Commodore M'Calla of the "Marblehead" communicated with the insurgents some miles westwards, and learned the truth. Schley sHrted that evening for Santiago, 300 m. distant, but on the afternoon of the 26th was 20 m. south of the port. Early on the 27th Schley received a despatch from the navy department suggesting that the Spanish squadron was in Santiago and bidding him see " that the enemy, if therein, does not leave without a decisive action." Schley replied "... cannot remain, off Santiago present state squadron coal account . . . much to be regretted cannot obey orders of department. . . forced to proceed for coal to Key West by way of Yucatan Passage"; in the controversy that arose out of these events Schley's critics insisted that the " Iowa " and the " Massachusetts " bad at this time enough coal to carry them three times the distance from Santiago to Key West.
Sampson with the " New York " had arrived early on the 28th of May off Key West. When Schley's telegram, which had much disturbed the Washington officials, was forwarded to Sampson, he secured permission to go at once to Santiago with the "New York" and "Oregon" (which had arrived at Key West on the 26th of May in excellent condition after her voyage of nearly 16,000 m. from the Pacific) to turn back Schley's heavier ships. Before he started he received a telegram from Schley stating that he would remain off Santiago. It is now known from the documents published by Admiral Cervera that the Spanish squadron, in the interval preceding the 28th, when Schley arrived in sight of the port, was on the point of leaving Santiago. On the morning of the 29th two Spanish cruisers were seen a short distance within the entrance, and on the 31st Schley, with the " Massachusetts," " Iowa " and " New Orleans," stood in and made an attack upon these and the batteries at long range (8500-11,000 yds.). On the 30th Sampson, leaving a squadron on the north side under Commodore Watson, stood for Santiago at a speed of 13 knots. He arrived early on the 1st of June and work was at once begun on the preparations for sinking the collier " Merrimac " in the entrance channel, which was less than 200 ft. broad in parts available for ships. The preparations for a quick sinking were chiefly carried out by naval constructor Richmond P. Hobson, who went in, in the early morning of the 3rd of June, with a crew of seven men. The steering-gear was disabled by a shell, and the ship drifted too far with the tide and was sunk in a broad part of the channel where it did not block the egress of Cervera's squadron. Cervera sent word to Sampson that Hobson and his men, who had been captured, were unhurt. They were exchanged on the 7th of July.
On the 6th of June the batteries at the entrance were bom- barded and their weakness was ascertained. Sampson there- The United u P on placed, every evening, a battleship (relieved states Fleet every two and a half hours) close in, with a search- betore light turned on the channel, making it impossible, as
Santiago, Cervera. afterwards said, for the Spanish squadron to escape by night. The port of Guantanamo, 40 m. east of Santiago, was occupied by the " Marblehead " and " Yankee " on the 7th, a battalion of marines from the transport " Panther" landed there on the 10th, and the port was used thereafter as a base and coaling station. On the 14th the Spanish land forces retired before an expedition of the American marines, who remained in occupation until the 5th of August.
A blockade of San Juan, Porto Rico, by one or two fast ships was kept up on account of the presence there of the destroyer " Terror," but this vessel, coming out (June 22) with a gunboat to attack the auxiliary cruiser " St Paul," suffered so severely that she could hardly return to port, and was thereafter unserviceable.
When war was declared the total military forces of the United States consisted of 27,822 regulars and 114,602 militia. An act of the 22nd of April had authorized the president to call upon the states and Territories for men in proportion to their population, the regimental and company officers to be named by the governors of the states, the general and staff officers by the president. A first call was made for 125,000 men, and a month later a second call for 75,000. On the 26th of April large additions to the regular army were sanctioned for the war. The quotas were filled with extraordinary rapidity, and in May 124,776 had volunteered. The troops were concentrated chiefly at Chicka- mauga, Georgia, at Camp Alger, Virginia, and at Tampa, Florida, Preparations which was selected as the point for the embarcation tor a Land f the expeditionary force for Cuba, and where Campaign. Major-General W., R. Shafter was in command. With the exception of unimportant small expeditions, every- thing was delayed until control of the sea was assured, though some thirty large steamers were held in readiness near Tampa. After the arrival of Cervera at Santiago, the blockade of his squadron and the request (June 7) of Admiral Sampson to send a land force for co-operation, the troops embarked on the 7th and 8th of June, but a start was not made until the 14th, owing to a false report that Spanish war-ships were in Nicholas Channel. On the 29th the fleet of 32 transports, under convoy, arrived off Santiago. The whole force consisted of about 17,000 officers and men, 16 light field-guns, a train of heavier pieces, and some 200 vehicles. General Shafter selected Daiquiri, about 18 m. east of Santiago, for the point of landing, and the harbour entrance (preferred by Sampson) was disregarded. The fleet furnished all its available boats, and on the 2 2nd-2 5th the army was landed on a rough coast with scarcely any shelter from the sea; after the first day Siboney, 7 m. nearer Santiago, was used as well as Daiquiri. With the exception of three volunteer regiments (the 1st Volunteer Cavalry, known as the Rough Riders, of which Theodore Roosevelt was lieutenant-colonel; the 2nd Massachusetts and the 71st New York Volunteers), these troops were composed almost wholly of regulars, most of whom had served on the plains against the Indians. Soon afterwards more voluuteers arrived.
No opposition was made to the landing and the small Spanish contingents at Daiquiri and Siboney were withdrawn without doing
any damage to the equipment of the railway which ran from Santiago to the iron mines at these points. The American troops (commanded by Major-General Joseph Wheeler until the 29th, when General Shafter landed) pushed forward, a soon as they landed, and found a small Spanish rearguard which was covering the concentration of outlying detachments on Santiago and which was entrenched 25 m. beyond Siboney, at Las Guasimas. Briga- dier-General S.B.M. Young with 964 dismounted cavalry engaged (June 24), and after a sharp action, in which he lost 16 killed and 52 wounded, drove back the enemy, of whom n were killed out of some 500 engaged. The advance was slow and a week elapsed before Shafter was ready to fight a battle in front of Santiago. Here the defenders, under General Arsenio Linares, held two positions, the hill of San Juan, barring the direct road to Santiago, and the village of El Caney, to the northward of the American position at El Pozo. The plan of attack on the 1st of July was Shaf ter's, but owing to the illness of Shafter the actual command was exercised by the subordinate generals, Joseph Wheeler, H. W. Lawton and J. F. Kent. General Lawton's division was to attack and capture El Caney, and thence move against the flank and rear of the defenders of San Juan, which would then be attacked in front by Kent and Wheeler from El Pozo. But Lawton for nine hours was checked by the garrison of El Caney, in spite of his great superiority in numbers (4500 to 520); at 3 p.m. the final assault on El Caney was successfully delivered by General A. R. Chaffee's brigade. Only about 100 of the Spanish garrison escaped to Santiago; about 320 were killed or wounded, including General Vara del Rey, who, with a brother and two sons, was killed. In the meantime Wheeler and Kent had an equally stubborn contest opposite San Juan hill, where, in the absence of the assistance of Lawton, the battle soon became a purely frontal-fire fight, and the rifles of the firing line had to prepare the attack unaided. The strong position of the Spaniards, gallantly defended by about 700 men, held out until 12.30, when the whole line of the assailants suddenly advanced, without orders from or direction by superior authority, and carried the crest of the Spanish position. A notable part in the attack was taken by the 1st Volunteer Cavalry or " Rough Riders," commanded by Colonel Leonard Wood and Lieut.-Colonel Theodore Roosevelt. The Spaniards had no closed reserves, and their retreat was made under a devastating fire from the Ameri- cans on the captured hills. On the American side over 1500 men out of 15,000 engaged, including several of the senior officers, were killed or wounded; and in one of Kent's brigades three successive commanders were killed or wounded. On the Spanish side, out of the small numbers engaged, over 50% were out of action. Linares himself was severely wounded, and handed over the command to General Jose Toral. The Cubans on the American right failed to prevent General Escario from entering Santiago with reinforcements from the interior, and at the beginning of the investment General Toral's forces numbered about 10,000 men of the army and a naval contingent from the fleet.
Though victorious, the American army was in danger: after great fatigue under a tropical sun by day, the time spared at night from digging trenches was spent on a rain- investment soaked ground covered with thick vegetation; the of Santiago soldiers' blankets and heavy clothing had been cast on the Land aside in the attack; and there was insufficient food, because it was difficult to haul supplies over the one poor road from the base of supplies at Siboney. There was even discussion of retiring to a point nearer Siboney. Brisk firing was continued on the 2nd and 3rd of July, with a considerable number of casualties to the Americans. On the morning of the 3rd a demand was sent to the Spanish commander to surrender, with the alternative of a bombardment of the city to begin on the 4th. This in effect had already begun on the 1st, when Admiral Sampson fired a number of 8-in. shells from a point 3 m. east of the harbour entrance over the hills into the city, using a range of about 4^ land miles. The result of this and the threat of General Shafter was an exodus of many thousands of civilians towards El Caney, where the American supplies were heavily taxed to support them.
On the morning of the 3rd of July Sampson, in his flagship the " New York," left the fleet to confer with General Shaffer at Naval Siboney with regard to combined operations at the
Battieof harbour entrance. 1 At 9.31, when he had gone about Santiago. ^ m ^ t jj e « Maria Teresa " was seen coming out. The ships in front of the port were the yacht " Gloucester," the battle- ships " Indiana," " Oregon," "Iowa," and" Texas," thearmoured cruiser " Brooklyn " and yacht " Vixen," in the order named from east to west, making a semicircle about 8 m. in length. The " Massachusetts " and " Suwanee " were coaling at Guan- tanamo. The " Iowa " hoisted the signal " Enemy coming out." All at once stood in toward the Spanish ships, which were standing westwards along shore, and began a heavy fire. The " Maria Teresa " (flagship) was followed at 800-yd. intervals by the " Vizcaya," " Colon " and " Oquendo." They were firing vigorously, but most of their projectiles went far beyond the American ships. The " Brooklyn " (flag of Commodore Schley, the senior officer present) made a turn to starboard, which seems to have caused the " Texas " to stop and back, and to have given the " Colon " the opportunity of passing almost unscathed. The " Maria Teresa " and " Oquendo " had taken fire almost at once, and, as their water mains (outside the protec- tive deck) were cut, they were unable to extinguish the flames: they were run ashore at 10.15 an d 10.20 respectively, about 6| m. west of Santiago, burning fiercely. The " Vizcaya " and " Colon " were still standing westwards. Cervera's destroyers, the " Pluton " and " Furor," had come out last, some distance behind the " Oquendo," and were received with a heavy fire from the " Indiana " and from the unarmoured " Gloucester," which engaged them at close quarters. They attempted to close, but were cut to pieces. The " New York," Sampson's flagship, had passed, and stood on signalling the " Iowa " and " Indiana " to go back and watch the port, lest an attack be made on the American transports. The torpedo-boat " Erics- son " was ordered to rescue the men from the two Spanish ships ashore, and the flagship, with all the others, stood on in pursuit of the " Vizcaya " and " Colon." The " Vizcaya " hauled down her colours off Aserraderos, 15 nautical miles west of Santiago, and was there run ashore burning about 11.15 a - m - The " Iowa " was ordered to stop and rescue her men. and the " Oregon," " Brooklyn " and " Texas " (and behind them the flagship) settled down to the chase of the " Colon," some 6 m. ahead of the nearest American ship. She was, however, slacking her speed, and at 12.40 the " Oregon " opened with her 13-in. guns at a range of 9000 yds., as did also the " Brooklyn," with her 8-in. When the " Oregon " had fired five shells, the " Colon " hauled down her colours, and was beached at the mouth of the Rio Turquino, where in spite of endeavours to recover her, she became a total wreck. The whole Spanish fleet was destroyed; Admiral Cervera was taken prisoner; Captain Villamil, commanding the torpedo flotilla, went down with his ship: and Captain Lazaga of the " Oquendo " was drowned. Over 500 Spaniards were killed or wounded, and the survivors (except a few who escaped to Santiago) were prisoners. On the American side only one man was killed and ten were wounded, and no ship received serious injury.
After the naval victory combined operations were arranged for attacking the batteries of the harbour, but little more fighting occurred, and eventually a preliminary agreement was signed on the 15th, and the besiegers entered Santiago on the 17th. In accordance with the terms of the capitulation, all the Spanish forces in the division of Santiago de Cuba surrendered and were conveyed to Spain. The total number amounted to about 23,500, of whom some 10,500 were in the city of Santiago. The exposure of the campaign had begun to tell in the sickness of the Americans: yellow fever had broken out to some extent; and no less that 50% were attacked by the milder forms of
1 Shaffer had urged that the squadron should enter the harbour and take the city. Sampson (and the Navy department) was unwilling to risk losing a ship in the well-mined harbour and wanted the army to move on the forts and give the American squadron an opportunity to drag the harbour for mines.
malarial fever. The army, indeed, was so weakened by illness that the general officers united in urging its removal from Cuba. Major-General Nelson A. Miles, the general-in-chief, had arrived with reinforcements on the 12th of July, but the majority of these men were retained on board ship.
The fleet and the army gathered in Guantanamo Bay; and a new flying squadron, the " eastern squadron," was organized under Commodore John C. Watson, to proceed by way of the Mediterranean to the Philippines, threatening the Spanish coast, in order to meet a Spanish " reserve squadron," which had been formed towards the end of May, and which was to be sent on to the eastern coast of the United States, and thence to Cuba, but which was diverted toward the Philippines, and left Cadiz, on the 16th of June, for the East. This squadron turned back on the 8th of July after hearing the news of the Spanish defeat at Santiago.
On the 7th of May a telegram had been received from Dewey at Manila: " I control bay completely, and can take city at any time, but I have not sufficient men to hold." The cruiser " Charleston " and the steamer " Peking," with ammunition, supplies and troops, were sent to him at once. Major-General Wesley Merritt, to whom was assigned the command of the troops for the Philippines, first requested a force of 14,000, and afterwards asked for 20,000 men. On the 25th of May the first troops, 2491 in number, under Brigadier-General T. M.Anderson, sailed in three transports from San Francisco, touched at Hono- lulu, and were convoyed thence by the " Charleston." On the 20th of June possession was taken of the island of Guam, and on the 30th of June the ships arrived in Manila Bay. A second detachment of troops, 3586 in number, under Brigadier-General F. V. Greene arrived on the 17th of July; on the 25th of July General Merritt, who had been appointed governor-general, arrived; and on the 31st the five transports with which he had left San Francisco arrived with 4847 men, making nearly 11,000 men at Manila, with 5000 more on the way. General Merritt moved his forces from Cavite, and established an entrenched line within a thousand yards of the Spanish position at Manila, from which, on the night of the 31st of July, a heavy fire of musketry and artillery was opened, causing a loss to the Americans of 10 killed and 43 wounded, and for the next few days night-firing was frequent from the Spanish lines. On the 7th of August, a joint note from Dewey and Merritt, announcing that bombardment might begin at any time after .
forty-eight hours, and affording opportunity for the Manila," removal of non-combatants, was sent to the Spanish captain-general, Fermin Jaudenes, who replied that he was surrounded by the insurgents, 2 and that there was no place of refuge for the sick and for the women and children. A second joint note demanding surrender was declined by the Spanish commander, who offered to refer it to Madrid. This was refused, and preparations were made for an attack. There were 13,000 troops within the city fortifications, but with the strong fleet in front, and with the beleaguering force of Americans and insur- gents ashore, resistance was hopeless. When the combined assault of army and navy was made on the 13th there was no great resistance, and a white flag was hoisted at n o'clock, within one and a half hours after the fleet opened fire, a formal capitulation being signed the next day, the 14th of August. The total loss of the Americans during the whole campaign was 20 killed, 105 wounded.
Immediately after the surrender of Santiago (July 17), preparations were made for the invasion of Porto Rico with 3500 troops which had been sent as reinforcements operations to Santiago, but had not landed. They were largely in Porto reinforced and left Guantanamo, under General RIc0 ' Miles, on the 21st of July, convoyed by a strong squadron. 2 On the 19th of May, Emilio Aguinaldo, who had been at Hong-Kong, had landed from one of the American vessels at Cavite, and on the 1st of July, when the American troops landed, had proclaimed himself president of the Philippine Republic. The political attitude which he assumed was not sanctioned by the American autnoritiesi At the head of the insurgents he had instituted a close siege of Manila. Fajardo, at the extreme north-eastern end of the island, was given out as the objective point of the expedition, but after sailing the plans were changed, and the towns on the south side were occupied, practically without resistance. The attitude of the population was exceedingly friendly, and opposition was not met until advance was begun northward. The troops were divided into four columns, advancing from Guanica around the western end of the island to Mayaguez: from Arroyo at the eastern end to meet the San Juan road at Cayey; from Ponce by the fine military road, 70 m., to San Juan; and the fourth column by way of Adjuntas and Utuado, midway of the island. The various movements involved several skirmishes, the chief op- position being met by the western column on the 10th of August, and by the column from Ponce on the 9th, when the Americans lost 1 killed and 22 wounded; the Spanish, 126 killed and wounded, and over 200 prisoners. A further advance on the San Juan highway would probably have developed greater resistance, but news of the suspension of hostilities intervened. The total American loss had been 3 killed and 40 wounded. On the 1 2th of August operations were begun by the " Newark " and other vessels against Manzanillo. But during the night news arrived of the signing of the peace protocol on the 12th, and of an armistice, of which the Americans were informed by the Spanish commander under a flag of truce.
The total American loss was— in the navy, 1 officer, 17 men killed; in the army, 20 officers, 440 men. The health of the American fleet was kept remarkably. Its average Americans — strength during the 114 days of hostilities was 26,102; the deaths from disease during this time were 56, or at the rate of 7 per 1000 per year. As nearly the whole of the service was in the tropics, and in the summer or wet season, this is a convincing proof of the efficiency in sanitary administration. The army did not fare so â– well, losing by disease during May, June, July and August, 67 officers and 1872 men out of an average total of 227,404. Its larger proportion of illness must of course be ascribed, in part, to its greater hardships. The war department was accused of gross maladministration; but the charges were not upheld by an investigating committee. The lack of proper preparation by the war department and the ignorance and thoughtlessness of the volunteers were the principal reasons for the high death-rate in the army.
For the terms of the peace and the results of the war see United States; Philippine Islands; Cuba; Porto Rico.
The literature of the Spanish-American War is voluminous: amongst the principal sources of information may be mentioned; The annual reports of various departments for 1898, especially the War Notes of the Office of Naval Intelligence, Washington, which include Spanish translations, and the appendix to the report of the Bureau of Navigation ; R. H. Titherington, A History of the Spanish-American War (New York, 1900); H. C. Lodge, Story of the Spanish War (New York, 1899); H. W. Wilson, The Downfall of Spain (London, 1900); W. A. M. Goode, With Sampson through the War (London, 1899) ; J. Wheeler, Santiago Campaign (Philadelphia, 1899); Theodore Roosevelt, The Rough Riders (New York, 1899); C. D. Sigsbee, Personal Narratives of the Battleship Maine (New York, 1899); R. A. Alger, Spanish-American War (New York, 1900); Gomez Nunez, La Guerra hispano-americana (Madrid, 1900) ; H. Kunz, Taktische Beispiele aus den Kriegen der Neuesten Zeit II. (Berlin, 1901); Admiral Pluddemann, Der Krieg um Cuba i8q8 (Berlin); John D Long, The New American Navy (2 vols., New York, 1903); John R. Spears, Our Navy in the War with Spain (ibid., 1898); Bujac, Precii de quelques campagnes contemporaines, IV. (Paris, 1899); and the Century and Scribner's magazines for 1898 and 1899 passim.
- The Spanish authorities made an examination, but did not inspect the interior, the chief diver reporting that " the bilge and keel of the vessel throughout its entire extent were buried in the mud, but did not appear to have suffered any damage." It has been suggested that the explosion was the work of Cuban "sympathizers who thus planned to secure American assistance against Spain. It was not until iqio that Congress made an appropriation (and an inadequate one then) for raising the " Maine."
- Three of the best were afterwards raised and repaired by American engineers.
- 'The " Buenaventura," the first prize of the war, was taken by the gunboat " Nashville " off Key West on the 23rd of Aprii.
- A telegram (not received by Cervera) had been sent to Martinique on the 12th of May, authorizing the squadron's return. | <urn:uuid:76c1927e-b49d-41b8-adbb-e0b995f41d05> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Spanish-American_War_of_1898 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00541.warc.gz | en | 0.985156 | 8,155 | 3.65625 | 4 | [
-0.2745952904224396,
0.36275768280029297,
0.22804021835327148,
-0.5049726963043213,
0.1578088253736496,
-0.17006269097328186,
0.030664056539535522,
0.1579248607158661,
-0.15999147295951843,
-0.08714839816093445,
0.3355414569377899,
-0.10936497896909714,
-0.24458883702754974,
0.542737901210... | 1 | 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Spanish-American War of 1898
SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR OF 1898. For the causes leading up to the war see Cuba and United States: History. On the 15th of February 1898 the U.S. battleship "Maine," which had been sent to Havana on the 25th of January, was destroyed in Havana harbour by an explosion, with a loss of 266 lives. An American board of inquiry, of which Captain W. T. Sampson was president, made an extensive examination of the wreck, and reported to the navy department on the 21st of March that the explosion was caused by an exterior mine, the principal reason for this decision being the upheaval of the ship's bottom. On the 20th of April President McKinley approved a resolution demanding the withdrawal of Spain from Cuba and setting noon of the 23rd of April as the latest date for a reply to the demand. Before this could be delivered by the American minister in Madrid, the Spanish government sent him his passports. On the 22nd the president declared a blockade of Cuban ports; on the 24th the Spanish government declared war; and on the 25th the United States Congress declared that war had existed since the 21st.
The American government had begun to prepare for war as early as January: ships on several foreign stations had been drawn nearer home, and those in Chinese waters were collected at Hong-Kong; the North Atlantic squadron, the only powerful one, had been sent from Hampton Roads into the waters of Florida for manoeuvres; after the destruction of the " Maine " the chief part of the ships in the Atlantic were concentrated at Key West ; the battleship "Oregon" was ordered east from the Pacific; $50,000,000 was voted (March 9) " for the national defence "; steps were taken to purchase auxiliary cruisers, yachts and tugs, which were rapidly equipped; large supplies of ammunition were ordered, and Key West became an active base of preparation; Captain Sampson, senior officer of the North Atlantic squadron, was appointed its commander-in-chief with rank of acting rear- admiral; and a " flying squadron " composed of the armoured cruiser " Brooklyn " (flag), the battleships " Texas " and " Massachusetts," and the fast cruisers " Minneapolis " and " Columbia," with Commodore W. S. Schley in command, was stationed at Hampton Roads.
There was a great preponderance of large ships on the side of the United States; only in torpedo craft and small gunboats was Spain superior. The- American ships were highly efficient; in Spain everything was unready; Admiral Cervera felt that to send a Spanish squadron across the Atlantic was to send it to destruction, and when he had collected his squadron (including two cruisers from Havana) at the Cape Verde Islands in March, he renewed his expostulations, in which he was supported by a council of war. But on the 24th of April he was peremptorily ordered to leave for Porto Rico, without definite instructions or plan of campaign.
The American flying squadron was held at Hampton Roads, so great was the fear of attack by Spanish ships; and armed auxiliaries and fast cruisers were employed in patrolling the coast east of New York; these could have rendered good service else- where, but would have been of no use in repelling an attack by Cervera's squadron had it come that way.
The joint resolution of Congress of the 20th of April had declared that the relinquishment by Spain of authority in Cuba was the object of American action; the struggle thus naturally centred about the island. All operations were thus near at hand, Havana, the real objective in Cuba, being only about 100 m. from Key West. A political reason for confining action to the western Atlantic was that an immediate attack upon the coasts of Spain might have aroused the strongly pro-Spanish sympathy of continental Europe into greater activity. The regular United States army, the only available force until wax was declared and a volunteer force was authorized, had been assembled at lampa, Florida, New Orleans and Chickamauga, Georgia, but until the control of the sea was decided, the army could not prudently be moved across the Strait of Florida. Cervera's fleet was thus the real objective of the navy, and had to be settled with before any military action could be undertaken.
Rear-Admiral Sampson left Key West early on the 22nd, and began the blockade of Havana and the north coast of Cuba as far as Cardenas, 80 m. east, and Bahia Honda, 50 m. west. His North Atlantic squadron of 28 vessels of all kinds, of which the armoured cruiser "New York" (flag), the battleships "Iowa" and "Indiana," and the monitors "Puritan," "Terror" and "Amphitrite," were the most important, and which included six torpedo-boats, was increased to 1 24 vessels by the 1st of July, chiefly by the addition of extemporized cruisers, converted yachts, &c.
In the Pacific, the American squadron — the protected cruisers "Olympia" (flagship of Commodore George Dewey), "Baltimore," "Raleigh" and "Boston," the small unprotected cruiser "Concord," the gunboat " Petrel," the armed revenue cutter "Hugh M'Culloen," with a purchased collier "Nanshan" and a purchased supply ship "Zafiro"— left Hong-Kong at the request of the governor and went to Mirs Bay, some miles east on the Chinese coast. Ordered (April 25) to begin operations, particularly against the Spanish fleet, which he was directed to capture or destroy, Dewey left Mirs Bay on the 27th, and arrived off Luzon, in the Philippines, on the 30th of April. The Spanish admiral Montojo anchored to the eastward of the spit on which are the village and arsenal of Cavite, in a general east and west line, keeping his broadside to the northward. His force consisted of the "Reina Cristina," the "Castilla" (an old wooden steamer which had to be towed); the "Isla de Cuba" and "Isla de Luzon" (protected cruisers of 1050 tons); the "Don Juan de Austria" and the "Don Antonio de Ulloa" (gunboats of about 1150 tons), and the "Marques del Duero" (of 500 tons). There were six guns (3 breech-loaders) in battery at or near Cavite.
Dewey stood on during the night, and passed into the Boca Grande (about 5 m. broad), paying no attention to rumours of torpedoes in a channel so broad and deep, and at MaaUa" midnight passed El Fraile (a large rock, if 2½ m. from the south side), from which two shots were fired at him, and he was also fired at by the "Cavite" and one of the city batteries. When he sighted the Spanish squadron to the southward Le ordered his transports and the revenue cutter "Hugh M'Culloch" out into the hay, and stood down in column with the "Olympia," "Baltimore," "Raleigh," "Petrel," " Concord " and " Boston " at 400-yd. intervals. When within 5000 yds. he ported his helm, and at 5.41 a.m. opened fire. He stood westwards along the Spanish line, using his port batteries, turned to starboard and stood back, gradually decreasing his distance to 2000 yds. At 7 o'clock the Spanish flagship attempted to come out and engage at short range, but was driven back by the American fire. The Spanish squadron was now in very bad plight, but the seriousness of its condition was not fully known to the American commander. At 7.35 Dewey withdrew, gave his men breakfast, and had a consultation of commanding officers. Before he re-engaged at 11. 16 the "Cristina" and " Castilla " had broken into flames, so that the remainder of the action consisted in silencing the Cavite batteries and completing the destruction and demoralization of the smaller Spanish ships, which the "Petrel" was ordered in to burn. The victory was complete. All the Spanish ships were sunk or destroyed. The injury done the American ships was practically nil. The Spanish lost 167 killed and 214 wounded, out of a total of 1875. The Americans had 7 slightly wounded out of 1748 men in action. Dewey took possession of Cavite, paroled its garrison, and awaited the arrival of a land force to capture Manila.
The blockade of Havana had progressed without incident, beyond the capture of a number of Spanish steamers and sailing vessels, and the shelling of some new earthworks Blockade. at Matanzas on the 27th of April; but on the nth of May a small action was fought at Cardenas, in which the Americans were repulsed and Ensign Worth Bagley, the first American officer to lose his life in the war, was killed. On the same day a partially successful attempt was made, under a heavy fire from the shore, to cut the cable between Cienfuegos and Havana.
Cervera had left the Cape Verde Islands on the 29th of April with four armoured cruisers, the "Almiiante Oquendo," "Infanta Maria Theresa" and " Vizcaya " (sister ships of 7000 tons) and the " Cristobal Colon " (same size; differently equipped) and three torpedo-boat destroyers — a type not then represented in the American navy — "Furor," "Terror" and "Pluton." On hearing (May 1) of Cervera's departure, Sampson went east 1000 m. to San Juan, Porto Rico, with the armoured cruiser "New York," the battleships " Iowa " and " Indiana," the cruisers "Montgomery " and " Detroit," and one torpedo-boat. In going east he calculated on using a speed of 10 knots, on getting to San Juan on the 8th, about the time the Spaniards would reach its longitude, and if they were not there, on returning off Havana before they could get to Havana harbour. He wished to prevent Cervera's refitting at San Juan, from which place the American coast would be within easy reach, New York being only about 1400 m. away. But the speed of the American squadron fell short of Sampson's expectation; he reached San Juan on the 12th, stood in to see if Cervera was in the harbour, and opened fire upon the fortifications. He did not press the attack since Cervera was not present, and at once started back for Havana without news of Cervera, who was then in fact off Martinique, with orders to go to San Juan. When he heard that Sampson was at San Juan, he steamed to Curasao, where he arrived on the 14th of May and where the authorities allowed him to coal. He reached Santiago de Cuba early on the 1 9th without being sighted en route by any of the American scouts, though several were in the vicinity. Sampson thought the Spanish squadron might have returned to Spain. But he learned that the enemy had net turned back, on the night of the 15th, when a telegram from the navy department directed him to proceed with all despatch to Key West. He got there on the afternoon of the 18th, and found the flying The Search squadron ("Brooklyn" (flag), " Massachusetts," forCerrera's " Texas," and " Scorpion "), which left on the next Squadron. morning (19th) for Cienfuegos, then regarded by the navy department as the certain objective of the Spanish squadron. The battleship " Iowa," the gunboat " Castine," the torpedo- boat " Dupont " and the collier " Merrimac " sailed to join Schley on the 20th, and gave him a force sufficient to meet Cervera. Sampson was advised by the department (on the 20th) to " send by the ' Iowa ' to Schley to proceed off Santiago de Cuba with his whole command, leaving one small vessel off Cienfuegos," but he directed Schley in an order of the 21st if he was satisfied that Cervera was not at Cienfuegos, to proceed with all despatch to Santiago, and if the Spanish squadron was there, to blockade it.
Commodore Schley arrived off Cienfuegos on the 22nd, and held to the opinion that Cervera was there until the 24th, when Commodore M'Calla of the "Marblehead" communicated with the insurgents some miles westwards, and learned the truth. Schley sHrted that evening for Santiago, 300 m. distant, but on the afternoon of the 26th was 20 m. south of the port. Early on the 27th Schley received a despatch from the navy department suggesting that the Spanish squadron was in Santiago and bidding him see " that the enemy, if therein, does not leave without a decisive action." Schley replied "... cannot remain, off Santiago present state squadron coal account . . . much to be regretted cannot obey orders of department. . . forced to proceed for coal to Key West by way of Yucatan Passage"; in the controversy that arose out of these events Schley's critics insisted that the " Iowa " and the " Massachusetts " bad at this time enough coal to carry them three times the distance from Santiago to Key West.
Sampson with the " New York " had arrived early on the 28th of May off Key West. When Schley's telegram, which had much disturbed the Washington officials, was forwarded to Sampson, he secured permission to go at once to Santiago with the "New York" and "Oregon" (which had arrived at Key West on the 26th of May in excellent condition after her voyage of nearly 16,000 m. from the Pacific) to turn back Schley's heavier ships. Before he started he received a telegram from Schley stating that he would remain off Santiago. It is now known from the documents published by Admiral Cervera that the Spanish squadron, in the interval preceding the 28th, when Schley arrived in sight of the port, was on the point of leaving Santiago. On the morning of the 29th two Spanish cruisers were seen a short distance within the entrance, and on the 31st Schley, with the " Massachusetts," " Iowa " and " New Orleans," stood in and made an attack upon these and the batteries at long range (8500-11,000 yds.). On the 30th Sampson, leaving a squadron on the north side under Commodore Watson, stood for Santiago at a speed of 13 knots. He arrived early on the 1st of June and work was at once begun on the preparations for sinking the collier " Merrimac " in the entrance channel, which was less than 200 ft. broad in parts available for ships. The preparations for a quick sinking were chiefly carried out by naval constructor Richmond P. Hobson, who went in, in the early morning of the 3rd of June, with a crew of seven men. The steering-gear was disabled by a shell, and the ship drifted too far with the tide and was sunk in a broad part of the channel where it did not block the egress of Cervera's squadron. Cervera sent word to Sampson that Hobson and his men, who had been captured, were unhurt. They were exchanged on the 7th of July.
On the 6th of June the batteries at the entrance were bom- barded and their weakness was ascertained. Sampson there- The United u P on placed, every evening, a battleship (relieved states Fleet every two and a half hours) close in, with a search- betore light turned on the channel, making it impossible, as
Santiago, Cervera. afterwards said, for the Spanish squadron to escape by night. The port of Guantanamo, 40 m. east of Santiago, was occupied by the " Marblehead " and " Yankee " on the 7th, a battalion of marines from the transport " Panther" landed there on the 10th, and the port was used thereafter as a base and coaling station. On the 14th the Spanish land forces retired before an expedition of the American marines, who remained in occupation until the 5th of August.
A blockade of San Juan, Porto Rico, by one or two fast ships was kept up on account of the presence there of the destroyer " Terror," but this vessel, coming out (June 22) with a gunboat to attack the auxiliary cruiser " St Paul," suffered so severely that she could hardly return to port, and was thereafter unserviceable.
When war was declared the total military forces of the United States consisted of 27,822 regulars and 114,602 militia. An act of the 22nd of April had authorized the president to call upon the states and Territories for men in proportion to their population, the regimental and company officers to be named by the governors of the states, the general and staff officers by the president. A first call was made for 125,000 men, and a month later a second call for 75,000. On the 26th of April large additions to the regular army were sanctioned for the war. The quotas were filled with extraordinary rapidity, and in May 124,776 had volunteered. The troops were concentrated chiefly at Chicka- mauga, Georgia, at Camp Alger, Virginia, and at Tampa, Florida, Preparations which was selected as the point for the embarcation tor a Land f the expeditionary force for Cuba, and where Campaign. Major-General W., R. Shafter was in command. With the exception of unimportant small expeditions, every- thing was delayed until control of the sea was assured, though some thirty large steamers were held in readiness near Tampa. After the arrival of Cervera at Santiago, the blockade of his squadron and the request (June 7) of Admiral Sampson to send a land force for co-operation, the troops embarked on the 7th and 8th of June, but a start was not made until the 14th, owing to a false report that Spanish war-ships were in Nicholas Channel. On the 29th the fleet of 32 transports, under convoy, arrived off Santiago. The whole force consisted of about 17,000 officers and men, 16 light field-guns, a train of heavier pieces, and some 200 vehicles. General Shafter selected Daiquiri, about 18 m. east of Santiago, for the point of landing, and the harbour entrance (preferred by Sampson) was disregarded. The fleet furnished all its available boats, and on the 2 2nd-2 5th the army was landed on a rough coast with scarcely any shelter from the sea; after the first day Siboney, 7 m. nearer Santiago, was used as well as Daiquiri. With the exception of three volunteer regiments (the 1st Volunteer Cavalry, known as the Rough Riders, of which Theodore Roosevelt was lieutenant-colonel; the 2nd Massachusetts and the 71st New York Volunteers), these troops were composed almost wholly of regulars, most of whom had served on the plains against the Indians. Soon afterwards more voluuteers arrived.
No opposition was made to the landing and the small Spanish contingents at Daiquiri and Siboney were withdrawn without doing
any damage to the equipment of the railway which ran from Santiago to the iron mines at these points. The American troops (commanded by Major-General Joseph Wheeler until the 29th, when General Shafter landed) pushed forward, a soon as they landed, and found a small Spanish rearguard which was covering the concentration of outlying detachments on Santiago and which was entrenched 25 m. beyond Siboney, at Las Guasimas. Briga- dier-General S.B.M. Young with 964 dismounted cavalry engaged (June 24), and after a sharp action, in which he lost 16 killed and 52 wounded, drove back the enemy, of whom n were killed out of some 500 engaged. The advance was slow and a week elapsed before Shafter was ready to fight a battle in front of Santiago. Here the defenders, under General Arsenio Linares, held two positions, the hill of San Juan, barring the direct road to Santiago, and the village of El Caney, to the northward of the American position at El Pozo. The plan of attack on the 1st of July was Shaf ter's, but owing to the illness of Shafter the actual command was exercised by the subordinate generals, Joseph Wheeler, H. W. Lawton and J. F. Kent. General Lawton's division was to attack and capture El Caney, and thence move against the flank and rear of the defenders of San Juan, which would then be attacked in front by Kent and Wheeler from El Pozo. But Lawton for nine hours was checked by the garrison of El Caney, in spite of his great superiority in numbers (4500 to 520); at 3 p.m. the final assault on El Caney was successfully delivered by General A. R. Chaffee's brigade. Only about 100 of the Spanish garrison escaped to Santiago; about 320 were killed or wounded, including General Vara del Rey, who, with a brother and two sons, was killed. In the meantime Wheeler and Kent had an equally stubborn contest opposite San Juan hill, where, in the absence of the assistance of Lawton, the battle soon became a purely frontal-fire fight, and the rifles of the firing line had to prepare the attack unaided. The strong position of the Spaniards, gallantly defended by about 700 men, held out until 12.30, when the whole line of the assailants suddenly advanced, without orders from or direction by superior authority, and carried the crest of the Spanish position. A notable part in the attack was taken by the 1st Volunteer Cavalry or " Rough Riders," commanded by Colonel Leonard Wood and Lieut.-Colonel Theodore Roosevelt. The Spaniards had no closed reserves, and their retreat was made under a devastating fire from the Ameri- cans on the captured hills. On the American side over 1500 men out of 15,000 engaged, including several of the senior officers, were killed or wounded; and in one of Kent's brigades three successive commanders were killed or wounded. On the Spanish side, out of the small numbers engaged, over 50% were out of action. Linares himself was severely wounded, and handed over the command to General Jose Toral. The Cubans on the American right failed to prevent General Escario from entering Santiago with reinforcements from the interior, and at the beginning of the investment General Toral's forces numbered about 10,000 men of the army and a naval contingent from the fleet.
Though victorious, the American army was in danger: after great fatigue under a tropical sun by day, the time spared at night from digging trenches was spent on a rain- investment soaked ground covered with thick vegetation; the of Santiago soldiers' blankets and heavy clothing had been cast on the Land aside in the attack; and there was insufficient food, because it was difficult to haul supplies over the one poor road from the base of supplies at Siboney. There was even discussion of retiring to a point nearer Siboney. Brisk firing was continued on the 2nd and 3rd of July, with a considerable number of casualties to the Americans. On the morning of the 3rd a demand was sent to the Spanish commander to surrender, with the alternative of a bombardment of the city to begin on the 4th. This in effect had already begun on the 1st, when Admiral Sampson fired a number of 8-in. shells from a point 3 m. east of the harbour entrance over the hills into the city, using a range of about 4^ land miles. The result of this and the threat of General Shafter was an exodus of many thousands of civilians towards El Caney, where the American supplies were heavily taxed to support them.
On the morning of the 3rd of July Sampson, in his flagship the " New York," left the fleet to confer with General Shaffer at Naval Siboney with regard to combined operations at the
Battieof harbour entrance. 1 At 9.31, when he had gone about Santiago. ^ m ^ t jj e « Maria Teresa " was seen coming out. The ships in front of the port were the yacht " Gloucester," the battle- ships " Indiana," " Oregon," "Iowa," and" Texas," thearmoured cruiser " Brooklyn " and yacht " Vixen," in the order named from east to west, making a semicircle about 8 m. in length. The " Massachusetts " and " Suwanee " were coaling at Guan- tanamo. The " Iowa " hoisted the signal " Enemy coming out." All at once stood in toward the Spanish ships, which were standing westwards along shore, and began a heavy fire. The " Maria Teresa " (flagship) was followed at 800-yd. intervals by the " Vizcaya," " Colon " and " Oquendo." They were firing vigorously, but most of their projectiles went far beyond the American ships. The " Brooklyn " (flag of Commodore Schley, the senior officer present) made a turn to starboard, which seems to have caused the " Texas " to stop and back, and to have given the " Colon " the opportunity of passing almost unscathed. The " Maria Teresa " and " Oquendo " had taken fire almost at once, and, as their water mains (outside the protec- tive deck) were cut, they were unable to extinguish the flames: they were run ashore at 10.15 an d 10.20 respectively, about 6| m. west of Santiago, burning fiercely. The " Vizcaya " and " Colon " were still standing westwards. Cervera's destroyers, the " Pluton " and " Furor," had come out last, some distance behind the " Oquendo," and were received with a heavy fire from the " Indiana " and from the unarmoured " Gloucester," which engaged them at close quarters. They attempted to close, but were cut to pieces. The " New York," Sampson's flagship, had passed, and stood on signalling the " Iowa " and " Indiana " to go back and watch the port, lest an attack be made on the American transports. The torpedo-boat " Erics- son " was ordered to rescue the men from the two Spanish ships ashore, and the flagship, with all the others, stood on in pursuit of the " Vizcaya " and " Colon." The " Vizcaya " hauled down her colours off Aserraderos, 15 nautical miles west of Santiago, and was there run ashore burning about 11.15 a - m - The " Iowa " was ordered to stop and rescue her men. and the " Oregon," " Brooklyn " and " Texas " (and behind them the flagship) settled down to the chase of the " Colon," some 6 m. ahead of the nearest American ship. She was, however, slacking her speed, and at 12.40 the " Oregon " opened with her 13-in. guns at a range of 9000 yds., as did also the " Brooklyn," with her 8-in. When the " Oregon " had fired five shells, the " Colon " hauled down her colours, and was beached at the mouth of the Rio Turquino, where in spite of endeavours to recover her, she became a total wreck. The whole Spanish fleet was destroyed; Admiral Cervera was taken prisoner; Captain Villamil, commanding the torpedo flotilla, went down with his ship: and Captain Lazaga of the " Oquendo " was drowned. Over 500 Spaniards were killed or wounded, and the survivors (except a few who escaped to Santiago) were prisoners. On the American side only one man was killed and ten were wounded, and no ship received serious injury.
After the naval victory combined operations were arranged for attacking the batteries of the harbour, but little more fighting occurred, and eventually a preliminary agreement was signed on the 15th, and the besiegers entered Santiago on the 17th. In accordance with the terms of the capitulation, all the Spanish forces in the division of Santiago de Cuba surrendered and were conveyed to Spain. The total number amounted to about 23,500, of whom some 10,500 were in the city of Santiago. The exposure of the campaign had begun to tell in the sickness of the Americans: yellow fever had broken out to some extent; and no less that 50% were attacked by the milder forms of
1 Shaffer had urged that the squadron should enter the harbour and take the city. Sampson (and the Navy department) was unwilling to risk losing a ship in the well-mined harbour and wanted the army to move on the forts and give the American squadron an opportunity to drag the harbour for mines.
malarial fever. The army, indeed, was so weakened by illness that the general officers united in urging its removal from Cuba. Major-General Nelson A. Miles, the general-in-chief, had arrived with reinforcements on the 12th of July, but the majority of these men were retained on board ship.
The fleet and the army gathered in Guantanamo Bay; and a new flying squadron, the " eastern squadron," was organized under Commodore John C. Watson, to proceed by way of the Mediterranean to the Philippines, threatening the Spanish coast, in order to meet a Spanish " reserve squadron," which had been formed towards the end of May, and which was to be sent on to the eastern coast of the United States, and thence to Cuba, but which was diverted toward the Philippines, and left Cadiz, on the 16th of June, for the East. This squadron turned back on the 8th of July after hearing the news of the Spanish defeat at Santiago.
On the 7th of May a telegram had been received from Dewey at Manila: " I control bay completely, and can take city at any time, but I have not sufficient men to hold." The cruiser " Charleston " and the steamer " Peking," with ammunition, supplies and troops, were sent to him at once. Major-General Wesley Merritt, to whom was assigned the command of the troops for the Philippines, first requested a force of 14,000, and afterwards asked for 20,000 men. On the 25th of May the first troops, 2491 in number, under Brigadier-General T. M.Anderson, sailed in three transports from San Francisco, touched at Hono- lulu, and were convoyed thence by the " Charleston." On the 20th of June possession was taken of the island of Guam, and on the 30th of June the ships arrived in Manila Bay. A second detachment of troops, 3586 in number, under Brigadier-General F. V. Greene arrived on the 17th of July; on the 25th of July General Merritt, who had been appointed governor-general, arrived; and on the 31st the five transports with which he had left San Francisco arrived with 4847 men, making nearly 11,000 men at Manila, with 5000 more on the way. General Merritt moved his forces from Cavite, and established an entrenched line within a thousand yards of the Spanish position at Manila, from which, on the night of the 31st of July, a heavy fire of musketry and artillery was opened, causing a loss to the Americans of 10 killed and 43 wounded, and for the next few days night-firing was frequent from the Spanish lines. On the 7th of August, a joint note from Dewey and Merritt, announcing that bombardment might begin at any time after .
forty-eight hours, and affording opportunity for the Manila," removal of non-combatants, was sent to the Spanish captain-general, Fermin Jaudenes, who replied that he was surrounded by the insurgents, 2 and that there was no place of refuge for the sick and for the women and children. A second joint note demanding surrender was declined by the Spanish commander, who offered to refer it to Madrid. This was refused, and preparations were made for an attack. There were 13,000 troops within the city fortifications, but with the strong fleet in front, and with the beleaguering force of Americans and insur- gents ashore, resistance was hopeless. When the combined assault of army and navy was made on the 13th there was no great resistance, and a white flag was hoisted at n o'clock, within one and a half hours after the fleet opened fire, a formal capitulation being signed the next day, the 14th of August. The total loss of the Americans during the whole campaign was 20 killed, 105 wounded.
Immediately after the surrender of Santiago (July 17), preparations were made for the invasion of Porto Rico with 3500 troops which had been sent as reinforcements operations to Santiago, but had not landed. They were largely in Porto reinforced and left Guantanamo, under General RIc0 ' Miles, on the 21st of July, convoyed by a strong squadron. 2 On the 19th of May, Emilio Aguinaldo, who had been at Hong-Kong, had landed from one of the American vessels at Cavite, and on the 1st of July, when the American troops landed, had proclaimed himself president of the Philippine Republic. The political attitude which he assumed was not sanctioned by the American autnoritiesi At the head of the insurgents he had instituted a close siege of Manila. Fajardo, at the extreme north-eastern end of the island, was given out as the objective point of the expedition, but after sailing the plans were changed, and the towns on the south side were occupied, practically without resistance. The attitude of the population was exceedingly friendly, and opposition was not met until advance was begun northward. The troops were divided into four columns, advancing from Guanica around the western end of the island to Mayaguez: from Arroyo at the eastern end to meet the San Juan road at Cayey; from Ponce by the fine military road, 70 m., to San Juan; and the fourth column by way of Adjuntas and Utuado, midway of the island. The various movements involved several skirmishes, the chief op- position being met by the western column on the 10th of August, and by the column from Ponce on the 9th, when the Americans lost 1 killed and 22 wounded; the Spanish, 126 killed and wounded, and over 200 prisoners. A further advance on the San Juan highway would probably have developed greater resistance, but news of the suspension of hostilities intervened. The total American loss had been 3 killed and 40 wounded. On the 1 2th of August operations were begun by the " Newark " and other vessels against Manzanillo. But during the night news arrived of the signing of the peace protocol on the 12th, and of an armistice, of which the Americans were informed by the Spanish commander under a flag of truce.
The total American loss was— in the navy, 1 officer, 17 men killed; in the army, 20 officers, 440 men. The health of the American fleet was kept remarkably. Its average Americans — strength during the 114 days of hostilities was 26,102; the deaths from disease during this time were 56, or at the rate of 7 per 1000 per year. As nearly the whole of the service was in the tropics, and in the summer or wet season, this is a convincing proof of the efficiency in sanitary administration. The army did not fare so â– well, losing by disease during May, June, July and August, 67 officers and 1872 men out of an average total of 227,404. Its larger proportion of illness must of course be ascribed, in part, to its greater hardships. The war department was accused of gross maladministration; but the charges were not upheld by an investigating committee. The lack of proper preparation by the war department and the ignorance and thoughtlessness of the volunteers were the principal reasons for the high death-rate in the army.
For the terms of the peace and the results of the war see United States; Philippine Islands; Cuba; Porto Rico.
The literature of the Spanish-American War is voluminous: amongst the principal sources of information may be mentioned; The annual reports of various departments for 1898, especially the War Notes of the Office of Naval Intelligence, Washington, which include Spanish translations, and the appendix to the report of the Bureau of Navigation ; R. H. Titherington, A History of the Spanish-American War (New York, 1900); H. C. Lodge, Story of the Spanish War (New York, 1899); H. W. Wilson, The Downfall of Spain (London, 1900); W. A. M. Goode, With Sampson through the War (London, 1899) ; J. Wheeler, Santiago Campaign (Philadelphia, 1899); Theodore Roosevelt, The Rough Riders (New York, 1899); C. D. Sigsbee, Personal Narratives of the Battleship Maine (New York, 1899); R. A. Alger, Spanish-American War (New York, 1900); Gomez Nunez, La Guerra hispano-americana (Madrid, 1900) ; H. Kunz, Taktische Beispiele aus den Kriegen der Neuesten Zeit II. (Berlin, 1901); Admiral Pluddemann, Der Krieg um Cuba i8q8 (Berlin); John D Long, The New American Navy (2 vols., New York, 1903); John R. Spears, Our Navy in the War with Spain (ibid., 1898); Bujac, Precii de quelques campagnes contemporaines, IV. (Paris, 1899); and the Century and Scribner's magazines for 1898 and 1899 passim.
- The Spanish authorities made an examination, but did not inspect the interior, the chief diver reporting that " the bilge and keel of the vessel throughout its entire extent were buried in the mud, but did not appear to have suffered any damage." It has been suggested that the explosion was the work of Cuban "sympathizers who thus planned to secure American assistance against Spain. It was not until iqio that Congress made an appropriation (and an inadequate one then) for raising the " Maine."
- Three of the best were afterwards raised and repaired by American engineers.
- 'The " Buenaventura," the first prize of the war, was taken by the gunboat " Nashville " off Key West on the 23rd of Aprii.
- A telegram (not received by Cervera) had been sent to Martinique on the 12th of May, authorizing the squadron's return. | 8,634 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Many of my students already knew the meaning of the word aggressive but did not know other take ten vocabulary words like passive and assertive. None of the students could explain or give examples of the words passive or assertive yet many examples were provided for the word aggressive. Some of the examples were really mean and violent. After my partner and I finished the lesson, I felt that the students reflected on their new knowledge and understood the message being taught.
One strategy that has been effective in the classroom is asking examples of conflict at the beginning of every meeting. Then, we ask for other examples of how to deal with conflict at the end of the lesson. Their way of thinking through the conflict is very different at the end of the lesson than at the beginning. This shows me that they learn something during the time that we are in the classroom. I hope that they act out what they learn. This will allow them to be better people and influence others as they grow up. Take ten is very helpful to them. If they keep having this influence throughout their childhood, they will be able to manage conflicts better and non-violent ways of thinking will be natural to them as adults. | <urn:uuid:88e26683-d070-4e34-891e-d1b59504df2e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://sites.nd.edu/taketen/2011/12/08/rafael-borges-fair-and-assertive-behavior/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00407.warc.gz | en | 0.983285 | 236 | 4.09375 | 4 | [
-0.4281264543533325,
0.03169972822070122,
0.13909773528575897,
-0.21548181772232056,
-0.41940778493881226,
-0.034079838544130325,
0.6033391952514648,
0.23544679582118988,
0.08220154047012329,
-0.2776108682155609,
0.24119043350219727,
0.06214610114693642,
0.16040299832820892,
0.093064039945... | 4 | Many of my students already knew the meaning of the word aggressive but did not know other take ten vocabulary words like passive and assertive. None of the students could explain or give examples of the words passive or assertive yet many examples were provided for the word aggressive. Some of the examples were really mean and violent. After my partner and I finished the lesson, I felt that the students reflected on their new knowledge and understood the message being taught.
One strategy that has been effective in the classroom is asking examples of conflict at the beginning of every meeting. Then, we ask for other examples of how to deal with conflict at the end of the lesson. Their way of thinking through the conflict is very different at the end of the lesson than at the beginning. This shows me that they learn something during the time that we are in the classroom. I hope that they act out what they learn. This will allow them to be better people and influence others as they grow up. Take ten is very helpful to them. If they keep having this influence throughout their childhood, they will be able to manage conflicts better and non-violent ways of thinking will be natural to them as adults. | 235 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Question: How did the Greeks start a democracy and make it evolve? How was the citizenship in Greece, was it equal?
Ancient Greece was separated into different city-states because of the high mountain ranges in the Peloponnese and northern Greece. One of the biggest changes to Greek life in Athens was the emergence of democracy, or rule by the people. Citizens of Greek cities overthrew their tyrants and set up governments ruled by citizens. Although citizens could speak and vote in democracy, women, slaves, and those born outside the city were excluded. This essay will explain how the Athenians moved toward democracy. It will explain how, unlike before, citizens of Athens participated directly in political decision making. Athens build a democracy with the help of many important men such as Solon and Cleisthenes. The laws of citizenship in Athens was always evolving.
When a young aristocrat named Kylon failed while trying to seize power and declare himself tyrant, his attempt made the Athenians recognize the stresses in Athens’ society. Peasants were oppressively poor and deeply in debt to the wealthy nobles. Common folk were growing impatient with aristocratic rule. The eupatridae, or best people, ordered the archon, or ruler, to change the laws. (Ed. Carroll Moulton. Vol. 2)
The archon was Solon, and he instituted many reforms. He canceled debts and used state funds to buy back Athenians who had been sold into slavery because of their debts. He also introduced a new constitution. Solon’s explanation for his actions are, "the laws I passed were alike for low-born and for high-born; my aim was straightforward justice for each." (Encyclopedia of World Biography) It gave all free men, even those who did not own land, the right to vote in the assembly that elected the archons, who came from the noble class. The nobles held many important powers, but Solon’s constitution gave some rights to the common man and created a sense of citizenship.
Solon was entrusted with full legislative powers. Solon eliminated divisions of birth in politics. All Athenians were classified into four social classes according to wealth. Only members of the top three classes could hold political office. All citizens could participate in the Athenian assembly. Liability for tax and military service and eligibility for office were defined in terms of the new classification. Solon also introduced the legal concept that any citizen could bring charges against wrongdoers. (textbook)
Solon introduced a second house, the Council of Four Hundred.The new house was designed not only to break the monopoly of the Areopagus Council but also to guide the Assembly of Citizens, in which men of all classes sat. This Assembly was self-governing in theory; but at a time of social and economic disruption Solon did not intend it to be sovereign in practice. He regarded the two councils as stabilizers. The Assembly was banned from considering any motion on which the Council of Four Hundred had... | <urn:uuid:050f60a5-a7ea-4a38-a02f-59039342c6ff> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/democracy-in-greece-and-its-particular-citizenship | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00436.warc.gz | en | 0.98269 | 622 | 4.1875 | 4 | [
-0.5997265577316284,
0.21356551349163055,
0.23382852971553802,
-0.5572559833526611,
-0.43060243129730225,
-0.24396666884422302,
0.11054950952529907,
0.38140061497688293,
-0.077560193836689,
0.2689967155456543,
-0.39950641989707947,
0.1354297399520874,
-0.20118361711502075,
0.12934696674346... | 1 | Question: How did the Greeks start a democracy and make it evolve? How was the citizenship in Greece, was it equal?
Ancient Greece was separated into different city-states because of the high mountain ranges in the Peloponnese and northern Greece. One of the biggest changes to Greek life in Athens was the emergence of democracy, or rule by the people. Citizens of Greek cities overthrew their tyrants and set up governments ruled by citizens. Although citizens could speak and vote in democracy, women, slaves, and those born outside the city were excluded. This essay will explain how the Athenians moved toward democracy. It will explain how, unlike before, citizens of Athens participated directly in political decision making. Athens build a democracy with the help of many important men such as Solon and Cleisthenes. The laws of citizenship in Athens was always evolving.
When a young aristocrat named Kylon failed while trying to seize power and declare himself tyrant, his attempt made the Athenians recognize the stresses in Athens’ society. Peasants were oppressively poor and deeply in debt to the wealthy nobles. Common folk were growing impatient with aristocratic rule. The eupatridae, or best people, ordered the archon, or ruler, to change the laws. (Ed. Carroll Moulton. Vol. 2)
The archon was Solon, and he instituted many reforms. He canceled debts and used state funds to buy back Athenians who had been sold into slavery because of their debts. He also introduced a new constitution. Solon’s explanation for his actions are, "the laws I passed were alike for low-born and for high-born; my aim was straightforward justice for each." (Encyclopedia of World Biography) It gave all free men, even those who did not own land, the right to vote in the assembly that elected the archons, who came from the noble class. The nobles held many important powers, but Solon’s constitution gave some rights to the common man and created a sense of citizenship.
Solon was entrusted with full legislative powers. Solon eliminated divisions of birth in politics. All Athenians were classified into four social classes according to wealth. Only members of the top three classes could hold political office. All citizens could participate in the Athenian assembly. Liability for tax and military service and eligibility for office were defined in terms of the new classification. Solon also introduced the legal concept that any citizen could bring charges against wrongdoers. (textbook)
Solon introduced a second house, the Council of Four Hundred.The new house was designed not only to break the monopoly of the Areopagus Council but also to guide the Assembly of Citizens, in which men of all classes sat. This Assembly was self-governing in theory; but at a time of social and economic disruption Solon did not intend it to be sovereign in practice. He regarded the two councils as stabilizers. The Assembly was banned from considering any motion on which the Council of Four Hundred had... | 610 | ENGLISH | 1 |
About the Book of Judges
This is the story of Israel after Joshua died. Someone wrote it when the Israelites lived among the Canaanites.
They had not killed all the Canaanites as God had told them to do. Many Canaanites still lived in cities in the good low land. Most of the Israelites lived in the hills.
Because some Israelites had Canaanite wives, they did not obey God. Some obeyed the gods of the Canaanites. God punished his people when they served other gods. When they were sorry, they asked for his help. Then God sent a judge to save them and help them to serve him.
The Israelites obeyed God for a short time. Then they stopped obeying God again.
God punished them again. They told God that they were sorry. So he sent another judge to save them.
This happened again and again.
Judges usually decide whether someone has kept the law. In this book a judge is much more than that. These judges are people that God chooses. They lead his people, the Israelites, into fighting and in worship. But God sent his Holy Spirit to make his judges strong. Then they could do the work that he wanted them to do. Judges did not rule the whole of Israel. They ruled in their own tribes. After the death of Joshua, different judges ruled until Saul was made king. This was between the years 1300 to 1000 BC. (1300 to 1000 years before the Lord Jesus Christ was born).
The word Canaanites includes all the people who lived in the land of Canaan. This was the land that God had chosen for the people of Israel. Jebusites, Amorites, Hittites, Hivites and many other tribes were all Canaanites.
Genesis 32:22-32 tell us about the tribes of Israel.
The Israelites had 12 tribes. Each tribe was from one of Jacob's sons. God gave Jacob a new name. He called him Israel.
The names of the sons of Jacob and his first wife Leah, were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. Jacob and his second wife Rachel had two sons, Joseph and Benjamin.
Jacob also had sons with his servants. Their names were Dan, Naphtali, Gad and Asher.
Each of Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh became a separate tribe, so no one tribe has the name Joseph.
Each tribe, except Levi, lived in its own part of Canaan. The tribe of Levi lived on land that was given to them by their brothers. They had a special job. They were servants of God and their brothers. They kept God's house safe and beautiful. They sang and prayed to him. They offered him gifts from the tribes. This was to show that all the tribes belonged to God. | <urn:uuid:d72793bc-fa6a-4957-ab15-70db5626bd7c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.easyenglish.bible/bible/easy/judges/0/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00402.warc.gz | en | 0.994215 | 593 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
-0.07771492749452591,
0.3463996648788452,
-0.16329598426818848,
-0.1259705126285553,
-0.456178218126297,
-0.21252331137657166,
0.4555671513080597,
0.053048472851514816,
0.1669137328863144,
0.4877488613128662,
-0.2177083045244217,
0.1275283247232437,
0.21629396080970764,
0.06224559247493744... | 5 | About the Book of Judges
This is the story of Israel after Joshua died. Someone wrote it when the Israelites lived among the Canaanites.
They had not killed all the Canaanites as God had told them to do. Many Canaanites still lived in cities in the good low land. Most of the Israelites lived in the hills.
Because some Israelites had Canaanite wives, they did not obey God. Some obeyed the gods of the Canaanites. God punished his people when they served other gods. When they were sorry, they asked for his help. Then God sent a judge to save them and help them to serve him.
The Israelites obeyed God for a short time. Then they stopped obeying God again.
God punished them again. They told God that they were sorry. So he sent another judge to save them.
This happened again and again.
Judges usually decide whether someone has kept the law. In this book a judge is much more than that. These judges are people that God chooses. They lead his people, the Israelites, into fighting and in worship. But God sent his Holy Spirit to make his judges strong. Then they could do the work that he wanted them to do. Judges did not rule the whole of Israel. They ruled in their own tribes. After the death of Joshua, different judges ruled until Saul was made king. This was between the years 1300 to 1000 BC. (1300 to 1000 years before the Lord Jesus Christ was born).
The word Canaanites includes all the people who lived in the land of Canaan. This was the land that God had chosen for the people of Israel. Jebusites, Amorites, Hittites, Hivites and many other tribes were all Canaanites.
Genesis 32:22-32 tell us about the tribes of Israel.
The Israelites had 12 tribes. Each tribe was from one of Jacob's sons. God gave Jacob a new name. He called him Israel.
The names of the sons of Jacob and his first wife Leah, were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. Jacob and his second wife Rachel had two sons, Joseph and Benjamin.
Jacob also had sons with his servants. Their names were Dan, Naphtali, Gad and Asher.
Each of Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh became a separate tribe, so no one tribe has the name Joseph.
Each tribe, except Levi, lived in its own part of Canaan. The tribe of Levi lived on land that was given to them by their brothers. They had a special job. They were servants of God and their brothers. They kept God's house safe and beautiful. They sang and prayed to him. They offered him gifts from the tribes. This was to show that all the tribes belonged to God. | 608 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Women During Tudor and Windsor Period
The treatment of women during the Tudor period vs. Current day I. Introduction: This paper examines the treatment of Royal women in England during the Tudor period, in particular the wives of King Henry VIII. This is more in depth than just the wives of Henry VIII, but compares their treatment with that of modern day England. I am going to perform in-depth research into the wives of King Henry VII and that of the current Royal family. Today’s Royals have much more freedom and are treated better than during the Tudor period.
The women of today’s royal family are able to be heirs to the crown along with marry who they love. II. Tudor Period Women were believed to be the weaker sex, not only physically, but also emotionally. From a young age girls were taught that their sole purpose in life was to marry, have children, raise their children, take care of their home and husband. After all they were ordered by God to obey men. The church at the time also taught that women were inferior to men. They used the Bible to justify this teaching. They take a Bible verse out of context that says “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ” (Ephesians 5:22-24). If you read the previous verse it says “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. ” (Ephesians 5:21) Both men and women were taught this by the church, so the entire society believed that women were inferior to men. Girls were taught from a young age that according to God they were to obey men, whether it was their father, husband, brother, uncle or cousin.
Most girls received no form of education unless they were from wealthy families and even then it was usually on how to manage a household, prepare meals or to do needlework. It was believed then that it was a waste of time to teach girls to read and write. Even two of King Henry VIII wives (Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard) were barely able to read and write. They were actually both from financially well to do and even royal families. (Reference 1) Women along with men were also required to marry whoever would benefit the crown the most. Young women were told who they would marry and this was based on what marriage would enefit the family the most. They did not marry for love; whether they loved the man they were to marry was irrelevant. A lot of times the first time a couple would meet was at the wedding ceremony. This was the case when King Henry VIII married his 4th wife Anne of Cleves. (Reference 1) ‘Anne of Cleves was not what Henry expected. “I like her not! ” he told all and sundry. King Henry VIII is also reputed to have described Anne of Cleves as ‘a fat Flanders Mare. ’ (Reference 2) After marrying women had one main purpose and that was to produce a male heir to continue the family line.
During this time period giving birth very dangerous for the mother. It was unusual the mother that died while giving birth. For this reason many women would get the nursery ready for the child before giving birth. The way women dressed was strictly controlled. For instance, women that were unmarried could wear their hair loose. While married women were required to cover their hair with a veil or a hood. The dresses they wore would come all the way down to her wrists and the length was to the floor. It did not matter how hot it was, this is how women were to dress period.
After marriage a women became the property of her husband. Women that committed adultery or killed their husband were burned at the stake, unless the King or Queen at the time disagreed. (Reference 1) III. Third act of succession Before almost the end of King Henry VIII’s reign during the Tudor period women were not allowed to be the heir to the crown of England. This changed because of the third act of succession made by King Henry VIII at the end of his life. (Reference 2) Third Act of Succession of 1543 is that briefly an act by King Henry VII giving the succession order of his crown.
He put his only son Edward or his heirs if he was not alive first in line to the crown. The second in line to the crown he put his first daughter Mary or her heirs if she is not alive. This was the first time that a women was able to be a successor to the crown of England. Third in line was his second daughter Elizabeth or her heirs if she was not alive. (Reference 2) As history would come to show all three of Henry VIII’s children would be crowned the King or Queen of England. In 1553 after the death of King Edward VI his sister Mary became the Queen, since King Edward VI had no heirs.
This was the first time in history that a Woman was the successor to the crown of England. (Reference 4) IV. The wives of King Henry VIII Henry VIII further proves my point that women were treated as secondary citizens. King Henry VIII changed wives like people now change cars. He used them for what he wanted and then got rid of them by either divorce or even by having them beheaded. King Henry VIII had six wives listed as follows: His first wife was Catherine of Aragon. He married her for power and a political alliance with Spain. She was originally married to Henry’s brother Arthur who died six months after they married.
King Henry VIII after about 24 years became unhappy and bored in his marriage. Catherine was unable to give him a male heir to his Kingdom, but did give birth to his daughter Mary. Catherine of Aragon refused to give Henry a divorce and Pope Clement VII also refused to give him a divorce. King Henry already had plans to marry one of the Queen’s lady-in-waiting, Anne Boleyn. Three years later Anne Boleyn became pregnant with King Henry’s child. “Deserting the Catholic faith Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury grants the annulment of the marriage between Catharine of Aragon and Henry VIII in 1533.
In the same year King Henry married Anne Boleyn and was excommunicated by Pope Clement VII. ” Because of her refusal to divorce the King, Queen Catharine was banished from the court and from seeing her daughter Mary. The King moved them to other castles in England, separated from one another. On the 7th of January in 1536 Queen Catherine of Aragon died at the Kimbolton Castle at the age of fifty. (Reference 3) His second wife Anne Boleyn has well educated at home by a French governess and as a young teenage went to France to finish her education. In France she was educated in music, dance and poetry.
She then returned to England where she was a lady-in waiting to Queen Catherine of Aragon. This is where she caught the eye of King Henry VIII and he pursued her. Late in 1532 she became pregnant with King Henry’s child. She married King Henry VIII in January of 1533, while she was still pregnant. Anne Boleyn gave birth to King Henry’s daughter Elizabeth on the 7th of September in 1533. In 1534 Queen Anne became pregnant again which was short-lived when she miscarried a baby boy. She became pregnant again in1535 and also miscarried the baby. The relationship between Anne and Henry quickly deteriorated.
His one-time overwhelming lust for her had turned into hate. By late 1535 another lady-in-waiting to Queen Anne (Jane Seymour) had caught the King’s eye. On the 2nd of May in 1536 Queen Anne Boleyn was arrested and taken to the Tower of London. On the 15th of May in 1536 Anne Boleyn was tried for treason, adultery and incest in the Great Hall of the Tower of London along with her brother George Boleyn. The Beheading of the Queen of England Anne Boleyn took place on the 19th of May in 1536. King Henry was now free to marry whoever he would like with Queen Anne out of the way. Reference 3) King Henry VIII third wife was Jane Seymour. Within 24 hours of Queen Anne Boleyn’s execution, Jane Seymour and King Henry VIII were formally betrothed on the 20th of May in 1536. The King and Jane were married with haste ten days later, because Jane Seymour was pregnant. She probably married King Henry because she was in love with him and was also urged to by her ambitious brothers. Jane Seymour was well educated at home and was sent to France to finish her education as a young girl. When Jane returned to England and she first entered the service of King Henry VIII’s daughter Mary.
Jane Seymour then was appointed as a lady-in-waiting to Catherine of Aragon to whom she became a loyal servant. This is where Jane caught the eye of the king. On the 12th of October in 1537 Queen Jane Seymour gave birth to the male heir son that King Henry VIII had been waiting for. His name was Edward and later became the King of England at the age of 10. On the 24th of October in 1537, just twelve days after giving birth to Prince Edward, Queen Jane Seymour died. Her death was from lack of care after the child birth of Prince Edward. Anne of Cleves was the 4th wife of King Henry VIII.
He married her for a political Protestant alliance in Europe. Anne was considered to be intelligent, but was never educated in music, literature, languages or dance. She was from Germany and the two did not meet until their wedding. King Henry VIII only agreed to marry her after seeing a painting of her where she looked pretty that didn’t include the scars she had from small pox. He could not cancel the wedding since the marriage treaty with Cleves was finalized, so he went through with it and never consummated the marriage. They were married the 6th of January in 1540 and then divorced on the 9th of July in 1540.
Queen Anne of Cleves agreed to the divorce, which made King Henry very happy. He treated her like he would his Royal sister, then gave her a settlement of 4,000 English pounds per year and gave Anne of Cleves a number of homes including Hever Castle the former home of Anne Boleyn. Part of the agreement was that Anne of Cleves would make here permanent residence in England. The English Parliament declared the marriage null and void since Anne was once engaged to the son of the Duke of Lorraine. Again King Henry VIII once again divorced a wife because she was not what he wanted.
Anne of Cleves emerged from her marriage with the King happier than she entered it. She was also the last of the King’s wives to die. (Reference 3) Catherine Howard the fifth wife of King Henry VIII was the cousin of the former Queen Anne Boleyn one of Henry’s wives. Catherine was uneducated and could barely read and write, even though she was of royal blood. She was a beautiful girl of noble birth and she useful to the fortunes of the Howard dynasty. Catherine was sent to the court of King Henry VIII as a lady-in-waiting and just as the Duke of Norfolk had planned she caught the eye of King Henry VIII.
King Henry was obsessed with Catherine, after all she was beautiful and thirty years younger than him. The obsession was described as a “pathetic infatuation”. Henry thought of her as a young, innocent and virginal young woman she was in his words a “Rose without a thorn”. Catherine Howard was a kind and sweet natured girl. Catherine and King Henry married on the 28th of July in 1540, only 21 days after his divorce from Anne of Cleves. Catherine was described as young, pretty, curvaceous, kind, flirtatious, impetuous, promiscuous and foolish.
The foolish young Catherine Howard then fell in love with a young man who worked for the English court called Thomas Culpepper and started a sexual relationship with him. King Henry VIII was truly devastated by the behavior of his “Rose without a thorn. ” He banned Catherine Howard from his presence and ordered her arrest. Catherine Howard was arrested by the Hampton Court for adultery. She was dragged screaming from her apartments. The lovers of Catherine Howard (Henry Mannox, Francis Dereham and Thomas Culpepper) were all tortured and then beheaded.
She passed the gruesome heads of her lovers on London Bridge on her way to Traitor’s gate, the entry to the Tower of London. The Beheading of Queen Catherine Howard took place on the 13th of February in 1542. Legend has it that Catherine’s last words were: “I die a queen, but would rather die the wife of Culpepper. ” (Reference 3) Catherine Parr was the sixth and final wife of King Henry VIII of England. King Henry VIII met his last and sixth wife, Catherine Parr, at the English court. She did not marry him because she loved him, but she was forced into the marriage with the King through duty and obligation.
King Henry VIII saw the educated Catherine Parr, Lady Latimer, as an ideal wife who had already been married, nursed her elderly husbands and had cared for her step children. They were married on the 12th of July in 1543. Her true affections were with Sir Thomas Seymour the brother of the former Queen Jane Seymour, she later married him after the death of King Henry VIII. She was a respectable, well educated, a wealthy widower known as Lady Latimer. Her previous arranged marriages to Edward, Lord Borough and John Neville, Lord Latimer were much older men who she had nursed until their deaths.
King Henry VIII died on the 28th of January in 1547 at the age of 56. Henry VIII was buried in Saint George’s Chapel in the Windsor Castle, next to his third wife Jane Seymour, the mother of his son and heir Edward VI. Catherine Parr became the guardian of Elizabeth after the death of King Henry VIII and they lived at Whitehall and Chelsea. (Reference 3) V. Windsor Period In contrast to how women were treated during the Tudor period, the Windsor period changed the way women were treated. Unlike the Tudor period were marriages were all arranged by the families of the bride and groom, to best position both of their Kingdoms.
The modern Windsor family allows their Royal’s in some cases to marry for love. Even if they were unpermitted to marry by the British government they did any ways. Women are given their right to vote for the first time during the Windsor period. King George V was born was born at Marlborough House on the 3rd June in 1865. He has the second son to King Edward VII and was not to become King. That was until his older brother Prince Edward died of pneumonia in January of 1892. At the time of his death Prince Edward was engaged to his German cousin Princes Mary of Teck.
It was the decided that she should marry George instead of his brother Edward. George the Duke of York married Princess Mary in 1893. Mary had six children: Edward VIII born in 1894, George VI born in 1895, Mary born in 1897, Henry born in 1900, George born in 1902 and John born in 1905. He died of influenza on the 20th of January in 1936. (Reference 9) During his reign King George V in 1928 made it legal for everyone over the age of 21 to vote, which included women for the first time. The only people excluded from this law were prisoners, madmen and the House of Lords. Reference 4) King Edward VIII had a very short reign as King. He wanted to marry a divorced American woman named Wallace Simson, but the British government opposed the marriage. He decided to hand over the crown to his younger brother George VI, so he could marry the women he loved. He is the only King in English history to voluntarily hand over his crown. Edward and his new wife became the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. (Reference 4) King George VI married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon a commoner by law on the 26th of April in 1923. The reason he married Elizabeth was because he was in love with her.
She refused his proposals two times before saying yes, because she was “afraid never, never again to be free to think, speak and act as I feel I really ought to” and had misgivings about royal life. (Reference 5) The couple had 2 daughters Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary born on the 21st of April in 1926 and Princess Margaret Rose of York in 1930. King George VI died on the 15th of August in 1950. (Reference 6) Queen Elizabeth II first met her husband Prince Philip at the age of 8. They met again at the Royal Naval College in Dartmouth, England in July of 1939.
The 13-year-old princess fell in love with the 18 year old prince. They exchanged letters for years and on the 20th of November in 1947 they were married. They went on to have three sons and a daughter. First was Charles Philip Arthur George born on the 14th of November in 1948, second was their daughter Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise born on the 15th of August in 1950, third was Andrew Albert Christian Edward born on the 19th of February in 1960, and fourth was Edward Anthony Richard Louis born on the 10th of March in 1964. Elizabeth and Philip were touring Australia and New Zealand when her father King George VI died.
Elizabeth quickly returned home when she was told of his death. In 1952 she was crowned Queen Elizabeth II in Westminster Abbey in a televised ceremony. Queen Elizabeth II turned 85 years old this year and will have ruled over the monarchy for 58 years on this June the 2nd. (Reference 7) Prince Charles as the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is the next in line to the throne. He became Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay, the traditional titles for the heir to the throne, when his mother became Queen Elizabeth II. He attended his mother’s coronation in 1952.
Prince Charles met Diana Frances Spencer in 1977 while visiting her house in Althorp. Prince Charles was allowed to marry Diana Frances Spencer a commoner for love on the 29th of July in 1981. She became Diana the Princess of Wales. (Reference 8) She gave birth to two sons Prince William Arthur Philip Louis born on the 21st of June in 1982 and Prince Henry Charles Albert David (also known as Prince Harry) was born on the 15th of September in 1984. Princess Diana divorced Prince Charles on the 28 of August in 1996 due to the infidelity of Prince Charles with Camilla Shand Parker Bowles.
Princess Diana kept her title of the Princess of Wales after their’ divorce. After his divorce with Princess Diana was finalized he married Camilla on the 9th of April in 2005. Camilla was given the title of Duchess of Cornwall. (Reference 9) Prince William is second in line to the throne after his father Prince Charles. On the 29th of April in 2011 he married Catherine Middleton a commoner because they love each other, not out of obligation. One of my other team mates will go into great depth about their wedding.
The same day the title of The Duke of Cambridge was conferred on him by Queen Elizabeth II. (Reference 9) VI. Discussions: While during the Tudor period women were treated and thought of as a secondary citizen and inferior to men, I do not agree with this position. I am the father of two daughters and they are very much as intelligent as the boys their age, if not smarter. I have also heard many times that if it was up to men to give birth, we would go instinct. I was there for the birth of both of my daughters and I would never purposely put myself in that position.
I think the reason I picked this theme is because I am the father of 2 girls before anything else. I always think about how they will be treated or perceived by others. When it comes to the way women were treated during the Tudor period compared to the Windsor period they are totally opposites. King Henry VIII was in my opinion a bad thing for the Tudor period. This in part is because he was a womanizer that used women as he pleased. While he did create the third act of succession in 1543, I believe he did this to ensure the crown would stay in his blood line.
This is another example of his selfishness. The change in the Windsor period I believe has a lot to do with the fact that open elections of 1915 did not determine a clear winner. King George V had to change the way the Windsor house was perceived by the common people. One of the things he did was passing a law in 1928 allowing women to vote. VII. Conclusion: Women even royal women during the Tudor period were treated as secondary citizens and discarded when they no long served a purpose. The way King Henry VIII treated women is a good example of how they were treated.
Women during this period could be beaten by their husband and they would be blamed for the beating. As is proof by Queen Elizabeth II’s almost six decade reign over the monarchy, women are treated much better than in the past. England like most of the world has changed the belief of society that women are equal to men. References: 1. History Learning Site. Chris Trueman. 2000. ;www. historylearningsite. co. uk; 2. England Constitution. King Henry VIII. 1543. ;www. constitution. org; 3. The Wives of King Henry VIII. The Tudor Organization. ;www. he-tudors. org. uk; 4. The Kings and Queens of England. Jo Edkins. 2008. ;gwydir. demon. co. ok; 5. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Wikipedia Organization. 1990. ;en. wikipedia. org; 6. Spartacus Educational website. John Simkin. 1997. ;www. spartacus. schoolnet. co. uk; 7. The history of the Royal family: Prince Charles. ;www. britroyals. com; 8. The British Royal Monarchy: Her Majesty the Queen. ;www. royal. gov. uk; 9. Spartacus Educational website. John Simkin. 1997. ;www. spartacus. schoolnet. co. uk; | <urn:uuid:e8a2ec29-24d5-4606-a555-51625aa2d98d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://farmersfeastmanitoba.com/women-during-tudor-and-windsor-period/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593295.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118164132-20200118192132-00357.warc.gz | en | 0.990549 | 4,724 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.2707054615020752,
0.5042128562927246,
0.05412553250789642,
-0.09700627624988556,
-0.040787119418382645,
-0.012571063823997974,
0.060119420289993286,
0.29394832253456116,
0.23270851373672485,
0.17467257380485535,
-0.13653576374053955,
-0.307567834854126,
0.2885621190071106,
0.08507946878... | 2 | Women During Tudor and Windsor Period
The treatment of women during the Tudor period vs. Current day I. Introduction: This paper examines the treatment of Royal women in England during the Tudor period, in particular the wives of King Henry VIII. This is more in depth than just the wives of Henry VIII, but compares their treatment with that of modern day England. I am going to perform in-depth research into the wives of King Henry VII and that of the current Royal family. Today’s Royals have much more freedom and are treated better than during the Tudor period.
The women of today’s royal family are able to be heirs to the crown along with marry who they love. II. Tudor Period Women were believed to be the weaker sex, not only physically, but also emotionally. From a young age girls were taught that their sole purpose in life was to marry, have children, raise their children, take care of their home and husband. After all they were ordered by God to obey men. The church at the time also taught that women were inferior to men. They used the Bible to justify this teaching. They take a Bible verse out of context that says “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ” (Ephesians 5:22-24). If you read the previous verse it says “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. ” (Ephesians 5:21) Both men and women were taught this by the church, so the entire society believed that women were inferior to men. Girls were taught from a young age that according to God they were to obey men, whether it was their father, husband, brother, uncle or cousin.
Most girls received no form of education unless they were from wealthy families and even then it was usually on how to manage a household, prepare meals or to do needlework. It was believed then that it was a waste of time to teach girls to read and write. Even two of King Henry VIII wives (Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard) were barely able to read and write. They were actually both from financially well to do and even royal families. (Reference 1) Women along with men were also required to marry whoever would benefit the crown the most. Young women were told who they would marry and this was based on what marriage would enefit the family the most. They did not marry for love; whether they loved the man they were to marry was irrelevant. A lot of times the first time a couple would meet was at the wedding ceremony. This was the case when King Henry VIII married his 4th wife Anne of Cleves. (Reference 1) ‘Anne of Cleves was not what Henry expected. “I like her not! ” he told all and sundry. King Henry VIII is also reputed to have described Anne of Cleves as ‘a fat Flanders Mare. ’ (Reference 2) After marrying women had one main purpose and that was to produce a male heir to continue the family line.
During this time period giving birth very dangerous for the mother. It was unusual the mother that died while giving birth. For this reason many women would get the nursery ready for the child before giving birth. The way women dressed was strictly controlled. For instance, women that were unmarried could wear their hair loose. While married women were required to cover their hair with a veil or a hood. The dresses they wore would come all the way down to her wrists and the length was to the floor. It did not matter how hot it was, this is how women were to dress period.
After marriage a women became the property of her husband. Women that committed adultery or killed their husband were burned at the stake, unless the King or Queen at the time disagreed. (Reference 1) III. Third act of succession Before almost the end of King Henry VIII’s reign during the Tudor period women were not allowed to be the heir to the crown of England. This changed because of the third act of succession made by King Henry VIII at the end of his life. (Reference 2) Third Act of Succession of 1543 is that briefly an act by King Henry VII giving the succession order of his crown.
He put his only son Edward or his heirs if he was not alive first in line to the crown. The second in line to the crown he put his first daughter Mary or her heirs if she is not alive. This was the first time that a women was able to be a successor to the crown of England. Third in line was his second daughter Elizabeth or her heirs if she was not alive. (Reference 2) As history would come to show all three of Henry VIII’s children would be crowned the King or Queen of England. In 1553 after the death of King Edward VI his sister Mary became the Queen, since King Edward VI had no heirs.
This was the first time in history that a Woman was the successor to the crown of England. (Reference 4) IV. The wives of King Henry VIII Henry VIII further proves my point that women were treated as secondary citizens. King Henry VIII changed wives like people now change cars. He used them for what he wanted and then got rid of them by either divorce or even by having them beheaded. King Henry VIII had six wives listed as follows: His first wife was Catherine of Aragon. He married her for power and a political alliance with Spain. She was originally married to Henry’s brother Arthur who died six months after they married.
King Henry VIII after about 24 years became unhappy and bored in his marriage. Catherine was unable to give him a male heir to his Kingdom, but did give birth to his daughter Mary. Catherine of Aragon refused to give Henry a divorce and Pope Clement VII also refused to give him a divorce. King Henry already had plans to marry one of the Queen’s lady-in-waiting, Anne Boleyn. Three years later Anne Boleyn became pregnant with King Henry’s child. “Deserting the Catholic faith Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury grants the annulment of the marriage between Catharine of Aragon and Henry VIII in 1533.
In the same year King Henry married Anne Boleyn and was excommunicated by Pope Clement VII. ” Because of her refusal to divorce the King, Queen Catharine was banished from the court and from seeing her daughter Mary. The King moved them to other castles in England, separated from one another. On the 7th of January in 1536 Queen Catherine of Aragon died at the Kimbolton Castle at the age of fifty. (Reference 3) His second wife Anne Boleyn has well educated at home by a French governess and as a young teenage went to France to finish her education. In France she was educated in music, dance and poetry.
She then returned to England where she was a lady-in waiting to Queen Catherine of Aragon. This is where she caught the eye of King Henry VIII and he pursued her. Late in 1532 she became pregnant with King Henry’s child. She married King Henry VIII in January of 1533, while she was still pregnant. Anne Boleyn gave birth to King Henry’s daughter Elizabeth on the 7th of September in 1533. In 1534 Queen Anne became pregnant again which was short-lived when she miscarried a baby boy. She became pregnant again in1535 and also miscarried the baby. The relationship between Anne and Henry quickly deteriorated.
His one-time overwhelming lust for her had turned into hate. By late 1535 another lady-in-waiting to Queen Anne (Jane Seymour) had caught the King’s eye. On the 2nd of May in 1536 Queen Anne Boleyn was arrested and taken to the Tower of London. On the 15th of May in 1536 Anne Boleyn was tried for treason, adultery and incest in the Great Hall of the Tower of London along with her brother George Boleyn. The Beheading of the Queen of England Anne Boleyn took place on the 19th of May in 1536. King Henry was now free to marry whoever he would like with Queen Anne out of the way. Reference 3) King Henry VIII third wife was Jane Seymour. Within 24 hours of Queen Anne Boleyn’s execution, Jane Seymour and King Henry VIII were formally betrothed on the 20th of May in 1536. The King and Jane were married with haste ten days later, because Jane Seymour was pregnant. She probably married King Henry because she was in love with him and was also urged to by her ambitious brothers. Jane Seymour was well educated at home and was sent to France to finish her education as a young girl. When Jane returned to England and she first entered the service of King Henry VIII’s daughter Mary.
Jane Seymour then was appointed as a lady-in-waiting to Catherine of Aragon to whom she became a loyal servant. This is where Jane caught the eye of the king. On the 12th of October in 1537 Queen Jane Seymour gave birth to the male heir son that King Henry VIII had been waiting for. His name was Edward and later became the King of England at the age of 10. On the 24th of October in 1537, just twelve days after giving birth to Prince Edward, Queen Jane Seymour died. Her death was from lack of care after the child birth of Prince Edward. Anne of Cleves was the 4th wife of King Henry VIII.
He married her for a political Protestant alliance in Europe. Anne was considered to be intelligent, but was never educated in music, literature, languages or dance. She was from Germany and the two did not meet until their wedding. King Henry VIII only agreed to marry her after seeing a painting of her where she looked pretty that didn’t include the scars she had from small pox. He could not cancel the wedding since the marriage treaty with Cleves was finalized, so he went through with it and never consummated the marriage. They were married the 6th of January in 1540 and then divorced on the 9th of July in 1540.
Queen Anne of Cleves agreed to the divorce, which made King Henry very happy. He treated her like he would his Royal sister, then gave her a settlement of 4,000 English pounds per year and gave Anne of Cleves a number of homes including Hever Castle the former home of Anne Boleyn. Part of the agreement was that Anne of Cleves would make here permanent residence in England. The English Parliament declared the marriage null and void since Anne was once engaged to the son of the Duke of Lorraine. Again King Henry VIII once again divorced a wife because she was not what he wanted.
Anne of Cleves emerged from her marriage with the King happier than she entered it. She was also the last of the King’s wives to die. (Reference 3) Catherine Howard the fifth wife of King Henry VIII was the cousin of the former Queen Anne Boleyn one of Henry’s wives. Catherine was uneducated and could barely read and write, even though she was of royal blood. She was a beautiful girl of noble birth and she useful to the fortunes of the Howard dynasty. Catherine was sent to the court of King Henry VIII as a lady-in-waiting and just as the Duke of Norfolk had planned she caught the eye of King Henry VIII.
King Henry was obsessed with Catherine, after all she was beautiful and thirty years younger than him. The obsession was described as a “pathetic infatuation”. Henry thought of her as a young, innocent and virginal young woman she was in his words a “Rose without a thorn”. Catherine Howard was a kind and sweet natured girl. Catherine and King Henry married on the 28th of July in 1540, only 21 days after his divorce from Anne of Cleves. Catherine was described as young, pretty, curvaceous, kind, flirtatious, impetuous, promiscuous and foolish.
The foolish young Catherine Howard then fell in love with a young man who worked for the English court called Thomas Culpepper and started a sexual relationship with him. King Henry VIII was truly devastated by the behavior of his “Rose without a thorn. ” He banned Catherine Howard from his presence and ordered her arrest. Catherine Howard was arrested by the Hampton Court for adultery. She was dragged screaming from her apartments. The lovers of Catherine Howard (Henry Mannox, Francis Dereham and Thomas Culpepper) were all tortured and then beheaded.
She passed the gruesome heads of her lovers on London Bridge on her way to Traitor’s gate, the entry to the Tower of London. The Beheading of Queen Catherine Howard took place on the 13th of February in 1542. Legend has it that Catherine’s last words were: “I die a queen, but would rather die the wife of Culpepper. ” (Reference 3) Catherine Parr was the sixth and final wife of King Henry VIII of England. King Henry VIII met his last and sixth wife, Catherine Parr, at the English court. She did not marry him because she loved him, but she was forced into the marriage with the King through duty and obligation.
King Henry VIII saw the educated Catherine Parr, Lady Latimer, as an ideal wife who had already been married, nursed her elderly husbands and had cared for her step children. They were married on the 12th of July in 1543. Her true affections were with Sir Thomas Seymour the brother of the former Queen Jane Seymour, she later married him after the death of King Henry VIII. She was a respectable, well educated, a wealthy widower known as Lady Latimer. Her previous arranged marriages to Edward, Lord Borough and John Neville, Lord Latimer were much older men who she had nursed until their deaths.
King Henry VIII died on the 28th of January in 1547 at the age of 56. Henry VIII was buried in Saint George’s Chapel in the Windsor Castle, next to his third wife Jane Seymour, the mother of his son and heir Edward VI. Catherine Parr became the guardian of Elizabeth after the death of King Henry VIII and they lived at Whitehall and Chelsea. (Reference 3) V. Windsor Period In contrast to how women were treated during the Tudor period, the Windsor period changed the way women were treated. Unlike the Tudor period were marriages were all arranged by the families of the bride and groom, to best position both of their Kingdoms.
The modern Windsor family allows their Royal’s in some cases to marry for love. Even if they were unpermitted to marry by the British government they did any ways. Women are given their right to vote for the first time during the Windsor period. King George V was born was born at Marlborough House on the 3rd June in 1865. He has the second son to King Edward VII and was not to become King. That was until his older brother Prince Edward died of pneumonia in January of 1892. At the time of his death Prince Edward was engaged to his German cousin Princes Mary of Teck.
It was the decided that she should marry George instead of his brother Edward. George the Duke of York married Princess Mary in 1893. Mary had six children: Edward VIII born in 1894, George VI born in 1895, Mary born in 1897, Henry born in 1900, George born in 1902 and John born in 1905. He died of influenza on the 20th of January in 1936. (Reference 9) During his reign King George V in 1928 made it legal for everyone over the age of 21 to vote, which included women for the first time. The only people excluded from this law were prisoners, madmen and the House of Lords. Reference 4) King Edward VIII had a very short reign as King. He wanted to marry a divorced American woman named Wallace Simson, but the British government opposed the marriage. He decided to hand over the crown to his younger brother George VI, so he could marry the women he loved. He is the only King in English history to voluntarily hand over his crown. Edward and his new wife became the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. (Reference 4) King George VI married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon a commoner by law on the 26th of April in 1923. The reason he married Elizabeth was because he was in love with her.
She refused his proposals two times before saying yes, because she was “afraid never, never again to be free to think, speak and act as I feel I really ought to” and had misgivings about royal life. (Reference 5) The couple had 2 daughters Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary born on the 21st of April in 1926 and Princess Margaret Rose of York in 1930. King George VI died on the 15th of August in 1950. (Reference 6) Queen Elizabeth II first met her husband Prince Philip at the age of 8. They met again at the Royal Naval College in Dartmouth, England in July of 1939.
The 13-year-old princess fell in love with the 18 year old prince. They exchanged letters for years and on the 20th of November in 1947 they were married. They went on to have three sons and a daughter. First was Charles Philip Arthur George born on the 14th of November in 1948, second was their daughter Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise born on the 15th of August in 1950, third was Andrew Albert Christian Edward born on the 19th of February in 1960, and fourth was Edward Anthony Richard Louis born on the 10th of March in 1964. Elizabeth and Philip were touring Australia and New Zealand when her father King George VI died.
Elizabeth quickly returned home when she was told of his death. In 1952 she was crowned Queen Elizabeth II in Westminster Abbey in a televised ceremony. Queen Elizabeth II turned 85 years old this year and will have ruled over the monarchy for 58 years on this June the 2nd. (Reference 7) Prince Charles as the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is the next in line to the throne. He became Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay, the traditional titles for the heir to the throne, when his mother became Queen Elizabeth II. He attended his mother’s coronation in 1952.
Prince Charles met Diana Frances Spencer in 1977 while visiting her house in Althorp. Prince Charles was allowed to marry Diana Frances Spencer a commoner for love on the 29th of July in 1981. She became Diana the Princess of Wales. (Reference 8) She gave birth to two sons Prince William Arthur Philip Louis born on the 21st of June in 1982 and Prince Henry Charles Albert David (also known as Prince Harry) was born on the 15th of September in 1984. Princess Diana divorced Prince Charles on the 28 of August in 1996 due to the infidelity of Prince Charles with Camilla Shand Parker Bowles.
Princess Diana kept her title of the Princess of Wales after their’ divorce. After his divorce with Princess Diana was finalized he married Camilla on the 9th of April in 2005. Camilla was given the title of Duchess of Cornwall. (Reference 9) Prince William is second in line to the throne after his father Prince Charles. On the 29th of April in 2011 he married Catherine Middleton a commoner because they love each other, not out of obligation. One of my other team mates will go into great depth about their wedding.
The same day the title of The Duke of Cambridge was conferred on him by Queen Elizabeth II. (Reference 9) VI. Discussions: While during the Tudor period women were treated and thought of as a secondary citizen and inferior to men, I do not agree with this position. I am the father of two daughters and they are very much as intelligent as the boys their age, if not smarter. I have also heard many times that if it was up to men to give birth, we would go instinct. I was there for the birth of both of my daughters and I would never purposely put myself in that position.
I think the reason I picked this theme is because I am the father of 2 girls before anything else. I always think about how they will be treated or perceived by others. When it comes to the way women were treated during the Tudor period compared to the Windsor period they are totally opposites. King Henry VIII was in my opinion a bad thing for the Tudor period. This in part is because he was a womanizer that used women as he pleased. While he did create the third act of succession in 1543, I believe he did this to ensure the crown would stay in his blood line.
This is another example of his selfishness. The change in the Windsor period I believe has a lot to do with the fact that open elections of 1915 did not determine a clear winner. King George V had to change the way the Windsor house was perceived by the common people. One of the things he did was passing a law in 1928 allowing women to vote. VII. Conclusion: Women even royal women during the Tudor period were treated as secondary citizens and discarded when they no long served a purpose. The way King Henry VIII treated women is a good example of how they were treated.
Women during this period could be beaten by their husband and they would be blamed for the beating. As is proof by Queen Elizabeth II’s almost six decade reign over the monarchy, women are treated much better than in the past. England like most of the world has changed the belief of society that women are equal to men. References: 1. History Learning Site. Chris Trueman. 2000. ;www. historylearningsite. co. uk; 2. England Constitution. King Henry VIII. 1543. ;www. constitution. org; 3. The Wives of King Henry VIII. The Tudor Organization. ;www. he-tudors. org. uk; 4. The Kings and Queens of England. Jo Edkins. 2008. ;gwydir. demon. co. ok; 5. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Wikipedia Organization. 1990. ;en. wikipedia. org; 6. Spartacus Educational website. John Simkin. 1997. ;www. spartacus. schoolnet. co. uk; 7. The history of the Royal family: Prince Charles. ;www. britroyals. com; 8. The British Royal Monarchy: Her Majesty the Queen. ;www. royal. gov. uk; 9. Spartacus Educational website. John Simkin. 1997. ;www. spartacus. schoolnet. co. uk; | 4,940 | ENGLISH | 1 |
While for many years differences in teen behaviors (from adults and children) were attributed to the influx of hormones or developmental changes they were experiencing, scientists are now realizing that in fact some of those differences are occurring because of what is happening in the brain.
Here is an overview of some of what they’ve found so far:
- The part of the brain called “prefrontal cortex” (located behind the forehead) is the part of the brain responsible for planning, decision making, paying attention, impulsivity, motivation, and working memory (among other things). In teens, this is the last part of the brain to mature, meaning that for a large portion of adolescence this area is “under construction”. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t work at all, but, as with any construction site, you can expect delays and other evidence that it is not “finished” yet. Scientists say that this part of the brain does not fully develop until age 25.
- The rest of the brain is busy being re-wired: new neural pathways are being laid down (basically, the “roads” of the brain that carry information from one part of the brain to another), old ones are being pruned (or not paved and saved), as the entire brain is re-working its connections. This can result in moments of fuzzy logic and sometimes in the teen brain’s inability to, literally, ‘get from here to there’, in terms of making decisions or connections between two different things.
- The Amygdala is the emotional seat of the brain, and it grows very quickly and early on during adolescence. Unfortunately, even as the ability to feel things intensely is going into overdrive, the parts of the brain responsible for the cognitive control system (basically, the parts that “think”) lag behind, as noted above. Scientists call this “a temporal gap”.
- When teens were shown a picture of a person who was scared, they tended to label the person’s expression as one of shock, surprise, or anger. When adults were shown that same picture, they were more likely to accurately describe the expression as fearful. More importantly however, this study was done while those teens and adults were inside an MRI machine which showed that different areas of the brain were “lighting up” (and therefore being used) in the teen brains vs. the adult brains. In Teens it was the Amygdala, the seat of emotions (or “reactions”), which was being used, while adults mainly used their Frontal Cortex (seat of reason and logic) to determine what they were seeing. This leads researchers to believe teens may not always be able to judge emotional situations accurately, as they tend to “react” rather than “reason”.
Understanding that teens really are experiencing the world differently than adults do is important to keep in mind as we attempt to guide young people through the often choppy waters of adolescence. If your teen is also experiencing mental health issues, has had trauma, or is having significant behavioral problems that are falling far outside the range of what normal brain development might explain, it’s important that you have your teen evaluated so that the need for treatment is determined as soon as possible. | <urn:uuid:ba6d857b-c9fe-426f-b5e1-d75b0e5bd734> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.waterfordcountryschool.org/mysteries-of-the-teenage-brain-revealed/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694908.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127051112-20200127081112-00235.warc.gz | en | 0.981007 | 685 | 3.84375 | 4 | [
0.24926543235778809,
-0.14042344689369202,
0.2324681133031845,
0.11076173931360245,
-0.1292274296283722,
0.5215623378753662,
0.26285848021507263,
0.17334912717342377,
0.12300669401884079,
-0.4554155468940735,
0.1666206270456314,
-0.021597646176815033,
0.26407989859580994,
0.295026779174804... | 10 | While for many years differences in teen behaviors (from adults and children) were attributed to the influx of hormones or developmental changes they were experiencing, scientists are now realizing that in fact some of those differences are occurring because of what is happening in the brain.
Here is an overview of some of what they’ve found so far:
- The part of the brain called “prefrontal cortex” (located behind the forehead) is the part of the brain responsible for planning, decision making, paying attention, impulsivity, motivation, and working memory (among other things). In teens, this is the last part of the brain to mature, meaning that for a large portion of adolescence this area is “under construction”. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t work at all, but, as with any construction site, you can expect delays and other evidence that it is not “finished” yet. Scientists say that this part of the brain does not fully develop until age 25.
- The rest of the brain is busy being re-wired: new neural pathways are being laid down (basically, the “roads” of the brain that carry information from one part of the brain to another), old ones are being pruned (or not paved and saved), as the entire brain is re-working its connections. This can result in moments of fuzzy logic and sometimes in the teen brain’s inability to, literally, ‘get from here to there’, in terms of making decisions or connections between two different things.
- The Amygdala is the emotional seat of the brain, and it grows very quickly and early on during adolescence. Unfortunately, even as the ability to feel things intensely is going into overdrive, the parts of the brain responsible for the cognitive control system (basically, the parts that “think”) lag behind, as noted above. Scientists call this “a temporal gap”.
- When teens were shown a picture of a person who was scared, they tended to label the person’s expression as one of shock, surprise, or anger. When adults were shown that same picture, they were more likely to accurately describe the expression as fearful. More importantly however, this study was done while those teens and adults were inside an MRI machine which showed that different areas of the brain were “lighting up” (and therefore being used) in the teen brains vs. the adult brains. In Teens it was the Amygdala, the seat of emotions (or “reactions”), which was being used, while adults mainly used their Frontal Cortex (seat of reason and logic) to determine what they were seeing. This leads researchers to believe teens may not always be able to judge emotional situations accurately, as they tend to “react” rather than “reason”.
Understanding that teens really are experiencing the world differently than adults do is important to keep in mind as we attempt to guide young people through the often choppy waters of adolescence. If your teen is also experiencing mental health issues, has had trauma, or is having significant behavioral problems that are falling far outside the range of what normal brain development might explain, it’s important that you have your teen evaluated so that the need for treatment is determined as soon as possible. | 643 | ENGLISH | 1 |
F OR hundreds of years the kings of England had tried to conquer Scotland, and make Scotland and England one kingdom under one king. Many dreadful battles had been fought, many brave people had been killed. The Scots had lost many battles, but they had never been conquered, and at last the kings of England had almost given up hope of ever being able to conquer them. But now, what they had longed for, and fought for in vain, happened quite quietly and naturally, although not at all in the way that they had expected. Instead of an English King conquering and ruling over Scotland, a Scottish King came to rule over England.
Elizabeth Tudor, Queen of England, being dead, James Stuart, King of Scotland, was the rightful heir to the throne.
James VI. of Scotland was the son of the beautiful and unhappy Mary, Queen of Scots; was descended from Margaret Tudor, the sister of Henry VIII., and was Elizabeth's nearest relative. At the Queen's death there was no man nor woman left in England who had any right to the throne, so the English sent to Scotland and asked the Scottish King to come to be their King too.
He came, and since 1603 A.D., England and Scotland have formed one kingdom with Wales and Ireland.
So now we will talk no longer of England but of Britain, for long ago the old hatred has been forgotten, and we are all Britons.
James had been King of Scotland for many years before he became King of England too. He was a very little boy when he was first made King, and Scotland had been ruled by a Regent. James had been carefully taught, but unfortunately his teachers had thought more of making him clever, than of teaching him things which would have made him a great ruler. Some people called him the "British Solomon," but because he was such a mixture of wisdom and foolishness he has also been called the "Wisest fool in Christendom."
Although his mother, Queen Mary, was a Roman Catholic, James had been brought up a Protestant. The English Roman Catholics thought however that, in memory of his mother, James would be kinder to them than Elizabeth had been. Elizabeth had not burned and tortured the Roman Catholics as her sister Mary had burned and tortured the Protestants, still they were not quite kindly treated. They had not equal rights with the Protestants, and were sometimes looked down upon.
The Roman Catholics soon found out that James had no intention of being kind to them, and they became very angry. So angry did they become that they formed a plot to kill the King and all the chief Protestants in the country. Having done this, they intended to place James's little daughter, Elizabeth, upon the throne, and make Britain a Roman Catholic country once more.
Princess Elizabeth was, of course, being brought up as a Protestant, but she was such a little girl that the Catholics knew she would only be a make-believe queen. Until she grew up, the country would really be ruled by the Catholic gentlemen, and meantime they would have time, they thought, to teach her to be a Roman Catholic.
The first thing to be done was to kill the King and all the chief Protestant gentlemen. To do this the conspirators, as the people who form a plot are called, thought of a very dreadful plan. They decided to wait until Parliament was sitting, until the King and all his wise men were gathered together in one place, and then they would blow them up with gunpowder.
Underneath the Houses of Parliament there were cellars. These cellars were let to merchants and other people who wished to store goods. It was quite easy for the conspirators to rent one of these cellars, and into it they carried thirty-six barrels of gunpowder.
Besides the gunpowder, sticks and firewood were piled into the cellars by the conspirators. This was done partly to hide the barrels, and partly, no doubt, to help to burn the Houses of Parliament when they were set on fire. Nobody paid much attention to the barrels as they were being taken in, and nobody thought of asking with what they were filled.
For a year and a half the plot went on. Very few people knew of it, and those who did were bound by an oath never to talk of it. They met secretly at night, speaking only in mysterious whispers.
At last everything was ready. Guy Fawkes, one of the most fearless of the band, was chosen for the most difficult and dangerous part. He was to set fire to the gunpowder. Having done so, he meant to try to escape, but if he could not, he was quite ready to die in what he thought was a good cause. The day was fixed for the 5th of November, when Parliament would be opened.
A gentleman, called Francis Tresham, had joined the plot. He had a friend, a Roman Catholic nobleman, who was sure to be among the lords who would attend this Parliament.
Tresham could not bear to think of his friend being killed, so he wrote a letter to him in a disguised hand, warning him not to go to this Parliament. "My lord," said the letter, "out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care for your life. Therefore, I advise you, if you love your life, to make some excuse so that you need not go to this Parliament. God and man are agreed to punish the wickedness of this time. Do not think lightly of this warning, but go away into the country where you may be safe. For, although there is no sign of any stir, yet, I say, they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament, and yet they shall not see who hurts them."
Tresham's friend was very much disturbed by this letter. He took it to Lord Salisbury, who took it to the King.
The King, who was afterwards very proud of his cleverness, said that the terrible blow which was to be given, without the person being seen, must mean "gunpowder." It was clever of the King to think of this, but some people say that Salisbury had already found out about the plot, and perhaps he put the idea of gunpowder into the King's head.
About midnight, on the 4th of November, the day before Parliament was to meet, the cellars under the Houses were searched. With hushed voices, drawn swords, and dim lanterns, the searchers moved from cellar to cellar. All seemed empty, silent and dark, till in a far corner, a faint light was seen, and near it the dark figure and pale face of Guy Fawkes.
Stern men with drawn swords closed in upon him.
In a moment they were upon him. He tried to defend himself, but it was useless. Stern men with drawn swords closed in upon him, and he was soon a prisoner.
He could not deny his guilt. Round him were the barrels; in his pockets were those things which he needed to set fire to the gunpowder. He knew he must die. "Oh, would I had been quicker," he said, "would I had set fire to the powder. Death would have been sweet had some of my enemies gone with me."
Guy Fawkes was taken to the Tower. In the cruel manner of those days he was tortured to make him tell the names of the others who were with him in the plot. But Guy Fawkes was very brave, although he was wrong, and he would not tell.
The others, seeing that part of their plot had failed, hoped still to succeed in gaining possession of the Princess Elizabeth. So they hastily rode to the country house where she was living.
But part of the gunpowder which they took with them was set on fire and exploded by accident. It hurt some, and frightened all of them, for they thought that it was a punishment sent upon them because of what they had intended to do to others.
The Roman Catholics in the country did not rise to help the conspirators as they had expected, and soon all hope of success was lost. The chief of the conspirators were seized, and were put to death, along with Guy Fawkes.
After this the Protestants hated the Roman Catholics more than ever, and their lives were made very hard.
There was great rejoicing at the discovery of the plot. Bells rang, and bonfires blazed, and even now, after three hundred years, the day is not forgotten. On the 5th of November people still have fireworks, and bonfires on which they burn a figure made of straw and old clothes, which is meant to represent Guy Fawkes. | <urn:uuid:a9417513-4132-47fd-8e21-675dd2749919> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.gatewaytotheclassics.com/browse/displayitem.php?item=books/marshall/island/fawkes | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593295.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118164132-20200118192132-00097.warc.gz | en | 0.994606 | 1,792 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.3499498665332794,
0.24649417400360107,
0.4680851697921753,
-0.0013851244002580643,
-0.12680405378341675,
-0.24925023317337036,
0.0007660877890884876,
0.022718749940395355,
0.3692120909690857,
0.06698343902826309,
-0.13664384186267853,
-0.5554835796356201,
0.3326551914215088,
-0.02153719... | 1 | F OR hundreds of years the kings of England had tried to conquer Scotland, and make Scotland and England one kingdom under one king. Many dreadful battles had been fought, many brave people had been killed. The Scots had lost many battles, but they had never been conquered, and at last the kings of England had almost given up hope of ever being able to conquer them. But now, what they had longed for, and fought for in vain, happened quite quietly and naturally, although not at all in the way that they had expected. Instead of an English King conquering and ruling over Scotland, a Scottish King came to rule over England.
Elizabeth Tudor, Queen of England, being dead, James Stuart, King of Scotland, was the rightful heir to the throne.
James VI. of Scotland was the son of the beautiful and unhappy Mary, Queen of Scots; was descended from Margaret Tudor, the sister of Henry VIII., and was Elizabeth's nearest relative. At the Queen's death there was no man nor woman left in England who had any right to the throne, so the English sent to Scotland and asked the Scottish King to come to be their King too.
He came, and since 1603 A.D., England and Scotland have formed one kingdom with Wales and Ireland.
So now we will talk no longer of England but of Britain, for long ago the old hatred has been forgotten, and we are all Britons.
James had been King of Scotland for many years before he became King of England too. He was a very little boy when he was first made King, and Scotland had been ruled by a Regent. James had been carefully taught, but unfortunately his teachers had thought more of making him clever, than of teaching him things which would have made him a great ruler. Some people called him the "British Solomon," but because he was such a mixture of wisdom and foolishness he has also been called the "Wisest fool in Christendom."
Although his mother, Queen Mary, was a Roman Catholic, James had been brought up a Protestant. The English Roman Catholics thought however that, in memory of his mother, James would be kinder to them than Elizabeth had been. Elizabeth had not burned and tortured the Roman Catholics as her sister Mary had burned and tortured the Protestants, still they were not quite kindly treated. They had not equal rights with the Protestants, and were sometimes looked down upon.
The Roman Catholics soon found out that James had no intention of being kind to them, and they became very angry. So angry did they become that they formed a plot to kill the King and all the chief Protestants in the country. Having done this, they intended to place James's little daughter, Elizabeth, upon the throne, and make Britain a Roman Catholic country once more.
Princess Elizabeth was, of course, being brought up as a Protestant, but she was such a little girl that the Catholics knew she would only be a make-believe queen. Until she grew up, the country would really be ruled by the Catholic gentlemen, and meantime they would have time, they thought, to teach her to be a Roman Catholic.
The first thing to be done was to kill the King and all the chief Protestant gentlemen. To do this the conspirators, as the people who form a plot are called, thought of a very dreadful plan. They decided to wait until Parliament was sitting, until the King and all his wise men were gathered together in one place, and then they would blow them up with gunpowder.
Underneath the Houses of Parliament there were cellars. These cellars were let to merchants and other people who wished to store goods. It was quite easy for the conspirators to rent one of these cellars, and into it they carried thirty-six barrels of gunpowder.
Besides the gunpowder, sticks and firewood were piled into the cellars by the conspirators. This was done partly to hide the barrels, and partly, no doubt, to help to burn the Houses of Parliament when they were set on fire. Nobody paid much attention to the barrels as they were being taken in, and nobody thought of asking with what they were filled.
For a year and a half the plot went on. Very few people knew of it, and those who did were bound by an oath never to talk of it. They met secretly at night, speaking only in mysterious whispers.
At last everything was ready. Guy Fawkes, one of the most fearless of the band, was chosen for the most difficult and dangerous part. He was to set fire to the gunpowder. Having done so, he meant to try to escape, but if he could not, he was quite ready to die in what he thought was a good cause. The day was fixed for the 5th of November, when Parliament would be opened.
A gentleman, called Francis Tresham, had joined the plot. He had a friend, a Roman Catholic nobleman, who was sure to be among the lords who would attend this Parliament.
Tresham could not bear to think of his friend being killed, so he wrote a letter to him in a disguised hand, warning him not to go to this Parliament. "My lord," said the letter, "out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care for your life. Therefore, I advise you, if you love your life, to make some excuse so that you need not go to this Parliament. God and man are agreed to punish the wickedness of this time. Do not think lightly of this warning, but go away into the country where you may be safe. For, although there is no sign of any stir, yet, I say, they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament, and yet they shall not see who hurts them."
Tresham's friend was very much disturbed by this letter. He took it to Lord Salisbury, who took it to the King.
The King, who was afterwards very proud of his cleverness, said that the terrible blow which was to be given, without the person being seen, must mean "gunpowder." It was clever of the King to think of this, but some people say that Salisbury had already found out about the plot, and perhaps he put the idea of gunpowder into the King's head.
About midnight, on the 4th of November, the day before Parliament was to meet, the cellars under the Houses were searched. With hushed voices, drawn swords, and dim lanterns, the searchers moved from cellar to cellar. All seemed empty, silent and dark, till in a far corner, a faint light was seen, and near it the dark figure and pale face of Guy Fawkes.
Stern men with drawn swords closed in upon him.
In a moment they were upon him. He tried to defend himself, but it was useless. Stern men with drawn swords closed in upon him, and he was soon a prisoner.
He could not deny his guilt. Round him were the barrels; in his pockets were those things which he needed to set fire to the gunpowder. He knew he must die. "Oh, would I had been quicker," he said, "would I had set fire to the powder. Death would have been sweet had some of my enemies gone with me."
Guy Fawkes was taken to the Tower. In the cruel manner of those days he was tortured to make him tell the names of the others who were with him in the plot. But Guy Fawkes was very brave, although he was wrong, and he would not tell.
The others, seeing that part of their plot had failed, hoped still to succeed in gaining possession of the Princess Elizabeth. So they hastily rode to the country house where she was living.
But part of the gunpowder which they took with them was set on fire and exploded by accident. It hurt some, and frightened all of them, for they thought that it was a punishment sent upon them because of what they had intended to do to others.
The Roman Catholics in the country did not rise to help the conspirators as they had expected, and soon all hope of success was lost. The chief of the conspirators were seized, and were put to death, along with Guy Fawkes.
After this the Protestants hated the Roman Catholics more than ever, and their lives were made very hard.
There was great rejoicing at the discovery of the plot. Bells rang, and bonfires blazed, and even now, after three hundred years, the day is not forgotten. On the 5th of November people still have fireworks, and bonfires on which they burn a figure made of straw and old clothes, which is meant to represent Guy Fawkes. | 1,784 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Posted By Claire on November 30, 2016
On this day in history, 30th November 1529, St Andrew’s Day, the two women in King Henry VIII’s life got rather cross with him. Queen Catherine of Aragon, who was still Henry’s wife at this time, confronted the king regarding his treatment of her, which she said was causing her “the pains of Purgatory on earth”. After this tongue-lashing from Catherine, Henry sought comfort from his sweetheart Anne Boleyn only to get reproached by her for not handling Catherine in the right way!
Also on this day in history, 30th November 1601, Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, delivered her famous Golden Speech to the House of Commons, to address their concerns over England’s economic state of affairs. It was the last speech that she gave to Parliament, and in it she spoke of her position as queen and her love and respect for her realm and for her members of Parliament. | <urn:uuid:65917478-cbc6-415d-afd6-b5e815780046> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/30-november-cross-ladies-golden-speech/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00056.warc.gz | en | 0.981017 | 215 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.3740369379520416,
0.45523276925086975,
0.3808606266975403,
0.15905441343784332,
-0.19832736253738403,
-0.20681436359882355,
0.3078997731208801,
0.03164580091834068,
0.00984498392790556,
0.1889599710702896,
-0.30800554156303406,
-0.6710850596427917,
-0.13384772837162018,
0.23041455447673... | 8 | Posted By Claire on November 30, 2016
On this day in history, 30th November 1529, St Andrew’s Day, the two women in King Henry VIII’s life got rather cross with him. Queen Catherine of Aragon, who was still Henry’s wife at this time, confronted the king regarding his treatment of her, which she said was causing her “the pains of Purgatory on earth”. After this tongue-lashing from Catherine, Henry sought comfort from his sweetheart Anne Boleyn only to get reproached by her for not handling Catherine in the right way!
Also on this day in history, 30th November 1601, Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, delivered her famous Golden Speech to the House of Commons, to address their concerns over England’s economic state of affairs. It was the last speech that she gave to Parliament, and in it she spoke of her position as queen and her love and respect for her realm and for her members of Parliament. | 218 | ENGLISH | 1 |
B. 1667 D. 1745
How very mean a thing?s a Duke; From all his ill-got honours flung, turned to that dirt from whence he sprung. - Jonathan Swift 'A satirical elegy on the death of a late famous general'
About Jonathan Swift
Born in Ireland in 1667, Swift spent much of his adult life in England. He was actively involved in politics, and in his self-penned epitaph describes himself as a ‘champion of liberty’. He was a prolific writer of prose satire and is perhaps most famous for his novel Gulliver’s Travels. Although often mistaken for a children’s book, this was in fact a satirical depiction of human nature.
In his 1729 essay A Modest Proposal, much to the outrage of his contemporaries, Swift sardonically proposed cannibalism as a solution to the plight of an impoverished Ireland. His reputation as a writer found him companionship with a group of authors that included Alexander Pope.
Swift’s poems, though less wellknown, also tend towards satire and humour. His tone is generally direct and genial, parodying the styles of numerous poetic forerunners. On a technical level, Swift’s poetry appears simple, however his rhetoric is powerful. | <urn:uuid:c74b12ec-ce79-4364-b212-bd57a5fe0469> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://poetryarchive.org/poet/jonathan-swift/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694908.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127051112-20200127081112-00091.warc.gz | en | 0.986323 | 268 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.1810886114835739,
0.10203228890895844,
0.2679036259651184,
0.000007262767667270964,
-0.3374994099140167,
-0.1481374055147171,
0.999949038028717,
0.02238619700074196,
-0.2623422145843506,
0.014628368429839611,
-0.0839993804693222,
-0.15453968942165375,
0.05551472306251526,
-0.03363589197... | 3 | B. 1667 D. 1745
How very mean a thing?s a Duke; From all his ill-got honours flung, turned to that dirt from whence he sprung. - Jonathan Swift 'A satirical elegy on the death of a late famous general'
About Jonathan Swift
Born in Ireland in 1667, Swift spent much of his adult life in England. He was actively involved in politics, and in his self-penned epitaph describes himself as a ‘champion of liberty’. He was a prolific writer of prose satire and is perhaps most famous for his novel Gulliver’s Travels. Although often mistaken for a children’s book, this was in fact a satirical depiction of human nature.
In his 1729 essay A Modest Proposal, much to the outrage of his contemporaries, Swift sardonically proposed cannibalism as a solution to the plight of an impoverished Ireland. His reputation as a writer found him companionship with a group of authors that included Alexander Pope.
Swift’s poems, though less wellknown, also tend towards satire and humour. His tone is generally direct and genial, parodying the styles of numerous poetic forerunners. On a technical level, Swift’s poetry appears simple, however his rhetoric is powerful. | 270 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Knights and Samurai: Comparing the Feudal Structures of Japan and Europe
The feudal system is a term for the economic, political and social structures that governed Europe during the Middle Ages; but halfway across the world in Japan, very similar structures were in place.
In both cases, a class of peasant farmers formed the economic backbone; an honourable warrior class was the basis for military power; and civil order depended on a bond of personal loyalty between vassal and lord. Samurai pledged their service to a Daimyo (a powerful clan lord) who ruled the land on behalf of the Shogun – Japan's warlord in chief; just as European knights served barons and dukes whose authority derived from their king.
In Europe, the Middle Ages was an era of destructive conflict, with the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses being prime examples. Similarly, the “Sengoku Age” - or “Warring States Period” - saw Japan plunged into political turmoil, as various clans sought to usurp the seat of the crumbling Ashikaga Shogunate.
The mythical reputations of the samurai and ninja - two popular icons derived from Japanese culture - are a product of this era. The former sought to win honour for their lords in glorious battle, while the latter waged war through assassination and subterfuge.
There was even religious conflict to rival that of Europe, as some clans chose to embrace the Christian influence introduced by newly arrived European explorers, while others vehemently resisted it.
But the feudal system was never even uniform across Europe, so it's unlikely to be so among cultures separated by such vast distance. For all the similarities on the surface, deeper inspection reveals important differences in the values that governed political and economic relationships in Japan and Europe during their respective feudal periods.
The Lord-Vassal Relationship
When a European vassal pledged his service to a lord, he swore an oath of fealty that bound the two parties by law. There may not have been any paper to sign, but the oath itself was the closest thing to a legal contract.
But a samurai swore no such oath, and there was no legal contract of any kind. The bond between samurai and lord resembled a bond of kinship rather than a legal agreement, and the obedience of a samurai to his lord was like that expected of a son by his father.
Both relationships were invested with duty and honour, but for different reasons. Furthermore, in Europe the bond between a lord and vassal stipulated obligations on both sides, with the lord expected to provide protection and land while the vassal provided military and advisory aid.
A Japanese Daimyo had no such obligations to his samurai, though a wise Daimyo preferred to avoid angering his vassals. If he did gift a vassal with land, it was to reward loyal service, not to secure it.
Which brings up another major difference. Land was the basis of the lord-vassal relationship in Europe, but in Japan, the bond itself was what mattered. As such, a knight or noble given land that belonged to more than one lord owed fealty to all of them; whereas a samurai served one lord, and one lord only. Of course, in reality samurai could (and did) experience conflicted loyalties.
Portuguese explorers arriving in Japan during the 16th century compared the relationship between emperor and shogun to that of a pope and king. The emperor served as a symbol of all that the people held sacred and holy, while true military and political power lay in the hands of the shogun.
But while the emperor had even less political power than a pope, in truth he probably had more influence. The shogun simply could not hope to hold his seat without it being validated by the emperor, whose divine sanction in turn strengthened the shogun's position.
The spiritual authority of Japan's emperor was powerful indeed. It may be due to the long lineage of the imperial family, stretching back unbroken to at least 660 B.C. It could also be that Japan's small and relatively isolated landmass resulted in a stronger sense of identity founded on the imperial dynasty.
Furthermore, the emperor's lack of political power may have actually strengthened his influence, with the ruling classes viewing him as someone who truly transcended the structure.
Either way, decentralization of power was a defining characteristic of the feudal system in Europe, where kings for the most part were under the sway of the lords that ruled the land in their name. But in Japan, the shogun-emperor dynamic resulted in a stronger centralized authority (the Sengoku Age being a notable exception).
Peasants were the bottom rung of the social ladder in both feudal societies, but in Europe they formed a borderline slave class distinct from the free tradesmen who frequented the towns.
Peasants in Japan, however, were divided into subclasses where farmers had the highest position, followed by artisans, then merchants. Indeed, while merchants may have enjoyed a higher status than farmers in Europe; in Japan they were perceived as having benefited from the work of others, and thus were regarded as the lowliest form of peasant.
But while peasant farmers in Japan may have had more freedom than their European counterparts, class distinction between peasant and samurai was rigidly enforced.
The Warrior Class
Samurai and knights were both bound by a code that stressed honour, loyalty and protecting the weak. But differences in the belief systems that influenced them meant differences in what constituted honour.
For a knight to slay a surrendered foe was the height of dishonour, while a samurai deemed surrender itself to be dishonourable. A knight's life belonged to God, so to take one's own life was a sin. For the samurai, ritual suicide (known as 'seppuku') was not only allowed, it was required in certain situations.
A knight defeated in battle may not beg for mercy, but could certainly hope for it, as the ransoming of prisoners back to their noble houses was customary during war. Not so in feudal Japan, where a samurai was expected to die rather than surrender, and sought above all else to free himself from the fear of death.
Knights and samurai provide a valuable history lesson, in that they were two warrior orders that valued honour, but had differing views on what honour actually meant.
Similarly, the political and social structures of Japan and Europe during this era can't be judged solely by the similarities that may have existed on the surface. Only by examining the values that drove the relationships can one gain insight into how those relationships in turn drove the system.
Questions & Answers
You say "But a samurai swore no such oath, and there was no legal contract of any kind," but what about the formal written oaths known as Kishoumon (起請文)?
Good point about the Kishoumon, this was effectively quite similar to the oath sworn by western vassals. The difference is the lack of a legal framework, which is what I was referring to. The oaths of samurai were more familial and religious in nature, based on custom rather than institutions. Here's a couple of extracts from 'Japanese Civilization: A Comparative View' by S. N. Eisenstadt, which I used as a source:
"In Japan relations between vassal and lord were generally couched, not in contractual terms based on fully formalized mutual legal rights and obligations, but in terms of familial or filial obligations. Within this structure vassals exercised no principled legal rights vis-à-vis their lords..."
"This does not mean, of course, that in Japan there were no de facto modes of consultation among vassals and between vassals and their lords. But such consultations were ad hoc, structured according to situational exigencies and custom, not according to any conception of inherent rights of vassals either individually or as a body"Helpful 3
What were the requirements for entry into the feudal society as a samurai and a knight?
The position of samurai was hereditary, you had to be born into it. It was very rare for someone born outside the samurai class to become one, although it could happen. A famous case was Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who started off as the son of a peasant, became a soldier, earned favor with the daimyo Oda Nobunaga and was promoted to samurai, eventually rising to the rank of imperial regent.
As for knights, in theory, anyone could become a knight if they were made one by another knight, a lord or the king. In practice, knights were mostly the son of nobility as only they could afford the horse and armor, and their training started from an early age (starting off as a page, then serving under another knight as a squire, then eventually becoming a knight in a ceremony around age 18).
Who ruled over the samurai?
In theory, the emperor was the highest authority, and samurai were supposed to be loyal to him above all else. In reality, samurai obeyed the commands of the diamyo (Japanese lord) who employed them, as he provided them with their livelihood.Helpful 1 | <urn:uuid:99403b6d-177d-421d-b2c8-d1a369a9cd6c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://owlcation.com/humanities/Knights-and-Samurai | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00301.warc.gz | en | 0.980344 | 1,891 | 3.6875 | 4 | [
-0.5596631765365601,
0.023151716217398643,
-0.06049739569425583,
-0.11825082451105118,
0.1411028802394867,
-0.04238937795162201,
0.1436929702758789,
0.19417375326156616,
0.3862079381942749,
0.011303257197141647,
-0.1252853125333786,
-0.0886334478855133,
0.5093941688537598,
0.54378968477249... | 1 | Knights and Samurai: Comparing the Feudal Structures of Japan and Europe
The feudal system is a term for the economic, political and social structures that governed Europe during the Middle Ages; but halfway across the world in Japan, very similar structures were in place.
In both cases, a class of peasant farmers formed the economic backbone; an honourable warrior class was the basis for military power; and civil order depended on a bond of personal loyalty between vassal and lord. Samurai pledged their service to a Daimyo (a powerful clan lord) who ruled the land on behalf of the Shogun – Japan's warlord in chief; just as European knights served barons and dukes whose authority derived from their king.
In Europe, the Middle Ages was an era of destructive conflict, with the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses being prime examples. Similarly, the “Sengoku Age” - or “Warring States Period” - saw Japan plunged into political turmoil, as various clans sought to usurp the seat of the crumbling Ashikaga Shogunate.
The mythical reputations of the samurai and ninja - two popular icons derived from Japanese culture - are a product of this era. The former sought to win honour for their lords in glorious battle, while the latter waged war through assassination and subterfuge.
There was even religious conflict to rival that of Europe, as some clans chose to embrace the Christian influence introduced by newly arrived European explorers, while others vehemently resisted it.
But the feudal system was never even uniform across Europe, so it's unlikely to be so among cultures separated by such vast distance. For all the similarities on the surface, deeper inspection reveals important differences in the values that governed political and economic relationships in Japan and Europe during their respective feudal periods.
The Lord-Vassal Relationship
When a European vassal pledged his service to a lord, he swore an oath of fealty that bound the two parties by law. There may not have been any paper to sign, but the oath itself was the closest thing to a legal contract.
But a samurai swore no such oath, and there was no legal contract of any kind. The bond between samurai and lord resembled a bond of kinship rather than a legal agreement, and the obedience of a samurai to his lord was like that expected of a son by his father.
Both relationships were invested with duty and honour, but for different reasons. Furthermore, in Europe the bond between a lord and vassal stipulated obligations on both sides, with the lord expected to provide protection and land while the vassal provided military and advisory aid.
A Japanese Daimyo had no such obligations to his samurai, though a wise Daimyo preferred to avoid angering his vassals. If he did gift a vassal with land, it was to reward loyal service, not to secure it.
Which brings up another major difference. Land was the basis of the lord-vassal relationship in Europe, but in Japan, the bond itself was what mattered. As such, a knight or noble given land that belonged to more than one lord owed fealty to all of them; whereas a samurai served one lord, and one lord only. Of course, in reality samurai could (and did) experience conflicted loyalties.
Portuguese explorers arriving in Japan during the 16th century compared the relationship between emperor and shogun to that of a pope and king. The emperor served as a symbol of all that the people held sacred and holy, while true military and political power lay in the hands of the shogun.
But while the emperor had even less political power than a pope, in truth he probably had more influence. The shogun simply could not hope to hold his seat without it being validated by the emperor, whose divine sanction in turn strengthened the shogun's position.
The spiritual authority of Japan's emperor was powerful indeed. It may be due to the long lineage of the imperial family, stretching back unbroken to at least 660 B.C. It could also be that Japan's small and relatively isolated landmass resulted in a stronger sense of identity founded on the imperial dynasty.
Furthermore, the emperor's lack of political power may have actually strengthened his influence, with the ruling classes viewing him as someone who truly transcended the structure.
Either way, decentralization of power was a defining characteristic of the feudal system in Europe, where kings for the most part were under the sway of the lords that ruled the land in their name. But in Japan, the shogun-emperor dynamic resulted in a stronger centralized authority (the Sengoku Age being a notable exception).
Peasants were the bottom rung of the social ladder in both feudal societies, but in Europe they formed a borderline slave class distinct from the free tradesmen who frequented the towns.
Peasants in Japan, however, were divided into subclasses where farmers had the highest position, followed by artisans, then merchants. Indeed, while merchants may have enjoyed a higher status than farmers in Europe; in Japan they were perceived as having benefited from the work of others, and thus were regarded as the lowliest form of peasant.
But while peasant farmers in Japan may have had more freedom than their European counterparts, class distinction between peasant and samurai was rigidly enforced.
The Warrior Class
Samurai and knights were both bound by a code that stressed honour, loyalty and protecting the weak. But differences in the belief systems that influenced them meant differences in what constituted honour.
For a knight to slay a surrendered foe was the height of dishonour, while a samurai deemed surrender itself to be dishonourable. A knight's life belonged to God, so to take one's own life was a sin. For the samurai, ritual suicide (known as 'seppuku') was not only allowed, it was required in certain situations.
A knight defeated in battle may not beg for mercy, but could certainly hope for it, as the ransoming of prisoners back to their noble houses was customary during war. Not so in feudal Japan, where a samurai was expected to die rather than surrender, and sought above all else to free himself from the fear of death.
Knights and samurai provide a valuable history lesson, in that they were two warrior orders that valued honour, but had differing views on what honour actually meant.
Similarly, the political and social structures of Japan and Europe during this era can't be judged solely by the similarities that may have existed on the surface. Only by examining the values that drove the relationships can one gain insight into how those relationships in turn drove the system.
Questions & Answers
You say "But a samurai swore no such oath, and there was no legal contract of any kind," but what about the formal written oaths known as Kishoumon (起請文)?
Good point about the Kishoumon, this was effectively quite similar to the oath sworn by western vassals. The difference is the lack of a legal framework, which is what I was referring to. The oaths of samurai were more familial and religious in nature, based on custom rather than institutions. Here's a couple of extracts from 'Japanese Civilization: A Comparative View' by S. N. Eisenstadt, which I used as a source:
"In Japan relations between vassal and lord were generally couched, not in contractual terms based on fully formalized mutual legal rights and obligations, but in terms of familial or filial obligations. Within this structure vassals exercised no principled legal rights vis-à-vis their lords..."
"This does not mean, of course, that in Japan there were no de facto modes of consultation among vassals and between vassals and their lords. But such consultations were ad hoc, structured according to situational exigencies and custom, not according to any conception of inherent rights of vassals either individually or as a body"Helpful 3
What were the requirements for entry into the feudal society as a samurai and a knight?
The position of samurai was hereditary, you had to be born into it. It was very rare for someone born outside the samurai class to become one, although it could happen. A famous case was Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who started off as the son of a peasant, became a soldier, earned favor with the daimyo Oda Nobunaga and was promoted to samurai, eventually rising to the rank of imperial regent.
As for knights, in theory, anyone could become a knight if they were made one by another knight, a lord or the king. In practice, knights were mostly the son of nobility as only they could afford the horse and armor, and their training started from an early age (starting off as a page, then serving under another knight as a squire, then eventually becoming a knight in a ceremony around age 18).
Who ruled over the samurai?
In theory, the emperor was the highest authority, and samurai were supposed to be loyal to him above all else. In reality, samurai obeyed the commands of the diamyo (Japanese lord) who employed them, as he provided them with their livelihood.Helpful 1 | 1,888 | ENGLISH | 1 |
DEATH BY ELEPHANT
Execution by elephant was a common method of capital punishment in South and Southeast Asia, particularly in India, where Asian elephants were used to crush, dismember or torture captives in public executions. The animals were trained and versatile, able to kill victims immediately or to torture them slowly over a prolonged period. Most commonly employed by royalty, the elephants were used to signify both the ruler's absolute power and his ability to control wild animals.
The sight of elephants executing captives both horrified and attracted the interest of European travellers and was recorded in numerous contemporary journals and accounts of life in Asia. The practice was eventually suppressed by the European empires that colonised the region in the 18th and 19th centuries. While primarily confined to Asia, the practice was occasionally adopted by Western powers, such as Ancient Rome and Carthage, particularly to deal with mutinous soldiers.
The intelligence, domesticability and versatility of the elephant gave it considerable advantages over other wild animals such as lions and bears used as executioners by the Romans. Elephants are more tractable than horses: while a horse can be trained to charge into battle, it will not willingly trample an enemy soldier, and will instead step over him. Elephants will trample their enemies, hence the popularity of war elephants with generals such as Hannibal. Elephants can be trained to execute prisoners in a variety of ways, and can be taught to prolong the agony of the victim by inflicting a slow death by torture or to kill the condemned quickly by stepping on the head.
Historically, the elephants were under the constant control of a driver or mahout, thus enabling a ruler to grant a last-minute reprieve and display merciful qualities. Several such exercises of mercy are recorded in various Asian kingdoms. The kings of Siam trained their elephants to roll the convicted person "about the ground rather slowly so that he is not badly hurt". The Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great is said to have "used this technique to chastise 'rebels' and then in the end the prisoners, presumably much chastened, were given their lives". On one occasion, Akbar was recorded to have had a man thrown to the elephants to suffer five days of such treatment before pardoning him. Elephants were occasionally used in trial by ordeal in which the condemned prisoner was released if he managed to fend off the elephant.
The use of elephants in such fashion went beyond the common royal power to dispense life and death. Elephants have long been used as symbols of royal authority (and still are in some places, such as Thailand, where white elephants are held in reverence). Their use as instruments of state power sent the message that the ruler was able to preside over very powerful creatures who were under total command. The ruler was thus seen as maintaining a moral and spiritual domination over wild beasts, adding to their authority and mystique among subjects.
Execution by elephant has been done in many parts of the world, by both Western and Eastern empires. The earliest records of such executions date back to the classical period. However, the practice was already well established by that time and continued well into the 19th century. While African elephants are significantly larger than Asian elephants, African powers were not known to make as much use of the animals in warfare or ceremonial affairs compared to their Asian counterparts.
Elephants are widely reported to have been used to carry out executions in Southeast Asia, and were used in Burma and Malaysia from the earliest historical times as well as in the kingdom of Champa on the other side of the Indochinese Peninsula. In Siam, elephants were trained to throw the condemned into the air before trampling them to death. Alexander Hamilton provides the following account from Siam:
For Treason and Murder, the Elephant is the Executioner. The condemned Person is made fast to a Stake driven into the Ground for the Purpose, and the Elephant is brought to view him, and goes twice or thrice round him, and when the Elephant's Keeper speaks to the monstrous Executioner, he twines his Trunk round the Person and Stake, and pulling the Stake from the Ground with great Violence, tosses the Man and the Stake into the Air, and in coming down, receives him on his Teeth, and making him off again, puts one of his fore Feet on the Carcass, and squeezes it flat.
The journal of John Crawfurd records another method of execution by elephant in the kingdom of Cochinchina (modern south Vietnam), where he served as a British envoy in 1821. Crawfurd recalls an event where "the criminal is tied to a stake, and [Excellency's favourite] elephant runs down upon him and crushes him to death."
Elephants were used as executioners of choice in India for many centuries. Hindu and Muslim rulers executed tax evaders, rebels and enemy soldiers alike "under the feet of elephants". The Hindu Manu Smriti or Laws of Manu, written down around AD 200, prescribed execution by elephants for a number of offences. If property was stolen, for instance, "the king should have any thieves caught in connection with its disappearance executed by an elephant." For example, in 1305, the sultan of Delhi turned the deaths of Mongol prisoners into public entertainment by having them crushed by elephants.
During the Mughal era, "it was a common mode of execution in those days to have the offender trampled underfoot by an elephant." Captain Alexander Hamilton, writing in 1727, described how the Mughal ruler Shah Jahan ordered an offending military commander to be carried "to the Elephant Garden, and there to be executed by an Elephant, which is reckoned to be a shameful and terrible Death". The Mughal Emperor Humayun ordered the crushing by elephant of an imam he mistakenly believed to be critical of his reign. Some monarchs also adopted this form of execution for their own entertainment. Another Mughal ruler, the emperor Jahangir, is said to have ordered a huge number of criminals to be crushed for his amusement. The French traveller François Bernier, who witnessed such executions, recorded his dismay at the pleasure that the emperor derived from this cruel punishment. Nor was crushing the only method used by the Mughals' execution elephants; in the Mughal sultanate of Delhi, elephants were trained to slice prisoners to pieces "with pointed blades fitted to their tusks". The Muslim traveller Ibn Battuta, visiting Delhi in the 1330s, has left the following eyewitness account of this particular type of execution by elephants:
Upon a certain day, when I myself was present, some men were brought out who had been accused of having attempted the life of the Vizier. They were ordered, accordingly, to be thrown to the elephants, which had been taught to cut their victims to pieces. Their hoofs were cased with sharp iron instruments, and the extremities of these were like knives. On such occasions the elephant-driver rode upon them: and, when a man was thrown to them, they would wrap the trunk about him and toss him up, then take him with the teeth and throw him between their fore feet upon the breast, and do just as the driver should bid them, and according to the orders of the Emperor. If the order was to cut him to pieces, the elephant would do so with his irons, and then throw the pieces among the assembled multitude: but if the order was to leave him, he would be left lying before the Emperor, until the skin should be taken off, and stuffed with hay, and the flesh given to the dogs.
Other Indian polities also carried out executions by elephant. The Maratha Chatrapati Sambhaji ordered this form of death for a number of conspirators, including the Maratha official Anaji Datto in the late seventeenth century. Another Maratha leader, the general Santaji, inflicted the punishment for breaches in military discipline. The contemporary historian Khafi Khan reported that "for a trifling offence he [Santaji] would cast a man under the feet of an elephant."
The early 19th century writer Robert Kerr relates how the king of Goa "keeps certain elephants for the execution of malefactors. When one of these is brought forth to dispatch a criminal, if his keeper desires that the offender be destroyed speedily, this vast creature will instantly crush him to atoms under his foot; but if desired to torture him, will break his limbs successively, as men are broken on the wheel." The naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon cited this flexibility of purpose as evidence that elephants were capable of "human reasoning, [rather] than a simple, natural instinct"
Such executions were often held in public as a warning to any who may transgress. To that end, many of the elephants were especially large, often weighing in excess of nine tons. The executions were intended to be gruesome and often were. They were sometimes preceded by torture publicly inflicted by the same elephant used for the execution. An account of one such torture-and-execution at Baroda in 1814 has been preserved in The Percy Anecdotes:
The man was a slave, and two days before had murdered his master, brother to a native chieftain, called Ameer Sahib. About eleven o'clock the elephant was brought out, with only the driver on his back, surrounded by natives with bamboos in their hands. The criminal was placed three yards behind on the ground, his legs tied by three ropes, which were fastened to a ring on the right hind leg of the animal. At every step the elephant took, it jerked him forward, and every eight or ten steps must have dislocated another limb, for they were loose and broken when the elephant had proceeded five hundred yards. The man, though covered in mud, showed every sign of life, and seemed to be in the most excruciating torments. After having been tortured in this manner for about an hour, he was taken to the outside of the town, when the elephant, which is instructed for such purposes, was backed, and put his foot on the head of the criminal.
Elephants were widely used across the Indian subcontinent and South Asia as a method of execution. The English sailor Robert Knox, writing in 1681, described a method of execution by elephant which he had witnessed while being held captive in Sri Lanka. Knox says the elephants he witnessed had their tusks fitted with "sharp Iron with a socket with three edges". After impaling the victim's body with its tusks, the elephant would "then tear it in pieces, and throw it limb from limb"
The 19th century traveler James Emerson Tennent comments that "a Kandyan [Sri Lankan] chief, who was witness to such scenes, has assured us that the elephant never once applied his tusks, but, placing his foot on the prostrate victim, plucked off his limbs in succession by a sudden movement of his trunk." Knox's book depicts exactly this method of execution in a famous drawing, An Execution by an Elephant.
Writing in 1850, the British diplomat Henry Charles Sirr described a visit to one of the elephants that had been used by Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, the last king of Kandy, to execute criminals. Crushing by elephant had been abolished by the British after they overthrew the Kandyan kingdom in 1815 but the king's execution elephant was still alive and evidently remembered its former duties. Sirr comments:
During the native dynasty it was the practice to train elephants to put criminals to death by trampling upon them, the creatures being taught to prolong the agony of the wretched sufferers by crushing the limbs, avoiding the vital parts. With the last tyrant king of Candy, this was a favourite mode of execution and as one of the elephant executioners was at the former capital during our sojourn there we were particularly anxious to test the creature's sagacity and memory. The animal was mottled and of enormous size, and was quietly standing there with his keeper seated upon his neck; the noble who accompanied us desired the man to dismount and stand on one side.
The chief then gave the word of command, ordering the creature to 'slay the wretch!' The elephant raised his trunk, and twined it, as if around a human being; the creature then made motions as if he were depositing the man on the earth before him, then slowly raised his back-foot, placing it alternately upon the spots where the limbs of the sufferer would have been. This he continued to do for some minutes; then, as if satisfied that the bones must be crushed, the elephant raised his trunk high upon his head and stood motionless; the chief then ordered him to 'complete his work,' and the creature immediately placed one foot, as if upon the man's abdomen, and the other upon his head, apparently using his entire strength to crush and terminate the wretch's misery.
During the medieval period, executions by elephants were used by several West Asian imperial powers, including the Byzantine, Sassanid, Seljuq and Timurid empires. When the Sassanid king Khosrau II, who had a harem of 3,000 wives and 12,000 female slaves, demanded as a wife Hadiqah, the daughter of the Christian Arab Na'aman, Na'aman refused to permit his Christian daughter to enter the harem of a Zoroastrian; for this refusal, he was trampled to death by an elephant.
The practice appears to have been adopted in parts of the Muslim Middle East. Rabbi Petachiah of Ratisbon, a twelfth-century Jewish traveler, reported an execution by this means during his stay in Seljuk-ruled northern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq):
At Nineveh there was an elephant. Its head is not protruding. It is big, eats about two wagon loads of straw at once; its mouth is in its breast, and when it wants to eat it protrudes its lip about two cubits, takes up the straw with it, and puts it in its mouth. When the sultan condemns anyone to death, they say to the elephant, "this person is guilty." It then seizes him with its lip, casts him aloft and slays him.
The Romans, Carthaginians and ancient Macedonians occasionally used elephants for executions while also making use of war elephants for military purposes, most famously in the case of Hannibal. Deserters, prisoners of war and military criminals are recorded by ancient chroniclers to have been put to death under the foot of an elephant. Perdiccas, who became regent of Macedon on the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, had mutineers from the faction of Meleager thrown to the elephants to be crushed in the city of Babylon. The Roman writer Quintus Curtius Rufus relates the story in his Historiae Alexandri Magni: "Perdiccas saw that they [the mutineers] were paralyzed and at his mercy. He withdrew from the main body some 300 men who had followed Meleager at the time when he burst from the first meeting held after Alexander's death, and before the eyes of the entire army he threw them to the elephants. All were trampled to death beneath the feet of the beasts..."
Similarly, the Roman writer Valerius Maximus records how the general Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus "after King Perseus was vanquished [in 167 BC], for the same fault (desertion) threw men under elephants to be trampled ... And indeed military discipline needs this kind of severe and abrupt punishment, because this is how strength of arms stands firm, which, when it falls away from the right course, will be subverted."
There are fewer records of elephants being used as straightforward executioners for the civil population. One such example is mentioned by Josephus and the deuterocanonical book of 3 Maccabees in connection with the Egyptian Jews, though the story is likely apocryphal. 3 Maccabees describes an attempt by Ptolemy IV Philopator (ruled 221–204 BC) to enslave and brand Egypt's Jews with the symbol of Dionysus. When the majority of the Jews resisted, the king is said to have rounded them up and ordered them to be trampled on by elephants. The mass execution was ultimately thwarted, supposedly by the intervention of angels, following which Ptolemy took an altogether more forgiving attitude towards his Jewish subjects | <urn:uuid:ab2fc142-4747-4ec3-96ec-8b6cee5edc5c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.shadezofblack.com/death-by-elephant | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778272.69/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128122813-20200128152813-00326.warc.gz | en | 0.980872 | 3,422 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
-0.3466654121875763,
0.09335416555404663,
0.5223361253738403,
-0.032546430826187134,
-0.16514208912849426,
-0.013666735962033272,
0.89164137840271,
-0.09763214737176895,
0.26532071828842163,
0.2432522475719452,
0.19123706221580505,
-0.5015468597412109,
0.1895642876625061,
0.316046833992004... | 5 | DEATH BY ELEPHANT
Execution by elephant was a common method of capital punishment in South and Southeast Asia, particularly in India, where Asian elephants were used to crush, dismember or torture captives in public executions. The animals were trained and versatile, able to kill victims immediately or to torture them slowly over a prolonged period. Most commonly employed by royalty, the elephants were used to signify both the ruler's absolute power and his ability to control wild animals.
The sight of elephants executing captives both horrified and attracted the interest of European travellers and was recorded in numerous contemporary journals and accounts of life in Asia. The practice was eventually suppressed by the European empires that colonised the region in the 18th and 19th centuries. While primarily confined to Asia, the practice was occasionally adopted by Western powers, such as Ancient Rome and Carthage, particularly to deal with mutinous soldiers.
The intelligence, domesticability and versatility of the elephant gave it considerable advantages over other wild animals such as lions and bears used as executioners by the Romans. Elephants are more tractable than horses: while a horse can be trained to charge into battle, it will not willingly trample an enemy soldier, and will instead step over him. Elephants will trample their enemies, hence the popularity of war elephants with generals such as Hannibal. Elephants can be trained to execute prisoners in a variety of ways, and can be taught to prolong the agony of the victim by inflicting a slow death by torture or to kill the condemned quickly by stepping on the head.
Historically, the elephants were under the constant control of a driver or mahout, thus enabling a ruler to grant a last-minute reprieve and display merciful qualities. Several such exercises of mercy are recorded in various Asian kingdoms. The kings of Siam trained their elephants to roll the convicted person "about the ground rather slowly so that he is not badly hurt". The Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great is said to have "used this technique to chastise 'rebels' and then in the end the prisoners, presumably much chastened, were given their lives". On one occasion, Akbar was recorded to have had a man thrown to the elephants to suffer five days of such treatment before pardoning him. Elephants were occasionally used in trial by ordeal in which the condemned prisoner was released if he managed to fend off the elephant.
The use of elephants in such fashion went beyond the common royal power to dispense life and death. Elephants have long been used as symbols of royal authority (and still are in some places, such as Thailand, where white elephants are held in reverence). Their use as instruments of state power sent the message that the ruler was able to preside over very powerful creatures who were under total command. The ruler was thus seen as maintaining a moral and spiritual domination over wild beasts, adding to their authority and mystique among subjects.
Execution by elephant has been done in many parts of the world, by both Western and Eastern empires. The earliest records of such executions date back to the classical period. However, the practice was already well established by that time and continued well into the 19th century. While African elephants are significantly larger than Asian elephants, African powers were not known to make as much use of the animals in warfare or ceremonial affairs compared to their Asian counterparts.
Elephants are widely reported to have been used to carry out executions in Southeast Asia, and were used in Burma and Malaysia from the earliest historical times as well as in the kingdom of Champa on the other side of the Indochinese Peninsula. In Siam, elephants were trained to throw the condemned into the air before trampling them to death. Alexander Hamilton provides the following account from Siam:
For Treason and Murder, the Elephant is the Executioner. The condemned Person is made fast to a Stake driven into the Ground for the Purpose, and the Elephant is brought to view him, and goes twice or thrice round him, and when the Elephant's Keeper speaks to the monstrous Executioner, he twines his Trunk round the Person and Stake, and pulling the Stake from the Ground with great Violence, tosses the Man and the Stake into the Air, and in coming down, receives him on his Teeth, and making him off again, puts one of his fore Feet on the Carcass, and squeezes it flat.
The journal of John Crawfurd records another method of execution by elephant in the kingdom of Cochinchina (modern south Vietnam), where he served as a British envoy in 1821. Crawfurd recalls an event where "the criminal is tied to a stake, and [Excellency's favourite] elephant runs down upon him and crushes him to death."
Elephants were used as executioners of choice in India for many centuries. Hindu and Muslim rulers executed tax evaders, rebels and enemy soldiers alike "under the feet of elephants". The Hindu Manu Smriti or Laws of Manu, written down around AD 200, prescribed execution by elephants for a number of offences. If property was stolen, for instance, "the king should have any thieves caught in connection with its disappearance executed by an elephant." For example, in 1305, the sultan of Delhi turned the deaths of Mongol prisoners into public entertainment by having them crushed by elephants.
During the Mughal era, "it was a common mode of execution in those days to have the offender trampled underfoot by an elephant." Captain Alexander Hamilton, writing in 1727, described how the Mughal ruler Shah Jahan ordered an offending military commander to be carried "to the Elephant Garden, and there to be executed by an Elephant, which is reckoned to be a shameful and terrible Death". The Mughal Emperor Humayun ordered the crushing by elephant of an imam he mistakenly believed to be critical of his reign. Some monarchs also adopted this form of execution for their own entertainment. Another Mughal ruler, the emperor Jahangir, is said to have ordered a huge number of criminals to be crushed for his amusement. The French traveller François Bernier, who witnessed such executions, recorded his dismay at the pleasure that the emperor derived from this cruel punishment. Nor was crushing the only method used by the Mughals' execution elephants; in the Mughal sultanate of Delhi, elephants were trained to slice prisoners to pieces "with pointed blades fitted to their tusks". The Muslim traveller Ibn Battuta, visiting Delhi in the 1330s, has left the following eyewitness account of this particular type of execution by elephants:
Upon a certain day, when I myself was present, some men were brought out who had been accused of having attempted the life of the Vizier. They were ordered, accordingly, to be thrown to the elephants, which had been taught to cut their victims to pieces. Their hoofs were cased with sharp iron instruments, and the extremities of these were like knives. On such occasions the elephant-driver rode upon them: and, when a man was thrown to them, they would wrap the trunk about him and toss him up, then take him with the teeth and throw him between their fore feet upon the breast, and do just as the driver should bid them, and according to the orders of the Emperor. If the order was to cut him to pieces, the elephant would do so with his irons, and then throw the pieces among the assembled multitude: but if the order was to leave him, he would be left lying before the Emperor, until the skin should be taken off, and stuffed with hay, and the flesh given to the dogs.
Other Indian polities also carried out executions by elephant. The Maratha Chatrapati Sambhaji ordered this form of death for a number of conspirators, including the Maratha official Anaji Datto in the late seventeenth century. Another Maratha leader, the general Santaji, inflicted the punishment for breaches in military discipline. The contemporary historian Khafi Khan reported that "for a trifling offence he [Santaji] would cast a man under the feet of an elephant."
The early 19th century writer Robert Kerr relates how the king of Goa "keeps certain elephants for the execution of malefactors. When one of these is brought forth to dispatch a criminal, if his keeper desires that the offender be destroyed speedily, this vast creature will instantly crush him to atoms under his foot; but if desired to torture him, will break his limbs successively, as men are broken on the wheel." The naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon cited this flexibility of purpose as evidence that elephants were capable of "human reasoning, [rather] than a simple, natural instinct"
Such executions were often held in public as a warning to any who may transgress. To that end, many of the elephants were especially large, often weighing in excess of nine tons. The executions were intended to be gruesome and often were. They were sometimes preceded by torture publicly inflicted by the same elephant used for the execution. An account of one such torture-and-execution at Baroda in 1814 has been preserved in The Percy Anecdotes:
The man was a slave, and two days before had murdered his master, brother to a native chieftain, called Ameer Sahib. About eleven o'clock the elephant was brought out, with only the driver on his back, surrounded by natives with bamboos in their hands. The criminal was placed three yards behind on the ground, his legs tied by three ropes, which were fastened to a ring on the right hind leg of the animal. At every step the elephant took, it jerked him forward, and every eight or ten steps must have dislocated another limb, for they were loose and broken when the elephant had proceeded five hundred yards. The man, though covered in mud, showed every sign of life, and seemed to be in the most excruciating torments. After having been tortured in this manner for about an hour, he was taken to the outside of the town, when the elephant, which is instructed for such purposes, was backed, and put his foot on the head of the criminal.
Elephants were widely used across the Indian subcontinent and South Asia as a method of execution. The English sailor Robert Knox, writing in 1681, described a method of execution by elephant which he had witnessed while being held captive in Sri Lanka. Knox says the elephants he witnessed had their tusks fitted with "sharp Iron with a socket with three edges". After impaling the victim's body with its tusks, the elephant would "then tear it in pieces, and throw it limb from limb"
The 19th century traveler James Emerson Tennent comments that "a Kandyan [Sri Lankan] chief, who was witness to such scenes, has assured us that the elephant never once applied his tusks, but, placing his foot on the prostrate victim, plucked off his limbs in succession by a sudden movement of his trunk." Knox's book depicts exactly this method of execution in a famous drawing, An Execution by an Elephant.
Writing in 1850, the British diplomat Henry Charles Sirr described a visit to one of the elephants that had been used by Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, the last king of Kandy, to execute criminals. Crushing by elephant had been abolished by the British after they overthrew the Kandyan kingdom in 1815 but the king's execution elephant was still alive and evidently remembered its former duties. Sirr comments:
During the native dynasty it was the practice to train elephants to put criminals to death by trampling upon them, the creatures being taught to prolong the agony of the wretched sufferers by crushing the limbs, avoiding the vital parts. With the last tyrant king of Candy, this was a favourite mode of execution and as one of the elephant executioners was at the former capital during our sojourn there we were particularly anxious to test the creature's sagacity and memory. The animal was mottled and of enormous size, and was quietly standing there with his keeper seated upon his neck; the noble who accompanied us desired the man to dismount and stand on one side.
The chief then gave the word of command, ordering the creature to 'slay the wretch!' The elephant raised his trunk, and twined it, as if around a human being; the creature then made motions as if he were depositing the man on the earth before him, then slowly raised his back-foot, placing it alternately upon the spots where the limbs of the sufferer would have been. This he continued to do for some minutes; then, as if satisfied that the bones must be crushed, the elephant raised his trunk high upon his head and stood motionless; the chief then ordered him to 'complete his work,' and the creature immediately placed one foot, as if upon the man's abdomen, and the other upon his head, apparently using his entire strength to crush and terminate the wretch's misery.
During the medieval period, executions by elephants were used by several West Asian imperial powers, including the Byzantine, Sassanid, Seljuq and Timurid empires. When the Sassanid king Khosrau II, who had a harem of 3,000 wives and 12,000 female slaves, demanded as a wife Hadiqah, the daughter of the Christian Arab Na'aman, Na'aman refused to permit his Christian daughter to enter the harem of a Zoroastrian; for this refusal, he was trampled to death by an elephant.
The practice appears to have been adopted in parts of the Muslim Middle East. Rabbi Petachiah of Ratisbon, a twelfth-century Jewish traveler, reported an execution by this means during his stay in Seljuk-ruled northern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq):
At Nineveh there was an elephant. Its head is not protruding. It is big, eats about two wagon loads of straw at once; its mouth is in its breast, and when it wants to eat it protrudes its lip about two cubits, takes up the straw with it, and puts it in its mouth. When the sultan condemns anyone to death, they say to the elephant, "this person is guilty." It then seizes him with its lip, casts him aloft and slays him.
The Romans, Carthaginians and ancient Macedonians occasionally used elephants for executions while also making use of war elephants for military purposes, most famously in the case of Hannibal. Deserters, prisoners of war and military criminals are recorded by ancient chroniclers to have been put to death under the foot of an elephant. Perdiccas, who became regent of Macedon on the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, had mutineers from the faction of Meleager thrown to the elephants to be crushed in the city of Babylon. The Roman writer Quintus Curtius Rufus relates the story in his Historiae Alexandri Magni: "Perdiccas saw that they [the mutineers] were paralyzed and at his mercy. He withdrew from the main body some 300 men who had followed Meleager at the time when he burst from the first meeting held after Alexander's death, and before the eyes of the entire army he threw them to the elephants. All were trampled to death beneath the feet of the beasts..."
Similarly, the Roman writer Valerius Maximus records how the general Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus "after King Perseus was vanquished [in 167 BC], for the same fault (desertion) threw men under elephants to be trampled ... And indeed military discipline needs this kind of severe and abrupt punishment, because this is how strength of arms stands firm, which, when it falls away from the right course, will be subverted."
There are fewer records of elephants being used as straightforward executioners for the civil population. One such example is mentioned by Josephus and the deuterocanonical book of 3 Maccabees in connection with the Egyptian Jews, though the story is likely apocryphal. 3 Maccabees describes an attempt by Ptolemy IV Philopator (ruled 221–204 BC) to enslave and brand Egypt's Jews with the symbol of Dionysus. When the majority of the Jews resisted, the king is said to have rounded them up and ordered them to be trampled on by elephants. The mass execution was ultimately thwarted, supposedly by the intervention of angels, following which Ptolemy took an altogether more forgiving attitude towards his Jewish subjects | 3,454 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Despite English victories at Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415), and notwithstanding the chaotic rule of Charles VI “the Mad” – all of which ceded the upper hand to England – the tide of the Hundred Years War eventually began to turn. Political alliances proved unstable, and England’s hold on its captured territories weakened.
One of the main figures in the renewal of French fortunes was Joan of Arc. Although she was only on the public stage for 11 months before her capture, she won two important victories that imprinted themselves on the collective consciousness of the age.
Joan was perhaps around 16 or 17 years old in early 1429 when she finally convinced Charles VII, uncrowned king of France, to permit her to lead some of his troops. With his court and clerics watching closely, on 27 April she set out for Orléans, which had been cut off by an English siege since the previous October.
With a combination of skill and luck, and thanks to the fact her force was only a few hundred strong, on 29 April she slipped through the English cordon, and triumphantly entered Orléans. Her arrival and retinue of fresh soldiers immediately lifted the beleaguered city’s spirits, with her intervention widely perceived as a sign of divine favour.
Joan’s challenge was what to do militarily from within Orléans. She did not have a force large enough to take on the English directly, so instead she opted for smaller engagements.
On 4 May she drove the English from the fort of Saint-Loup to the east of the city. Two days later she captured the important English position at the fort of the Augustinians, and then on 7 May she seized the major fort of Les Tourelles. Having lost control of these three key positions, the English abandoned the siege.
Those in Charles’s court who doubted that Joan was God’s chosen warrior were silenced. And they remained so throughout June as she went on to win three small mop-up engagements in the Loire at Jargeau, Meung-sur-Loire, and Beaugency.
Although Orléans was Joan’s most famous victory and a God-given psychological boost to the French – she is known as the Maid of Orléans in its honour – her most decisive battle took place at nearby Patay, which is remembered in France the way Agincourt is in Britain.
On 18 June, 15 miles northwest of Orléans, Joan’s forces annihilated a large English army. Strengthened by this winning streak, Joan was sufficiently empowered to realise her ambition and oversee Charles VII's coronation at Reims.
Patay was, however, her last victory. After several defeats, she fell from favour at Charles’s court, and was captured in May the following year. After 12 months of incarceration and trials, she was burnt by the English in Rouen on 30 May 1431 in front of Cardinal Beaufort, bishop of Winchester. She was 19 years old.
Despite removing Joan from the picture, England continued to lose territory in France, and finally withdrew after defeat at the Battle of Castillon in 1453. There was no peace treaty, and Calais remained English until 1558, but the conclusion of the Hundred Years War effectively marked the end of England’s claims to the French throne. | <urn:uuid:e18d5bbb-8d65-4375-97f5-08269bb97719> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/29/day-1429-joan-arc-wins-first-military-victory-outwits-english/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00300.warc.gz | en | 0.980334 | 711 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.47705313563346863,
0.26966428756713867,
0.32290685176849365,
-0.31678518652915955,
-0.2570505142211914,
0.2358657419681549,
0.02163195237517357,
0.09578050673007965,
0.14390495419502258,
-0.2486211359500885,
-0.08110900223255157,
-0.5990559458732605,
0.22870033979415894,
-0.019438199698... | 3 | Despite English victories at Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415), and notwithstanding the chaotic rule of Charles VI “the Mad” – all of which ceded the upper hand to England – the tide of the Hundred Years War eventually began to turn. Political alliances proved unstable, and England’s hold on its captured territories weakened.
One of the main figures in the renewal of French fortunes was Joan of Arc. Although she was only on the public stage for 11 months before her capture, she won two important victories that imprinted themselves on the collective consciousness of the age.
Joan was perhaps around 16 or 17 years old in early 1429 when she finally convinced Charles VII, uncrowned king of France, to permit her to lead some of his troops. With his court and clerics watching closely, on 27 April she set out for Orléans, which had been cut off by an English siege since the previous October.
With a combination of skill and luck, and thanks to the fact her force was only a few hundred strong, on 29 April she slipped through the English cordon, and triumphantly entered Orléans. Her arrival and retinue of fresh soldiers immediately lifted the beleaguered city’s spirits, with her intervention widely perceived as a sign of divine favour.
Joan’s challenge was what to do militarily from within Orléans. She did not have a force large enough to take on the English directly, so instead she opted for smaller engagements.
On 4 May she drove the English from the fort of Saint-Loup to the east of the city. Two days later she captured the important English position at the fort of the Augustinians, and then on 7 May she seized the major fort of Les Tourelles. Having lost control of these three key positions, the English abandoned the siege.
Those in Charles’s court who doubted that Joan was God’s chosen warrior were silenced. And they remained so throughout June as she went on to win three small mop-up engagements in the Loire at Jargeau, Meung-sur-Loire, and Beaugency.
Although Orléans was Joan’s most famous victory and a God-given psychological boost to the French – she is known as the Maid of Orléans in its honour – her most decisive battle took place at nearby Patay, which is remembered in France the way Agincourt is in Britain.
On 18 June, 15 miles northwest of Orléans, Joan’s forces annihilated a large English army. Strengthened by this winning streak, Joan was sufficiently empowered to realise her ambition and oversee Charles VII's coronation at Reims.
Patay was, however, her last victory. After several defeats, she fell from favour at Charles’s court, and was captured in May the following year. After 12 months of incarceration and trials, she was burnt by the English in Rouen on 30 May 1431 in front of Cardinal Beaufort, bishop of Winchester. She was 19 years old.
Despite removing Joan from the picture, England continued to lose territory in France, and finally withdrew after defeat at the Battle of Castillon in 1453. There was no peace treaty, and Calais remained English until 1558, but the conclusion of the Hundred Years War effectively marked the end of England’s claims to the French throne. | 724 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Henry VIII Henry VIII was born a Catholic and a very social figure, unlike his father. At the age of 17 in 1509, Henry VIII was ascended to the throne of England. The summer of that year, Henry married his brother’s widowed wife, Catherine of Aragon. Typically this marriage would be against biblical teachings. Henry VIII, however, was able to receive permission from Pope Julius II to marry her. Catherine was unable to provide Henry VIII with a son to inherit the crown of England. Because of this, Henry had asked Pope Clement VII to annul the marriage, but the annulment was declined. Henry then decided to remove the English church from papal jurisdiction. Henry VIII divorced Catherine and then married Anne Boleyn, who he thought would for sure give him a son. To his sorrow, Anne failed twice to have a son. Therefore, Henry VIII charged Anne Boleyn with adulterous incest and he beheaded her. Finally, Henry’s third wife was able to give him the son that he desired. A few years later Henry disbanded all monasteries to collect their wealth. Henry VIII ended 900 years of monastic life in England. Henry VIII would support Luther in his trial because he believed that men and women should be able to marry who they pleased. If they became unhappy with their marriage they should be able to remarry at their own pleasure and decision. Luther also believed that men and women, including priests, should be able to marry and remarry. Henry VIII had not always supported Martin Luther though. In 1521, Henry defended the Catholic…
A Brief History of Henry VIII, Derek Wilson, 2009
Basically, the story of King Henry VIII’s life is this: He was born in 1491 of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. The king grew up in the palace of Greenwich in his brother’s shadow. However, when his brother died he had everyone’s full and undivided attention. His father and grandmother took control in his life and were responsible for…
ties together what we have learned in class and both readings from this week. Religion was such a huge part of Europe and the New World during this time period. Henry VIII established his own church after the Pope refused to allow him to divorce Catherine of Aragon. This started a long line of religious prosecutions in England. After Henry died, and his son and daughter took the thrown, the Tudor family flipped back and forth between killing the Catholics and the Protestants. During this time, many…
Essay on King Henry VIII
I think Henry was a good king because he made one of the best colleges around today, and was the founder of the Church of England [our religion.]
Catherine of Aragon:
Catherine came from Spain and was betrothed to Henry’s older brother Arthur who later died so Henry married her. She gave him a child called *[Bloody] Mary but later on after 23 years of happy marriage Henry divorced her because she didn’t give…
King Henry VIII
“Anger is like a full-hot horse, who being allowed his way, self-mettle tires him.”
(1.1.193) – Shakespeare
King Henry VIII was crowned in Ireland after the death of his brother, King Arthur, who died of a fatal illness. Henry VIII soon married his brother’s wife, Catherine of Aragon in 1509. He was a playboy, gluttonous, and greedy in his lifetime. The king’s desires were to build a powerful empire and the wooing of women. He was a tyrant and an ill-tempered man,…
of faith rather than deeds
Allow oneself to enjoy thce
allow oneself to enjoy the pleasure of:
Edict of Worms
Reformation in England
Just as much religious as political
Act of Supremacy
King Henry VIII
Catherine of Aragon
Anne of Cleves
Catholic Reformation (Counter Reformation)
3 pillars of Catholic Reformation (listed below)…
One of the most influential and important people in history was King Henry the Eighth. As King f England, Henry was one of the most powerful men of his time and with that power he was able to change the course of history, not only for his kingdom, but the world. He is most notable for having been excommunicated from the Catholic Church by Pope Clement the Seventh, being the father of Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary and being married six times. He aided Spain, the papacy and Venice against…
Henry VIII: VERY brief summary!
In 1509 Henry VIII (8th) came to the throne after his father, Henry VII (7th) died. The old king had been unpopular towards the end of his reign for being dull, penny-pinching, and for squeezing money out of the nobles. The new king Henry was a contrast. He was 17 years old, well-educated, tall and athletic. He loved sport, especially jousting, and hunting.
An appetite for glory!
Soon after he came to the throne, Henry VIII turned his attention to foreign policy…
from harm. In reality, there are kings that are not looked up to because of that. King Henry VIII was viewed as one of the most debatable rulers in history. His desperation to have a male son, and his need for power led him to do things no one else had done. He influenced England and literature in many different ways through his life choices.
On June 28, 1491, in Greenwich, England, Henry VIII was born to King Henry Tudor VII and Elizabeth of York. His parents didn’t pay much attention to him until…
Henry the VIII broke form rome because of love.
Henry the VIII broke from Rome for a number of reasons, for example economic (money), political (power), religious (faith) and personal (love)reasons.
One reason for the break with Rome was political reasons (power) because after losing most his finance in battle against the king of Spain, Francis I, who was angry at Henry for embarrassing his aunt Catherine of Aragon who at this time was Henry’s wife. When Henry found out the…
dynasty is the House of Tudor. Henry VII became king in 1485 and took Elizabeth of York as his wife.They had four children Prince Arthur of Wales, Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII, and Mary Tudor.
Henry VIII was born June 28, 1491 at the Palace of Placentia in Greenwich. Being the second born son Henry was raised and educated to take a secular role in life, most likely as the Archbishop of Canterbury. His grandmother Margaret Beaufort supervised his early childhood education. Henry was reported to excel at… | <urn:uuid:fa7f633d-62b2-43b0-99ac-8f9e1fb4274d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.majortests.com/essay/Henry-Viii-602090.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251801423.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129164403-20200129193403-00004.warc.gz | en | 0.987225 | 1,397 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.18459706008434296,
0.534898579120636,
-0.1866864413022995,
-0.28420937061309814,
-0.4817202687263489,
-0.2828473448753357,
0.14406538009643555,
0.20140425860881805,
0.2674367427825928,
-0.23629017174243927,
-0.3355860114097595,
-0.45773473381996155,
0.08865920454263687,
0.41894739866256... | 1 | Henry VIII Henry VIII was born a Catholic and a very social figure, unlike his father. At the age of 17 in 1509, Henry VIII was ascended to the throne of England. The summer of that year, Henry married his brother’s widowed wife, Catherine of Aragon. Typically this marriage would be against biblical teachings. Henry VIII, however, was able to receive permission from Pope Julius II to marry her. Catherine was unable to provide Henry VIII with a son to inherit the crown of England. Because of this, Henry had asked Pope Clement VII to annul the marriage, but the annulment was declined. Henry then decided to remove the English church from papal jurisdiction. Henry VIII divorced Catherine and then married Anne Boleyn, who he thought would for sure give him a son. To his sorrow, Anne failed twice to have a son. Therefore, Henry VIII charged Anne Boleyn with adulterous incest and he beheaded her. Finally, Henry’s third wife was able to give him the son that he desired. A few years later Henry disbanded all monasteries to collect their wealth. Henry VIII ended 900 years of monastic life in England. Henry VIII would support Luther in his trial because he believed that men and women should be able to marry who they pleased. If they became unhappy with their marriage they should be able to remarry at their own pleasure and decision. Luther also believed that men and women, including priests, should be able to marry and remarry. Henry VIII had not always supported Martin Luther though. In 1521, Henry defended the Catholic…
A Brief History of Henry VIII, Derek Wilson, 2009
Basically, the story of King Henry VIII’s life is this: He was born in 1491 of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. The king grew up in the palace of Greenwich in his brother’s shadow. However, when his brother died he had everyone’s full and undivided attention. His father and grandmother took control in his life and were responsible for…
ties together what we have learned in class and both readings from this week. Religion was such a huge part of Europe and the New World during this time period. Henry VIII established his own church after the Pope refused to allow him to divorce Catherine of Aragon. This started a long line of religious prosecutions in England. After Henry died, and his son and daughter took the thrown, the Tudor family flipped back and forth between killing the Catholics and the Protestants. During this time, many…
Essay on King Henry VIII
I think Henry was a good king because he made one of the best colleges around today, and was the founder of the Church of England [our religion.]
Catherine of Aragon:
Catherine came from Spain and was betrothed to Henry’s older brother Arthur who later died so Henry married her. She gave him a child called *[Bloody] Mary but later on after 23 years of happy marriage Henry divorced her because she didn’t give…
King Henry VIII
“Anger is like a full-hot horse, who being allowed his way, self-mettle tires him.”
(1.1.193) – Shakespeare
King Henry VIII was crowned in Ireland after the death of his brother, King Arthur, who died of a fatal illness. Henry VIII soon married his brother’s wife, Catherine of Aragon in 1509. He was a playboy, gluttonous, and greedy in his lifetime. The king’s desires were to build a powerful empire and the wooing of women. He was a tyrant and an ill-tempered man,…
of faith rather than deeds
Allow oneself to enjoy thce
allow oneself to enjoy the pleasure of:
Edict of Worms
Reformation in England
Just as much religious as political
Act of Supremacy
King Henry VIII
Catherine of Aragon
Anne of Cleves
Catholic Reformation (Counter Reformation)
3 pillars of Catholic Reformation (listed below)…
One of the most influential and important people in history was King Henry the Eighth. As King f England, Henry was one of the most powerful men of his time and with that power he was able to change the course of history, not only for his kingdom, but the world. He is most notable for having been excommunicated from the Catholic Church by Pope Clement the Seventh, being the father of Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary and being married six times. He aided Spain, the papacy and Venice against…
Henry VIII: VERY brief summary!
In 1509 Henry VIII (8th) came to the throne after his father, Henry VII (7th) died. The old king had been unpopular towards the end of his reign for being dull, penny-pinching, and for squeezing money out of the nobles. The new king Henry was a contrast. He was 17 years old, well-educated, tall and athletic. He loved sport, especially jousting, and hunting.
An appetite for glory!
Soon after he came to the throne, Henry VIII turned his attention to foreign policy…
from harm. In reality, there are kings that are not looked up to because of that. King Henry VIII was viewed as one of the most debatable rulers in history. His desperation to have a male son, and his need for power led him to do things no one else had done. He influenced England and literature in many different ways through his life choices.
On June 28, 1491, in Greenwich, England, Henry VIII was born to King Henry Tudor VII and Elizabeth of York. His parents didn’t pay much attention to him until…
Henry the VIII broke form rome because of love.
Henry the VIII broke from Rome for a number of reasons, for example economic (money), political (power), religious (faith) and personal (love)reasons.
One reason for the break with Rome was political reasons (power) because after losing most his finance in battle against the king of Spain, Francis I, who was angry at Henry for embarrassing his aunt Catherine of Aragon who at this time was Henry’s wife. When Henry found out the…
dynasty is the House of Tudor. Henry VII became king in 1485 and took Elizabeth of York as his wife.They had four children Prince Arthur of Wales, Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII, and Mary Tudor.
Henry VIII was born June 28, 1491 at the Palace of Placentia in Greenwich. Being the second born son Henry was raised and educated to take a secular role in life, most likely as the Archbishop of Canterbury. His grandmother Margaret Beaufort supervised his early childhood education. Henry was reported to excel at… | 1,393 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Camp Pike - History - World War I Army Cantonment
Photo Collage of Camp Pike
Camp Pike, situated eight miles northwest of Little Rock, Ark., houses the National Army forces drawn from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and western Alabama. Here an up-to-date military city of 42,000 capacity had virtually to be built in the midst of a wilderness.
Ground was broken for the camp on July 9th. The site was almost entirely covered with second-growth timber, the nearest railroad was five miles away, and supplies had to be brought by truck from Little Rock over hilly highways. A vast deal of rock was encountered in ditching for water and sewer pipes—nearly 75 percent of the total excavations, in fact.
Labor was scarce, as Camp Funston, in Kansas, had an earlier start and had secured most of the available supply. But the contractors ranged far and wide, even into the Mexican States of Chihuahua and San Luis Potosi, with the result that all handicaps were overcome. This camp has little level ground, resembling Camp Ayer and Camp Gordon in that respect, and many heavy grades in the road system result. The 75 hospital buildings cover 47 acres of ground.
Little Rock, which plays the role of host to Camp Pike, is the largest city in Arkansas. It was settled in 1814, becoming the seat of the territorial government in 1820, although at that time it had a population of only 20 people.
Situated on both banks of the Arkansas River, the city takes its name from the rocky promontory which rises to a height of some 5o feet above the river. It was called Little Rock in contradistinction to the bold precipice, some 3 miles above and about 50o feet high, which was known as Big Rock. To the west of the city and of Camp Pike the foothills of the Ozark Mountains rise, but to the east are fertile cotton fields and corn lands. The Arkansas River is navigable to boats of considerable draft as far as Little Rock, while steamboats of shallow draft go as far as Port Smith, 165 miles to the west.
At the outbreak of the Civil War the State was hopelessly.divided in sentiment. The upland people, living west of Little Rock, were Unionists and the cotton-territory folk, living east, were Secessionists. Camp Pike stands near the line of cleavage.
Camp Pike is named in honor of General Zebulon M. Pike, an American soldier and geographer. Born in Lamberton, N. J., in 1779, he spent his boyhood in Pennsylvania, and in 1805 started from St. Louis on an expedition to locate the source of the Mississippi. He was successful. Later he followed the Missouri and Osage rivers into Kansas, then went southward to the Arkansas, proceeding through Kansas and Colorado to the present site of Pueblo, and viewed Pikes Peak (since named in his honor).
While searching for the Red River he lost his way and wandered into Mexican territory across the upper Rio Grande. He was arrested, taken to Chihuahua, and, after some delay, escorted back to the border. In the War of 1812 he led American forces into Canada and was killed at York by falling rock when the retreating force blew up a powder magazine. He died while his nomination for brigadier general was pending. | <urn:uuid:9d494e51-51d5-4ca5-a1c6-e45e4d7cdfbd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.gjenvick.com/Military/ArmyArchives/TrainingCenters/CampPike/History.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00424.warc.gz | en | 0.980435 | 703 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
0.023820403963327408,
0.06401728838682175,
0.3215700387954712,
-0.0691717267036438,
-0.3218576908111572,
0.19064190983772278,
-0.2263375073671341,
-0.10840656608343124,
-0.670276939868927,
-0.15058988332748413,
0.2632230520248413,
-0.4062926769256592,
0.2797880172729492,
0.2767342031002044... | 6 | Camp Pike - History - World War I Army Cantonment
Photo Collage of Camp Pike
Camp Pike, situated eight miles northwest of Little Rock, Ark., houses the National Army forces drawn from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and western Alabama. Here an up-to-date military city of 42,000 capacity had virtually to be built in the midst of a wilderness.
Ground was broken for the camp on July 9th. The site was almost entirely covered with second-growth timber, the nearest railroad was five miles away, and supplies had to be brought by truck from Little Rock over hilly highways. A vast deal of rock was encountered in ditching for water and sewer pipes—nearly 75 percent of the total excavations, in fact.
Labor was scarce, as Camp Funston, in Kansas, had an earlier start and had secured most of the available supply. But the contractors ranged far and wide, even into the Mexican States of Chihuahua and San Luis Potosi, with the result that all handicaps were overcome. This camp has little level ground, resembling Camp Ayer and Camp Gordon in that respect, and many heavy grades in the road system result. The 75 hospital buildings cover 47 acres of ground.
Little Rock, which plays the role of host to Camp Pike, is the largest city in Arkansas. It was settled in 1814, becoming the seat of the territorial government in 1820, although at that time it had a population of only 20 people.
Situated on both banks of the Arkansas River, the city takes its name from the rocky promontory which rises to a height of some 5o feet above the river. It was called Little Rock in contradistinction to the bold precipice, some 3 miles above and about 50o feet high, which was known as Big Rock. To the west of the city and of Camp Pike the foothills of the Ozark Mountains rise, but to the east are fertile cotton fields and corn lands. The Arkansas River is navigable to boats of considerable draft as far as Little Rock, while steamboats of shallow draft go as far as Port Smith, 165 miles to the west.
At the outbreak of the Civil War the State was hopelessly.divided in sentiment. The upland people, living west of Little Rock, were Unionists and the cotton-territory folk, living east, were Secessionists. Camp Pike stands near the line of cleavage.
Camp Pike is named in honor of General Zebulon M. Pike, an American soldier and geographer. Born in Lamberton, N. J., in 1779, he spent his boyhood in Pennsylvania, and in 1805 started from St. Louis on an expedition to locate the source of the Mississippi. He was successful. Later he followed the Missouri and Osage rivers into Kansas, then went southward to the Arkansas, proceeding through Kansas and Colorado to the present site of Pueblo, and viewed Pikes Peak (since named in his honor).
While searching for the Red River he lost his way and wandered into Mexican territory across the upper Rio Grande. He was arrested, taken to Chihuahua, and, after some delay, escorted back to the border. In the War of 1812 he led American forces into Canada and was killed at York by falling rock when the retreating force blew up a powder magazine. He died while his nomination for brigadier general was pending. | 726 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Results of the Golden Kite Award in the year 2001.
In 1845, a disaster struck Ireland. Overnight, a mysterious blight attacked the potato crops, turning the potatoes black and destroying the only real food of nearly six million people.
Over the next five years, the blight attacked again and again. These years are known today as the Great Irish Famine, a time when one million people died from starvation and disease and two million more fled their homeland.
Black Potatoes is the compelling story of men, women, and children who defied landlords and searched empty fields for scraps of harvested vegetables and edible weeds to eat, who walked several miles each day to hard-labor jobs for meager wages and to reach soup kitchens, and who committed crimes just to be sent to jail, where they were assured of a meal. It's the story of children and adults who suffered from starvation, disease, and the loss of family and friends, as well as those who died. Illustrated with black and white engravings, it's also the story of the heroes among the Irish people and how they held on to hope.
The partnership between John Adams, the second president of the United States, and his wife, Abigail, well known for speaking out on women's rights, is one of the most famous in American history.
John's lifelong involvement in American public life included service in the Continental Congress, an ambassadorship to England, and election as the second president of the United States. Abigail fiercely supported the American Revolution and the young country it created - as well as her husband's ambitious career. But while they were as drawn to each other as "steel and the magnet," they also went through the trials of extended separation. During these times, they relied on letters to keep their bond alive. With depth and insight, Judith St. George explores two of the founders of our nation. | <urn:uuid:875a4815-6857-484a-9681-734b450cc7ec> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.awardannals.com/v/Annal:2001_Golden_Kite_Nonfiction_Award | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00328.warc.gz | en | 0.982465 | 384 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
0.11903803050518036,
0.7014366984367371,
-0.01613309234380722,
0.28637591004371643,
0.1974106878042221,
0.16159814596176147,
0.1339922398328781,
-0.190483957529068,
-0.060999102890491486,
-0.2320358008146286,
-0.1000608429312706,
-0.007286534644663334,
0.11377445608377457,
0.37427991628646... | 3 | Results of the Golden Kite Award in the year 2001.
In 1845, a disaster struck Ireland. Overnight, a mysterious blight attacked the potato crops, turning the potatoes black and destroying the only real food of nearly six million people.
Over the next five years, the blight attacked again and again. These years are known today as the Great Irish Famine, a time when one million people died from starvation and disease and two million more fled their homeland.
Black Potatoes is the compelling story of men, women, and children who defied landlords and searched empty fields for scraps of harvested vegetables and edible weeds to eat, who walked several miles each day to hard-labor jobs for meager wages and to reach soup kitchens, and who committed crimes just to be sent to jail, where they were assured of a meal. It's the story of children and adults who suffered from starvation, disease, and the loss of family and friends, as well as those who died. Illustrated with black and white engravings, it's also the story of the heroes among the Irish people and how they held on to hope.
The partnership between John Adams, the second president of the United States, and his wife, Abigail, well known for speaking out on women's rights, is one of the most famous in American history.
John's lifelong involvement in American public life included service in the Continental Congress, an ambassadorship to England, and election as the second president of the United States. Abigail fiercely supported the American Revolution and the young country it created - as well as her husband's ambitious career. But while they were as drawn to each other as "steel and the magnet," they also went through the trials of extended separation. During these times, they relied on letters to keep their bond alive. With depth and insight, Judith St. George explores two of the founders of our nation. | 386 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Although a portion of their Nebraska homeland was reinstated, only half of the tribe returned to their previous home. -Poverty and disease would continue to take their toll over the years. In 1945 the government formulated a policy which called for termination of Indian Tribes- This policy effected some 109 tribes and bands, including 13,263 Native Americans and 1,365,801 acres of trust land. In 1962, the Congress of the United States decided that the Northern Ponca Tribe should be terminated. In 1966 the Northern Poncas were completely terminated and all of their land and tribal holdings were dissolved. This termination removed 442 Ponca from the tribal rolls, dispossessing them of 834 acres and began the process of total decline.
During the 1970's members of the Ponca Tribe, unwilling to accept their status as a terminated tribe, initiated the process of restoration to federal recognition. In 1986 representatives from the Native American Community Development Corporation of Omaha, Inc., Lincoln Indian Center, Sequoyah Inc., National Indian Lutheran Board and Ponca Tribe met to discuss what they needed to do to once again become a federally recognized tribe. In the spring of 1987, the Northern Ponca Restoration Committee Inc. was incorporated as a non-profit organization in Nebraska and was the base for the federal recognition effort.
In April of 1988 the Nebraska Unicameral passed Legislative Resolution #128 giving state recognition to the Ponca Tribe and their members. This was an important step in the restoration efforts. The Ponca Restoration Bill was introduced in the United States Senate on October 11, 1989 by Senators James J. Exon and J. Robert Kerry. The Senate passed the Ponca Restoration Act by unanimous consent on July 18, 1990. The bill was signed into law on October 31, 1990 by President Bush.
Today the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska headquarters is located in Niobrara Nebraska. The Ponca Tribe, which was dissolved by an act of Congress over 30 years ago, is once again rebuilding its traditional culture. The Ponca are now rebuilding their land base, on their aboriginal homeland.
The Ponca are a Native American tribe which currently has about 1300 members and which has its tribal headquarters in Niobrara, Nebraska ... In 1789, fur trader Juan Baptiste Munier was given an exclusive licence to trade with the Ponca at the mouth of the Niobrara. He founded a trading post at the point where the Niobrara joins the Missouri and found about 800 Ponca residing there. Shortly after that, the tribe was hit by a devastating smallpox epidemic and in 1804, when they were visited by the Lewis and Clark Expedition there were only about 200 Ponca ... n 1858 the Ponca signed a treaty where they gave up parts of their land in return for protection and a permanent home on the Niobrara. In 1868 the lands of the Poncas were included in the Sioux Reservation by mistake. The Poncas became thus plagued with raiding Sioux who claimed the land as their own. When Congress in 1876 decided to exile several of the northern tribes to Indian Territory in present-day Oklahoma, the Ponca were on the list.
Standing Bear (1834(?) - 1908 was a Ponca Native American Indian chief who successfully argued in U.S. District Court in 1879 that American Indians are "persons within the meaning of the law" and have the rights of citizenship ... Judge Dundy had to rule on whether an Indian had the rights of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. The government tried to prove that an Indian was neither a person nor a citizen so couldn't bring suit against the government. On April 30, 1879, Judge Dundy stated that an Indian is a person within the law and that the Ponca were being held illegally. He set free Standing Bear and the Ponca. A government commission, appointed by President Rutherford B. Hayes, investigated and found the Ponca situation to be unjust. They arranged for the return of the Ponca from Indian Territory and allotted land to them along the Niobrara River. | <urn:uuid:246b1660-1e4e-46c0-b709-1ecadb4a0b2d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://northanger.livejournal.com/112745.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00438.warc.gz | en | 0.980881 | 824 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.12841324508190155,
0.08275897800922394,
0.4214363098144531,
-0.16821353137493134,
-0.17760120332241058,
-0.12335280328989029,
-0.154585599899292,
-0.2087056040763855,
-0.22637078166007996,
0.1380281001329422,
0.26614129543304443,
-0.3131873905658722,
0.1560366153717041,
0.26920348405838... | 3 | Although a portion of their Nebraska homeland was reinstated, only half of the tribe returned to their previous home. -Poverty and disease would continue to take their toll over the years. In 1945 the government formulated a policy which called for termination of Indian Tribes- This policy effected some 109 tribes and bands, including 13,263 Native Americans and 1,365,801 acres of trust land. In 1962, the Congress of the United States decided that the Northern Ponca Tribe should be terminated. In 1966 the Northern Poncas were completely terminated and all of their land and tribal holdings were dissolved. This termination removed 442 Ponca from the tribal rolls, dispossessing them of 834 acres and began the process of total decline.
During the 1970's members of the Ponca Tribe, unwilling to accept their status as a terminated tribe, initiated the process of restoration to federal recognition. In 1986 representatives from the Native American Community Development Corporation of Omaha, Inc., Lincoln Indian Center, Sequoyah Inc., National Indian Lutheran Board and Ponca Tribe met to discuss what they needed to do to once again become a federally recognized tribe. In the spring of 1987, the Northern Ponca Restoration Committee Inc. was incorporated as a non-profit organization in Nebraska and was the base for the federal recognition effort.
In April of 1988 the Nebraska Unicameral passed Legislative Resolution #128 giving state recognition to the Ponca Tribe and their members. This was an important step in the restoration efforts. The Ponca Restoration Bill was introduced in the United States Senate on October 11, 1989 by Senators James J. Exon and J. Robert Kerry. The Senate passed the Ponca Restoration Act by unanimous consent on July 18, 1990. The bill was signed into law on October 31, 1990 by President Bush.
Today the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska headquarters is located in Niobrara Nebraska. The Ponca Tribe, which was dissolved by an act of Congress over 30 years ago, is once again rebuilding its traditional culture. The Ponca are now rebuilding their land base, on their aboriginal homeland.
The Ponca are a Native American tribe which currently has about 1300 members and which has its tribal headquarters in Niobrara, Nebraska ... In 1789, fur trader Juan Baptiste Munier was given an exclusive licence to trade with the Ponca at the mouth of the Niobrara. He founded a trading post at the point where the Niobrara joins the Missouri and found about 800 Ponca residing there. Shortly after that, the tribe was hit by a devastating smallpox epidemic and in 1804, when they were visited by the Lewis and Clark Expedition there were only about 200 Ponca ... n 1858 the Ponca signed a treaty where they gave up parts of their land in return for protection and a permanent home on the Niobrara. In 1868 the lands of the Poncas were included in the Sioux Reservation by mistake. The Poncas became thus plagued with raiding Sioux who claimed the land as their own. When Congress in 1876 decided to exile several of the northern tribes to Indian Territory in present-day Oklahoma, the Ponca were on the list.
Standing Bear (1834(?) - 1908 was a Ponca Native American Indian chief who successfully argued in U.S. District Court in 1879 that American Indians are "persons within the meaning of the law" and have the rights of citizenship ... Judge Dundy had to rule on whether an Indian had the rights of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. The government tried to prove that an Indian was neither a person nor a citizen so couldn't bring suit against the government. On April 30, 1879, Judge Dundy stated that an Indian is a person within the law and that the Ponca were being held illegally. He set free Standing Bear and the Ponca. A government commission, appointed by President Rutherford B. Hayes, investigated and found the Ponca situation to be unjust. They arranged for the return of the Ponca from Indian Territory and allotted land to them along the Niobrara River. | 926 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Saint William of York (d.1154)
for June 8
Saint William of York was born into a wealthy and powerful family in 12th-century England. It seemed like he would have an easy road to greatness, but family conflicts complicated things. William was appointed Archbishop of York. However, the joy that William felt was not reciprocated by everyone. Local clergymen were outraged, and the Archbishop of Canterbury would not consecrate him. Several years later William was consecrated, but the pope refused to give his approval. It was not until 14 years after William was first appointed that he became Archbishop of York. Happily, when he entered the city he received a warm welcome. Even though what William went through must have been frustrating, he never spoke ill of others or pitied himself. Mysteriously, he was found dead two months later. Although this mystery was never solved, William's assistant was suspected. After Saint William of York's death, numerous miracles were credited to him.
Image via Wikipedia
Saint William of York endured great hardships and sufferings at the hands of others. Despite this, he continued to love and accept those who hurt him. Most of us have extremely negative feelings towards those who have harmed us. But Saint William of York reminds us that Jesus taught us to forgive and accept those who have wronged us. Is there anyone in your life whom you have not forgiven?
Dear Jesus, please help me to forgive others with the strength of Saint William of York. | <urn:uuid:ef1c879d-e05f-45de-97da-d8decd9d86d9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.smp.org/resourcecenter/resource/7599/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00306.warc.gz | en | 0.992538 | 302 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.09194371849298477,
0.06092565134167671,
0.41898077726364136,
0.15440577268600464,
0.08800066262483597,
-0.3907698392868042,
0.19035251438617706,
0.022590719163417816,
0.07614434510469437,
-0.22253276407718658,
-0.05092328041791916,
0.30567464232444763,
-0.2697851359844208,
0.00921424571... | 1 | Saint William of York (d.1154)
for June 8
Saint William of York was born into a wealthy and powerful family in 12th-century England. It seemed like he would have an easy road to greatness, but family conflicts complicated things. William was appointed Archbishop of York. However, the joy that William felt was not reciprocated by everyone. Local clergymen were outraged, and the Archbishop of Canterbury would not consecrate him. Several years later William was consecrated, but the pope refused to give his approval. It was not until 14 years after William was first appointed that he became Archbishop of York. Happily, when he entered the city he received a warm welcome. Even though what William went through must have been frustrating, he never spoke ill of others or pitied himself. Mysteriously, he was found dead two months later. Although this mystery was never solved, William's assistant was suspected. After Saint William of York's death, numerous miracles were credited to him.
Image via Wikipedia
Saint William of York endured great hardships and sufferings at the hands of others. Despite this, he continued to love and accept those who hurt him. Most of us have extremely negative feelings towards those who have harmed us. But Saint William of York reminds us that Jesus taught us to forgive and accept those who have wronged us. Is there anyone in your life whom you have not forgiven?
Dear Jesus, please help me to forgive others with the strength of Saint William of York. | 309 | ENGLISH | 1 |
|Location:||Near Harnai in Konkan, along the West Coast of India|
is a fort that is located between Mumbai and Goa on a small island in the Arabian Sea, near Harnai in Konkan, along the West Coast of India, in the Indian state of Maharashtra. The fort also includes another small land fort called the Kanakadurga at the base of headland of Harnai port on the coast. Building of the fort is credited to Shivaji Maharaj, founder of the Maratha Empire, in 1660. Subsequently, Shivaji, other Peshwas and the Angres further fortified the forts for defence purposes.
The literal meaning of Suvanadurga is “Golden Fort” as it was considered as the pride or the “feather in the golden cap of Marathas”. Built for the Maratha Navy for defence purposes, the fort also had a ship-building facility. The basic objective of establishing the fort was to counter enemy attacks, mainly by the colonialists of Europe and also by the local chieftains.
In the past, the land fort and the sea fort were connected by a tunnel, but this is now defunct. The present approach to the sea fort is only by boats from the Harnai port on the headland. It is a protected monument.
The fort was captured by Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in 1660 by defeating Ali Adil Shah II (1656–1672). Kanhoji Angre (1667–1729), popularly known as “Samudratla Shivaji” (Shivaji of the sea) was the Koli Admiral of the Maratha Navy; in 1696, Kanhoji’s naval fleet was stationed here. However, the fort was formally handed over to Kanhoji in 1713 by Shahu Raja.
Kanhoji Angre who was also known as Angria was appointed in 1698 as Admiral of the Maratha Naval Fleet by the Peshwas. He had complete control over the west coast, from Bombay to Vengurla, except for the fort of Janjira, which remained with the Siddis (for 200 years). Angre was considered to be a mercenary who attacked defenceless towns and also traders. He even attacked the East Indian Company’s ship in 1702 and refused to release the six British captives. He severed his relations with the Peshwas in 1704 and was called “the Rebel Independent of the Raja Shivaji”. In spite of warning by the British that he should not attack or capture British ships, he captured their ships in 1707. He had a free run of the west coast from Surat to Dabol and captured all private vessels. When Shivaji’s grandson was imprisoned, Kanhoji got his opportunity to stake his claim for independence. In 1713, he had captured Peshwa’s general Bhairu, which forced the Peshwa general Balaji Rao (Commander-in-Chief of the Maratha forces) to come to an agreement with him. For maintaining “fealty” with the Sataras (Chatrapati Shivaji’s family stronghold), he was granted 26 forts and its dependent villages, which included Suvarnadurg. In subsequent years, these forts became strongholds for piracy. The pejorative pirate was used in British records, but the correspondence between the English and Maratha Navy suggests more a communication between the Maratha state and a trading company without permits, the English East India Company. With the English being the transgressors ( pirates). Simon Leyton writes: “It is now generally accepted by historians that Kanhoji [Angria], at least, was not a pirate in any sense of the word; rather, he is more properly thought of as the ‘Admiral’ of the Marathas”—an Indian Kingdom—”who for many years confronted European attempts to claim navigational rights over coastal shipping lanes”. With his new ordered control, Kanhoji held complete control over a coast line stretching over a coast length of 240 miles (390 km) and 40 miles (64 km) width extending from Bombay (now Mumbai) to Vengurla to the south. He later entered into an agreement with the British, which went against him as the British flouted all terms with him. Humiliated by this treatment by the British he decided to attack them. He entered into an alliance with the Raja of Satara, equipped his vessels and manned them by the best crew consisting of Dutchmen. He also employed a Jamaican pirate as his chief gunner. Many European pirate forces had also joined his army after the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713–14 (comprising a series of individual peace treaties among several European states including England, France and Spain, among others). With this force, he terrorized the East India Company.
Kanhoji relentlessly carried on his fight against the British and in 1721 joined hands with the Portuguese; when 33 British soldiers were killed, 21 wounded and many ammunition and field guns were seized by the Marathas. In 1722, when Kanhoji was to attack the English factory at Karwar, in spite of the British sending their ships ‘Victoria’ and the ‘Revenge’ to attack Kanhoji’s forces, he was not cowed down; even though his Dutch Commander was killed and his 16 ships were captured. However, he died on 4 June 1729, an unvanquished hero for 31 years against all foreign attacks. It is said that “Had he been in England, like Drake, he would have been knighted and lionised as a national hero, but in India he died merely as an independent ruler who never permitted any foreign ruler to filch even a part of his precious little dominion”.
He had two legitimate and two illegitimate sons, and Sambaji his legitimate son was given control of Suvarnadurg. Following the death of one of the brothers in 1734, there were intense fights and acts of piracy continued. In spite of attacks by the British in 1732, Sambaji was back in Suvarnadurg unharmed. However, by 1749, Tulaji, the step brother of Sambaji, had become very powerful and his ships sailed unharmed, even much bolder than what his father Kanhoji had achieved. This situation forced the Peshwas to join hands with the British to suppress Tulaji. In 1755, they jointly attacked Tulaji’s stronghold of Suvarnadurg and took control of the fort within 48 hours. Suvarnadurg was then given to the Peshwas that was considered a humiliating surrender by the Peshwas to the British.
Subsequent to Kanhoji’s demise, Tulaji Angre took charge of Suvarnadurg and it became the seat of his power. However, he fell foul of the Peshwas. He was considered arrogant. In the war with Tulaji, Peshwas were supported by the British. The joint siege of the fort lasted from 25 March to 2 April 1755. On 12 April 1755, Commodore James captured the fort and formally handed it over to the Peshwas. However, this support proved detrimental to the Peshwas, as the British extracted, as a reward, control over the Bankot fort but only allowed the Peshwas to have control over the Suvarnadurg. In 1802, Bajirav Peshwa under attack by the Holkars was trying to take refuge in this fort but had to flee to Vasai as he was chased to the fort by the Holkars. In 1818, Captain William of the British army attacked the fort and took full control of it on 4 December 1818. Soon thereafter the other forts also came under British control. The fort was thus under the control of the Peshwas till 1818. The fort has witnessed a scene of “triumph and tragedy, of the display of heroic courage and abject cowardice.”
The Angrias are also credited with not only strengthening the fort but also establishing the ship building yard at Suvanadurg and creating a large fleet of warships to secure the west coast, the Konkan coast, from attack from the British, French, Dutch and Portuguese colonialists. It is also inferred that the small forts (Guva, Kanakadurga, Bankot fort, Fattegad fort and Gova fort) were primarily built by Kanhoji Angre to defend Suvarnadurg from any enemy attack from the land route.
Places to Visit on Fort:
Suvarnadurg fort is located on a rocky island in the Arabian Sea on the west coast. It is spread over an area of 8 acres (3.2 ha) and is about 1 mile (1.6 km) from the main land. As is common in other similar forts, it is encircled by a dry moat. It tapers towards the southern direction from where the Kanakadurga fort is clearly visible. The walls have been mostly cut out of the rock exposures on the island. However, some part of the fort walls are built with large stone blocks of 10–12 feet (3.0–3.7 m) square. It has two entrances or gates, known as the ‘Mahadarwaja’ (big gate) also called the postern wall (above the high tide level) on the east and ‘Chor Darwaja’ on the west; the former gate faces the land and the latter faces the sea. The fort comes into sight only at very close quarters. The fort can be approached only during the low tide condition when it is also easier to walk in the precincts of the fort. The present entry from the main east gate is blocked by thorny bushes but can be accessed from a narrow entry, locally known as the devdis. At the main entry, carvings of a Hanuman carved on the wall and a carved turtle on one of the leading steps are seen. The sea-gate depicts carved figures of a tiger, eagle and elephants. The fort is fortified with many bastions, which also have small built-in rooms. The central part of the fort has two granaries and a decrepit building. From the Chor Darwaja, steps lead to the fort. Locations of old palaces in the fort area are inferred from the large number of foundation plinths seen in the fort area. A stone building in the fort precincts has been identified as an ammunition magazine. Fifteen old guns have also been located in the fort.
There are several potable water sources (tanks, ponds and wells) in the fort; however, these dry up in the summer months. There is step well, which has plenty of water.
How to reach:
Mumbai is at a distance of 230 kilometres (140 mi) from Harnai. Harnai, located in a rocky bay, has an all-weather road that connects to Dapoli and Khed. The road distances to other nearby forts and towns are: Bankot-Anjarle-Harnai: 23 kilometres (14 mi); Dapoli-Harnai: 16 kilometres (9.9 mi); and Anjarle-Harnai: 7 kilometres (4.3 mi). The only approach to the fort is by boats, from Harnai. Boats have to be arranged through the local fishermen. It is a port of call for coastal steamers and thrives on fishing as a major marketing centre. The nearest railway station on the Konkan Railway of the Indian Railways is at Khed. The nearest airport is at Mumbai.
Related Video (Suvarnadurg Fort ):
Best time to visit:
The general climate on the west coast, which is where the Suvarnadurg is located, could be categorised as hot and humid. The temperatures vary from a maximum of 38 °C (100 °F) in summer to a low of 24 °C (75 °F) in winter. South West Monsoon controls the precipitation on the west coast, which lasts from June to September, and rainfall is in the range of 140–170 centimeters.
Best time to visit the fort is all year round. But avoid visiting this fort during high tides & heavy rainy season. Weather generally remains clear during the months of November to May. | <urn:uuid:f529921a-9359-4e31-8d38-a7ce5841e9ea> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.fortsmaharashtra.com/suvarnadurg-fort/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00026.warc.gz | en | 0.981632 | 2,593 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
0.1472199261188507,
0.5538837909698486,
0.07362327724695206,
0.1047791987657547,
0.017258526757359505,
0.011749162338674068,
0.204484760761261,
0.42237478494644165,
-0.20317506790161133,
-0.2597544193267822,
0.3281942307949066,
-0.9604003429412842,
-0.0446120947599411,
0.6276454329490662,
... | 9 | |Location:||Near Harnai in Konkan, along the West Coast of India|
is a fort that is located between Mumbai and Goa on a small island in the Arabian Sea, near Harnai in Konkan, along the West Coast of India, in the Indian state of Maharashtra. The fort also includes another small land fort called the Kanakadurga at the base of headland of Harnai port on the coast. Building of the fort is credited to Shivaji Maharaj, founder of the Maratha Empire, in 1660. Subsequently, Shivaji, other Peshwas and the Angres further fortified the forts for defence purposes.
The literal meaning of Suvanadurga is “Golden Fort” as it was considered as the pride or the “feather in the golden cap of Marathas”. Built for the Maratha Navy for defence purposes, the fort also had a ship-building facility. The basic objective of establishing the fort was to counter enemy attacks, mainly by the colonialists of Europe and also by the local chieftains.
In the past, the land fort and the sea fort were connected by a tunnel, but this is now defunct. The present approach to the sea fort is only by boats from the Harnai port on the headland. It is a protected monument.
The fort was captured by Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in 1660 by defeating Ali Adil Shah II (1656–1672). Kanhoji Angre (1667–1729), popularly known as “Samudratla Shivaji” (Shivaji of the sea) was the Koli Admiral of the Maratha Navy; in 1696, Kanhoji’s naval fleet was stationed here. However, the fort was formally handed over to Kanhoji in 1713 by Shahu Raja.
Kanhoji Angre who was also known as Angria was appointed in 1698 as Admiral of the Maratha Naval Fleet by the Peshwas. He had complete control over the west coast, from Bombay to Vengurla, except for the fort of Janjira, which remained with the Siddis (for 200 years). Angre was considered to be a mercenary who attacked defenceless towns and also traders. He even attacked the East Indian Company’s ship in 1702 and refused to release the six British captives. He severed his relations with the Peshwas in 1704 and was called “the Rebel Independent of the Raja Shivaji”. In spite of warning by the British that he should not attack or capture British ships, he captured their ships in 1707. He had a free run of the west coast from Surat to Dabol and captured all private vessels. When Shivaji’s grandson was imprisoned, Kanhoji got his opportunity to stake his claim for independence. In 1713, he had captured Peshwa’s general Bhairu, which forced the Peshwa general Balaji Rao (Commander-in-Chief of the Maratha forces) to come to an agreement with him. For maintaining “fealty” with the Sataras (Chatrapati Shivaji’s family stronghold), he was granted 26 forts and its dependent villages, which included Suvarnadurg. In subsequent years, these forts became strongholds for piracy. The pejorative pirate was used in British records, but the correspondence between the English and Maratha Navy suggests more a communication between the Maratha state and a trading company without permits, the English East India Company. With the English being the transgressors ( pirates). Simon Leyton writes: “It is now generally accepted by historians that Kanhoji [Angria], at least, was not a pirate in any sense of the word; rather, he is more properly thought of as the ‘Admiral’ of the Marathas”—an Indian Kingdom—”who for many years confronted European attempts to claim navigational rights over coastal shipping lanes”. With his new ordered control, Kanhoji held complete control over a coast line stretching over a coast length of 240 miles (390 km) and 40 miles (64 km) width extending from Bombay (now Mumbai) to Vengurla to the south. He later entered into an agreement with the British, which went against him as the British flouted all terms with him. Humiliated by this treatment by the British he decided to attack them. He entered into an alliance with the Raja of Satara, equipped his vessels and manned them by the best crew consisting of Dutchmen. He also employed a Jamaican pirate as his chief gunner. Many European pirate forces had also joined his army after the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713–14 (comprising a series of individual peace treaties among several European states including England, France and Spain, among others). With this force, he terrorized the East India Company.
Kanhoji relentlessly carried on his fight against the British and in 1721 joined hands with the Portuguese; when 33 British soldiers were killed, 21 wounded and many ammunition and field guns were seized by the Marathas. In 1722, when Kanhoji was to attack the English factory at Karwar, in spite of the British sending their ships ‘Victoria’ and the ‘Revenge’ to attack Kanhoji’s forces, he was not cowed down; even though his Dutch Commander was killed and his 16 ships were captured. However, he died on 4 June 1729, an unvanquished hero for 31 years against all foreign attacks. It is said that “Had he been in England, like Drake, he would have been knighted and lionised as a national hero, but in India he died merely as an independent ruler who never permitted any foreign ruler to filch even a part of his precious little dominion”.
He had two legitimate and two illegitimate sons, and Sambaji his legitimate son was given control of Suvarnadurg. Following the death of one of the brothers in 1734, there were intense fights and acts of piracy continued. In spite of attacks by the British in 1732, Sambaji was back in Suvarnadurg unharmed. However, by 1749, Tulaji, the step brother of Sambaji, had become very powerful and his ships sailed unharmed, even much bolder than what his father Kanhoji had achieved. This situation forced the Peshwas to join hands with the British to suppress Tulaji. In 1755, they jointly attacked Tulaji’s stronghold of Suvarnadurg and took control of the fort within 48 hours. Suvarnadurg was then given to the Peshwas that was considered a humiliating surrender by the Peshwas to the British.
Subsequent to Kanhoji’s demise, Tulaji Angre took charge of Suvarnadurg and it became the seat of his power. However, he fell foul of the Peshwas. He was considered arrogant. In the war with Tulaji, Peshwas were supported by the British. The joint siege of the fort lasted from 25 March to 2 April 1755. On 12 April 1755, Commodore James captured the fort and formally handed it over to the Peshwas. However, this support proved detrimental to the Peshwas, as the British extracted, as a reward, control over the Bankot fort but only allowed the Peshwas to have control over the Suvarnadurg. In 1802, Bajirav Peshwa under attack by the Holkars was trying to take refuge in this fort but had to flee to Vasai as he was chased to the fort by the Holkars. In 1818, Captain William of the British army attacked the fort and took full control of it on 4 December 1818. Soon thereafter the other forts also came under British control. The fort was thus under the control of the Peshwas till 1818. The fort has witnessed a scene of “triumph and tragedy, of the display of heroic courage and abject cowardice.”
The Angrias are also credited with not only strengthening the fort but also establishing the ship building yard at Suvanadurg and creating a large fleet of warships to secure the west coast, the Konkan coast, from attack from the British, French, Dutch and Portuguese colonialists. It is also inferred that the small forts (Guva, Kanakadurga, Bankot fort, Fattegad fort and Gova fort) were primarily built by Kanhoji Angre to defend Suvarnadurg from any enemy attack from the land route.
Places to Visit on Fort:
Suvarnadurg fort is located on a rocky island in the Arabian Sea on the west coast. It is spread over an area of 8 acres (3.2 ha) and is about 1 mile (1.6 km) from the main land. As is common in other similar forts, it is encircled by a dry moat. It tapers towards the southern direction from where the Kanakadurga fort is clearly visible. The walls have been mostly cut out of the rock exposures on the island. However, some part of the fort walls are built with large stone blocks of 10–12 feet (3.0–3.7 m) square. It has two entrances or gates, known as the ‘Mahadarwaja’ (big gate) also called the postern wall (above the high tide level) on the east and ‘Chor Darwaja’ on the west; the former gate faces the land and the latter faces the sea. The fort comes into sight only at very close quarters. The fort can be approached only during the low tide condition when it is also easier to walk in the precincts of the fort. The present entry from the main east gate is blocked by thorny bushes but can be accessed from a narrow entry, locally known as the devdis. At the main entry, carvings of a Hanuman carved on the wall and a carved turtle on one of the leading steps are seen. The sea-gate depicts carved figures of a tiger, eagle and elephants. The fort is fortified with many bastions, which also have small built-in rooms. The central part of the fort has two granaries and a decrepit building. From the Chor Darwaja, steps lead to the fort. Locations of old palaces in the fort area are inferred from the large number of foundation plinths seen in the fort area. A stone building in the fort precincts has been identified as an ammunition magazine. Fifteen old guns have also been located in the fort.
There are several potable water sources (tanks, ponds and wells) in the fort; however, these dry up in the summer months. There is step well, which has plenty of water.
How to reach:
Mumbai is at a distance of 230 kilometres (140 mi) from Harnai. Harnai, located in a rocky bay, has an all-weather road that connects to Dapoli and Khed. The road distances to other nearby forts and towns are: Bankot-Anjarle-Harnai: 23 kilometres (14 mi); Dapoli-Harnai: 16 kilometres (9.9 mi); and Anjarle-Harnai: 7 kilometres (4.3 mi). The only approach to the fort is by boats, from Harnai. Boats have to be arranged through the local fishermen. It is a port of call for coastal steamers and thrives on fishing as a major marketing centre. The nearest railway station on the Konkan Railway of the Indian Railways is at Khed. The nearest airport is at Mumbai.
Related Video (Suvarnadurg Fort ):
Best time to visit:
The general climate on the west coast, which is where the Suvarnadurg is located, could be categorised as hot and humid. The temperatures vary from a maximum of 38 °C (100 °F) in summer to a low of 24 °C (75 °F) in winter. South West Monsoon controls the precipitation on the west coast, which lasts from June to September, and rainfall is in the range of 140–170 centimeters.
Best time to visit the fort is all year round. But avoid visiting this fort during high tides & heavy rainy season. Weather generally remains clear during the months of November to May. | 2,663 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The technique of Bricklaying has been used by humans for at least 6,000 years. Structures such as the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China have been built using the method of bricklaying. Early examples of brickwork have been found back through history as far as the Bronze Age. This clearly shows that bricklaying has been used by the early people as a part of civilizing their era.
Let’s start at the beginning:
The earliest type of brick was dried brick. Made from earth or mud, they were dried until they were strong enough to use. Many bricks that have been discovered date before 7500 BC. Other bricks date between 7000 and 6395 BC. Ceramic or fired brick was used as early as 3000 BC. Bricklaying and stone masonry have been known to be used by the early Egyptians during the construction of their early structures such as the Pyramids. However, it was the Romans who brought masonry to other parts of Europe. Since then, bricklaying has improved, despite it’s temporary decline due to the fall of the Roman Empire.
Thankfully, there was a huge increase in construction of cathedrals and buildings using bricks from the 10th up to the 17th centuries. During the 17th century, the method of bricklaying became popular. It was used to restore building after their destruction during the Great Fire of London. In addition to this, bricklaying was also popular in China. The Great Wall of China is a great example of bricklaying and is considered as one of the wonders of the world.
Moreover, the Ancient Incas also used bricklaying and stone masonry for construction, they had perfected it by the 12th century.
The process of hand-making bricklaying lasted until the 18th century. Machines were introduced in the 19th century to help bricklayers, and after a while mechanical methods had almost replaced ancient ones. This shows how much history bricklaying has in our world. It is still used today as a way of constructing buildings. Therefore, it is no surprise that bricks are one of the most popular materials used today. | <urn:uuid:8c34b985-3099-44fd-b6f3-6912385acbc8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://dmbmasonry.co.uk/history-of-bricklaying | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250609478.50/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123071220-20200123100220-00154.warc.gz | en | 0.990046 | 441 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.2520369291305542,
0.4890851378440857,
0.38713395595550537,
-0.08728715032339096,
-0.40899285674095154,
0.11595848947763443,
-0.2702476680278778,
0.012496758252382278,
-0.08531614392995834,
0.06864587962627411,
0.10028242319822311,
-0.3368995189666748,
-0.2816184461116791,
0.374249428510... | 1 | The technique of Bricklaying has been used by humans for at least 6,000 years. Structures such as the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China have been built using the method of bricklaying. Early examples of brickwork have been found back through history as far as the Bronze Age. This clearly shows that bricklaying has been used by the early people as a part of civilizing their era.
Let’s start at the beginning:
The earliest type of brick was dried brick. Made from earth or mud, they were dried until they were strong enough to use. Many bricks that have been discovered date before 7500 BC. Other bricks date between 7000 and 6395 BC. Ceramic or fired brick was used as early as 3000 BC. Bricklaying and stone masonry have been known to be used by the early Egyptians during the construction of their early structures such as the Pyramids. However, it was the Romans who brought masonry to other parts of Europe. Since then, bricklaying has improved, despite it’s temporary decline due to the fall of the Roman Empire.
Thankfully, there was a huge increase in construction of cathedrals and buildings using bricks from the 10th up to the 17th centuries. During the 17th century, the method of bricklaying became popular. It was used to restore building after their destruction during the Great Fire of London. In addition to this, bricklaying was also popular in China. The Great Wall of China is a great example of bricklaying and is considered as one of the wonders of the world.
Moreover, the Ancient Incas also used bricklaying and stone masonry for construction, they had perfected it by the 12th century.
The process of hand-making bricklaying lasted until the 18th century. Machines were introduced in the 19th century to help bricklayers, and after a while mechanical methods had almost replaced ancient ones. This shows how much history bricklaying has in our world. It is still used today as a way of constructing buildings. Therefore, it is no surprise that bricks are one of the most popular materials used today. | 459 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Across north-central New Mexico and Arizona, along the line of Route 66, now Interstate 40, there first ran a little-known wagon trail called Beale's Wagon Road, after Edward F. Beale, who surveyed it for the War Department in 1857. This survey became famous for employing camels. Not so well known is the fate of the first emigrants who the next year attempted to follow its tracks. The government considered the 1857 exploration a success and the road it opened a promising alternative route to California but expected such things as military posts and developed water supplies to be needed before it was ready for regular travel. Army representatives in New Mexico were more enthusiastic.
In 1858 there was a need for an alternative. Emigrants avoided the main California Trail because of a U.S. Army expedition to subdue Mormons in Utah. The Southern Route ran through Apache territory, was difficult for the army to guard, and was long. When a party of Missouri and Iowa emigrants known as the Rose-Baley wagon train arrived in Albuquerque, they were encouraged to be the first to try the new Beale road. Their journey became a rolling disaster. Beale's trail was more difficult to follow than expected; water sources and feed for livestock harder to find. Indians along the way had been described as peaceful, but the Hualapais persistently harassed the emigrants and shot their stock, and when the wagon train finally reached the Colorado River, a large party of Mojaves attacked them. Several of the emigrants were killed, and the remainder began a difficult retreat to Albuquerque. Their flight, with wounded companions and reduced supplies, became ever more arduous. Along the way they met other emigrant parties and convinced them to join the increasingly disorderly and distressed return journey.
Charles Baley tells this dramatic story and discusses its aftermath, for the emigrants, for Beale's Wagon Road, and for the Mojaves, against whom some of the emigrants pressed legal claims with the federal government. | <urn:uuid:c6c7cad3-51e1-4321-8703-4fdd481f0841> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.bibliovault.org/BV.book.epl?ISBN=9780874214376 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00515.warc.gz | en | 0.980555 | 408 | 3.75 | 4 | [
-0.021772116422653198,
-0.07166330516338348,
0.6018149256706238,
0.420105516910553,
-0.07914146780967712,
0.13753366470336914,
-0.19849617779254913,
0.3213021159172058,
-0.47171494364738464,
-0.11422496289014816,
0.08580908924341202,
0.10286220163106918,
-0.00343690044246614,
0.12261775135... | 4 | Across north-central New Mexico and Arizona, along the line of Route 66, now Interstate 40, there first ran a little-known wagon trail called Beale's Wagon Road, after Edward F. Beale, who surveyed it for the War Department in 1857. This survey became famous for employing camels. Not so well known is the fate of the first emigrants who the next year attempted to follow its tracks. The government considered the 1857 exploration a success and the road it opened a promising alternative route to California but expected such things as military posts and developed water supplies to be needed before it was ready for regular travel. Army representatives in New Mexico were more enthusiastic.
In 1858 there was a need for an alternative. Emigrants avoided the main California Trail because of a U.S. Army expedition to subdue Mormons in Utah. The Southern Route ran through Apache territory, was difficult for the army to guard, and was long. When a party of Missouri and Iowa emigrants known as the Rose-Baley wagon train arrived in Albuquerque, they were encouraged to be the first to try the new Beale road. Their journey became a rolling disaster. Beale's trail was more difficult to follow than expected; water sources and feed for livestock harder to find. Indians along the way had been described as peaceful, but the Hualapais persistently harassed the emigrants and shot their stock, and when the wagon train finally reached the Colorado River, a large party of Mojaves attacked them. Several of the emigrants were killed, and the remainder began a difficult retreat to Albuquerque. Their flight, with wounded companions and reduced supplies, became ever more arduous. Along the way they met other emigrant parties and convinced them to join the increasingly disorderly and distressed return journey.
Charles Baley tells this dramatic story and discusses its aftermath, for the emigrants, for Beale's Wagon Road, and for the Mojaves, against whom some of the emigrants pressed legal claims with the federal government. | 417 | ENGLISH | 1 |
NCERT Solutions for Class 10 English Chapter 6 - August 1944
English is a widely used language across the world. To improve your English communication skills, the CBSE Class 10 syllabus focuses on English Grammar, English Comprehension and English Composition. There are several reading and writing exercises on TopperLearning to study the topics present in the CBSE Class 10 English syllabus.
We make it easy for you to understand English grammar concepts such as parts of speech, idioms, prepositions, determiners, etc. If you are visual learner, you can watch CBSE Class 10 English videos to understand the concepts. Also, you can score more by solving the CBSE Class 10 English Sample papers or learning from our CBSE Class 10 English notes.
Answering the questions in the CBSE Board Class 10 exams can be challenging for you. To support you in your studies, we provide step-by-step explanations for CBSE Class 10 English textbook questions. Our CBSE Class 10 English solutions are prepared by qualified academic experts. So, get started without stress and remember, we are there to help you score more marks.
TopperLearning provides study materials for CBSE Class 10 English which will help you to score more marks in the examination. Students can find study resources like highly interactive video lessons, important question banks, sample papers, past year question papers and many more fun learning sessions which will help them crack the examination with ease.
Our study materials for CBSE Class 10 English are created by subject experts and teachers of English. Our video lessons will help you to clear all your concepts. Apart from all these resources, we provide free NCERT textbook solutions to our CBSE Class 10 students. For revision and practise, you can refer to our sample papers. At TopperLearning, we believe in making study materials fun and compelling, so that students get a strong grip on their studies.
Chapter 6 - August 1944 Exercise 1 August
Anne says that 'contradictions' is a word which has two meanings. One is seen on the outside when a person encounters or has conflicts with others, and the other a person experiences within himself, like a conflict with his own conscience. Anne says that sadly both meanings apply to her life. However, only the former is visible to all. She says that she has been a cheerful and fun-loving unoffended girl all along. One who can crack a joke on anything and never takes life seriously. However, this is only one part of herself. Anne criticises this part by calling it a giddy clown, a simple diversion and a temporary amusement. She says that this side is no comparison for her much better, deeper and purer self. She says that her outer self is like a film character which can entertain people just for a while but does not have any true values. Her criticism of herself indicates that she was not happy with the show that she put up for others. She wanted to be a better person but was not able to achieve it. It was extremely difficult for her to nurture her inner self while being surrounded by people who did not understand it. So, she used her bold outer self as a defence mechanism to shell the pure voice within.
Anne, from a very young age, had been preparing herself for adulthood. She believed that she had seen and lived through much more than any average girl of her age might have. Added to his was her love for learning. She was a well-read girl and understood things much better than many adults. She, therefore, wanted to be seen and acknowledged as an adult. This goal could not be achieved if she let her inner self surface. Although her strength and her excellence in work came from her inner self, Anne knew that she could not risk bringing it out and subjecting it to the mockery of others. Anne called this side frail and sensitive and writes that it was not ready to face the world just yet. Anne feared to reveal this side before people because she knew that it would be ridiculed. Although Anne's outer self was used to such treatment, she knew that her inner self would not be able to bear it and would shrivel up and be lost forever. So, Anne let it surface only when she was absolutely alone and received immense happiness and hope from it.
Anne writes that she had never let her true self be seen by anyone. Only her outer superfluous self was visible to people and therefore they kept names for her. Her outer self took these comments lightly and shrugged them off, but her inner self was hurt every time she was called by these names. Her inner self constantly tried to correct her and change her behaviour but her outer self always silenced her inner voice. She knew that if she listened to her inner voice and became like it, people would not believe her and would scold her for being pretentious. At times, when she did try to turn out her inner self and quietly sat thinking over something, she was questioned and probed by everyone, especially by her family. They all set off to figure out what was the matter with her. When nothing was found, she would be scolded for being in a bad mood. She could not keep up with all this and would eventually snap and push her innocent side deep within. She ends this entry by wishing for a world where no one else but herself existed. Her wish reflects a deep desire to live an independent life on her own terms. A life where there is no one to judge or instruct her.
Why choose TopperLearning’s CBSE Class 10 study materials?
We provide CBSE Class 10 Chapter-wise English lesson explanation as per the latest CBSE syllabus. For each subject, we have 2000+ questions (with answers) and 10+ sample papers to support you with your exam preparations.
Also, we respond to doubts posted in our forum within 24 hours. Our MIQs and revision notes are perfect for last-minute revisions. With our support, you can feel at ease and work successfully towards your goal of becoming a CBSE topper.
Kindly Sign up for a personalised experience
- Ask Study Doubts
- Sample Papers
- Past Year Papers
- Textbook Solutions
Verify mobile number
Enter the OTP sent to your number | <urn:uuid:a3615154-a94e-4b4e-b000-59cf8d4ae67c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.topperlearning.com/ncert-solutions/cbse-class-10-english/english-diary-of-a-young-girl/august-1944 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00228.warc.gz | en | 0.981019 | 1,277 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
-0.4419979453086853,
0.11879847198724747,
0.09137552976608276,
-0.6124559640884399,
-0.18996933102607727,
-0.008712820708751678,
0.2857869565486908,
0.36467862129211426,
0.11379356682300568,
-0.3623086214065552,
-0.0754048079252243,
-0.15378911793231964,
0.06725460290908813,
0.151203975081... | 1 | NCERT Solutions for Class 10 English Chapter 6 - August 1944
English is a widely used language across the world. To improve your English communication skills, the CBSE Class 10 syllabus focuses on English Grammar, English Comprehension and English Composition. There are several reading and writing exercises on TopperLearning to study the topics present in the CBSE Class 10 English syllabus.
We make it easy for you to understand English grammar concepts such as parts of speech, idioms, prepositions, determiners, etc. If you are visual learner, you can watch CBSE Class 10 English videos to understand the concepts. Also, you can score more by solving the CBSE Class 10 English Sample papers or learning from our CBSE Class 10 English notes.
Answering the questions in the CBSE Board Class 10 exams can be challenging for you. To support you in your studies, we provide step-by-step explanations for CBSE Class 10 English textbook questions. Our CBSE Class 10 English solutions are prepared by qualified academic experts. So, get started without stress and remember, we are there to help you score more marks.
TopperLearning provides study materials for CBSE Class 10 English which will help you to score more marks in the examination. Students can find study resources like highly interactive video lessons, important question banks, sample papers, past year question papers and many more fun learning sessions which will help them crack the examination with ease.
Our study materials for CBSE Class 10 English are created by subject experts and teachers of English. Our video lessons will help you to clear all your concepts. Apart from all these resources, we provide free NCERT textbook solutions to our CBSE Class 10 students. For revision and practise, you can refer to our sample papers. At TopperLearning, we believe in making study materials fun and compelling, so that students get a strong grip on their studies.
Chapter 6 - August 1944 Exercise 1 August
Anne says that 'contradictions' is a word which has two meanings. One is seen on the outside when a person encounters or has conflicts with others, and the other a person experiences within himself, like a conflict with his own conscience. Anne says that sadly both meanings apply to her life. However, only the former is visible to all. She says that she has been a cheerful and fun-loving unoffended girl all along. One who can crack a joke on anything and never takes life seriously. However, this is only one part of herself. Anne criticises this part by calling it a giddy clown, a simple diversion and a temporary amusement. She says that this side is no comparison for her much better, deeper and purer self. She says that her outer self is like a film character which can entertain people just for a while but does not have any true values. Her criticism of herself indicates that she was not happy with the show that she put up for others. She wanted to be a better person but was not able to achieve it. It was extremely difficult for her to nurture her inner self while being surrounded by people who did not understand it. So, she used her bold outer self as a defence mechanism to shell the pure voice within.
Anne, from a very young age, had been preparing herself for adulthood. She believed that she had seen and lived through much more than any average girl of her age might have. Added to his was her love for learning. She was a well-read girl and understood things much better than many adults. She, therefore, wanted to be seen and acknowledged as an adult. This goal could not be achieved if she let her inner self surface. Although her strength and her excellence in work came from her inner self, Anne knew that she could not risk bringing it out and subjecting it to the mockery of others. Anne called this side frail and sensitive and writes that it was not ready to face the world just yet. Anne feared to reveal this side before people because she knew that it would be ridiculed. Although Anne's outer self was used to such treatment, she knew that her inner self would not be able to bear it and would shrivel up and be lost forever. So, Anne let it surface only when she was absolutely alone and received immense happiness and hope from it.
Anne writes that she had never let her true self be seen by anyone. Only her outer superfluous self was visible to people and therefore they kept names for her. Her outer self took these comments lightly and shrugged them off, but her inner self was hurt every time she was called by these names. Her inner self constantly tried to correct her and change her behaviour but her outer self always silenced her inner voice. She knew that if she listened to her inner voice and became like it, people would not believe her and would scold her for being pretentious. At times, when she did try to turn out her inner self and quietly sat thinking over something, she was questioned and probed by everyone, especially by her family. They all set off to figure out what was the matter with her. When nothing was found, she would be scolded for being in a bad mood. She could not keep up with all this and would eventually snap and push her innocent side deep within. She ends this entry by wishing for a world where no one else but herself existed. Her wish reflects a deep desire to live an independent life on her own terms. A life where there is no one to judge or instruct her.
Why choose TopperLearning’s CBSE Class 10 study materials?
We provide CBSE Class 10 Chapter-wise English lesson explanation as per the latest CBSE syllabus. For each subject, we have 2000+ questions (with answers) and 10+ sample papers to support you with your exam preparations.
Also, we respond to doubts posted in our forum within 24 hours. Our MIQs and revision notes are perfect for last-minute revisions. With our support, you can feel at ease and work successfully towards your goal of becoming a CBSE topper.
Kindly Sign up for a personalised experience
- Ask Study Doubts
- Sample Papers
- Past Year Papers
- Textbook Solutions
Verify mobile number
Enter the OTP sent to your number | 1,299 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Today, William Blake is a famous person who is said to have contributed a lot in the history of visual arts and poetry. He is said to have greatly contributed to English poetry in the romantic age. His literal works makes him the greatest artist in Britain. Blake was a famous artist who was bold enough to express his ideas and print his own books. During his time, the New Jerusalem church believed that the Newtonian science was just a superstition which had no basis. This made his career life to be difficult as no one ever believed him. He was mocked by many people just because of the fact that they did not understand him. He was born in Soho, a town in London.
First-Class Online Research Paper Writing Service
- Your research paper is written by a PhD professor
- Your requirements and targets are always met
- You are able to control the progress of your writing assignment
- You get a chance to become an excellent student!
Blake was a son to James Blake who was a hosier and deeply against the courts of London. He believed that the courts were not fair in making of judgments and they were not supposed to be there. Initially, Blake did not go to school but was educated by his mother Catherine Wright. She had married Blake’s father as a second husband after her husband died in the year 1751. According to his critics, Blake hated being ruled and did not want to follow laws and this was a major reason why his father did not want to send him to school. It is said that Blake started seeing supernatural people when he was still young. He saw Angel Gabriel, and some monks whom he would talk to and this made him very different from all other children of his age.
In the year 1767, Blake was admitted to Henry Pars’ drawing school. He would only return to his home only on Sundays since all the other days were spent at work with James Basire who was a famous engraver. Blake was later transferred to the royal academy school in London but after sometime, he was expelled due to lack of respect for the school’s principal Mr. Joshua Reynolds. This was his turning point as he started to make engravings which he sold to magazine companies. This became part of him and arts was his only source of income. In 1782, Blake married Ms. Catherine Boucher. Blake can be seen as a good teacher in the way he transformed Catherine to be a painter and an expert in the use of the printing press machine. This made Catherine acquire a higher status because apart from being his wife, she acquired a new role as Blake’s partner.
The most important people in the life of Blake were: Mr. Fuseli, Reverend A.S. Mathew, William Godwin, John Flaxman, and Elizabeth Montagu. These are the people who can be said to have shaped the life of Blake. All the fame he earned was linked to these people. They were the only people who believed in him, understood him, and stood by him at all times. Mr. Swedenborg was another person who really influenced Blake’s life through his written literature. He was a Swedish philosopher who lived in London until his death in 1772.
Blak interest in poetry sprung up when he was about 12 years but was negatively impacted by the fact that he was introduced to manual works instead of literature. In 1783, Blake released his first poetry book referred to as Poetical sketches, Songs of experience, and later Songs of experience in the year 1794. One of the most famous works of Blake is a poem named The Tyger. In this poem, Blake was not expressing his current opinions and this made him to feel as an outsider, as a man living in a society he did not belong. He was not against the French revolutions like many poets of the time were, but he disliked the moments of terror caused by the Frenchmen and Americans. Blake’s engraving, The marriage of heaven and hell, expresses his rebellion towards social norms which were in place in 1790. According to his wife, Blake lived in a dream world and he never looked onto life like other people. ‘He lived in paradise’. Many other people referred to Blake as a mad person who was harmless to the society. Blake in his life seemed only to acknowledge Henry Fuseli who at most times did not like his works. Fuseli always found Blake useful when he had an engraving to be done. Blake did not help Fuseli for too long as they parted ways by the year 1803.
Blake commenced his work on ` prophetic books’ which reflected on the author`s concern regarding the soul`s struggle to free its natural energies from reason and organized religion. Blake was then taken under the arm of William Hayley also a poet to Felpham where he rented a cottage. Blake`s support for Milton`s book titled: A Poem in two books, to justify the ways of god to men, landed him in trouble after a disagreement with Private John Scofield. He was charged with treason in 1803 and was later acquitted. Blake`s creativity continued flourishing and he went on to write more poems, engravings and aphorisms. He was working on his version of Canterbury Pilgrims when he produced The four zaos which were long epic poems revived in 1889 and published in 1893 under the writings of William Blake.
The Ancients are said to be Blakes` fans in his old age and shared most of his ideals. Blake can be said to have been imaginative and created his own unique style that went beyond people`s expectations during those times. He could not be termed as an amiable person and is accused of failing to get along even with his intimate circle of friends. Blake`s finances were not as successful as his works. He survived on meager commissions throughout his life. Besides his works he can also be credited for developing a new method called illuminated printing which was an improvement on the previous methods. He did not live in financial abundance but he was not indebted to anyone when he died in 1827.
Despite the fact that Blake is so famous today, most of his works belongs to the past; 18th century was only the time when engravings would only be done on copper plates. Engraving on copper plate involves too much work and it is also time consuming. Intaglio engraving is a type of printing where by words is engraved onto a surface. This kind of printing process cannot work well with ecommerce services since one can’t keep up with the demand for the same. This clearly points out why Blake doesn’t seem to have made substantial amount of money from his work. If Blake had adopted better ways of printing, he would have made a lot of money. This also points to why Blake died a poor man. Working on templates that took so much time to complete was really a waste on him.
In his life Blake did not associate himself with any political party. He used his poems to show his revolt towards the ruling class. He believed that those in power always abused their offices. The only things that Blake seemed interested were the effects of the revolution and the wars between kingdoms. This is clearly indicated in his poems where he seems to be against the revolutions that were led by the Frenchmen and the American. Blake was also against slavery and instead, he preached about ‘free love’ in his poems. Critically Blake can be seen as the first person to start rebellions against the rulers in the 18th century.
Blake is seen to have implanted the seed of ‘free love’ movement which advocated for removal of marriage restriction that had been placed by the church of the 18th century. According to this movement, marriage was a form of slavery and it urged the state to remove restrictions on homosexuality, adultery, and use of birth control methods. According to Wollstonecraft, marriage was some form of state accepted prostitution. Blake also believed that chastity was not a virtue which was clearly shown when his wife was unable to bear children and he insisted on marrying another wife. This shows the extent to which he was against some religious teachings of the 18th century. In spite of all the attacks he made in his poems against the religions of his days, he was not fully against the religion per se. He still believed in some supernatural powers. In his poem, The everlasting Gospel, he portrays a figure, Jesus, who is a bridge between divinity and humanity. His mythologies seem to mix the bible teachings and a Greek myth which tries to explain the everlasting gospel.
Today William Blake is appreciated for his great works which were not given their due worth during his times. He was a talented artist who did not have a chance to make much out of his life. May be if he had lived in the 21st century, his fortunes would have different. He was a man who stood by what he felt was right even though there were many people against him. Blake will always be remembered by the generations to come for his artistic works.
Most popular orders | <urn:uuid:eef03faf-6d7a-4085-a44d-ebeeae873fd6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://essaysexperts.com/essays/literature/william-blake-s-poetry.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00358.warc.gz | en | 0.995467 | 1,861 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.037466395646333694,
0.16120387613773346,
0.31188684701919556,
-0.027780279517173767,
-0.3148176670074463,
-0.24838846921920776,
0.49547749757766724,
0.051407456398010254,
-0.019895605742931366,
0.06183546409010887,
-0.018220677971839905,
-0.23072120547294617,
0.17974363267421722,
0.1851... | 1 | Today, William Blake is a famous person who is said to have contributed a lot in the history of visual arts and poetry. He is said to have greatly contributed to English poetry in the romantic age. His literal works makes him the greatest artist in Britain. Blake was a famous artist who was bold enough to express his ideas and print his own books. During his time, the New Jerusalem church believed that the Newtonian science was just a superstition which had no basis. This made his career life to be difficult as no one ever believed him. He was mocked by many people just because of the fact that they did not understand him. He was born in Soho, a town in London.
First-Class Online Research Paper Writing Service
- Your research paper is written by a PhD professor
- Your requirements and targets are always met
- You are able to control the progress of your writing assignment
- You get a chance to become an excellent student!
Blake was a son to James Blake who was a hosier and deeply against the courts of London. He believed that the courts were not fair in making of judgments and they were not supposed to be there. Initially, Blake did not go to school but was educated by his mother Catherine Wright. She had married Blake’s father as a second husband after her husband died in the year 1751. According to his critics, Blake hated being ruled and did not want to follow laws and this was a major reason why his father did not want to send him to school. It is said that Blake started seeing supernatural people when he was still young. He saw Angel Gabriel, and some monks whom he would talk to and this made him very different from all other children of his age.
In the year 1767, Blake was admitted to Henry Pars’ drawing school. He would only return to his home only on Sundays since all the other days were spent at work with James Basire who was a famous engraver. Blake was later transferred to the royal academy school in London but after sometime, he was expelled due to lack of respect for the school’s principal Mr. Joshua Reynolds. This was his turning point as he started to make engravings which he sold to magazine companies. This became part of him and arts was his only source of income. In 1782, Blake married Ms. Catherine Boucher. Blake can be seen as a good teacher in the way he transformed Catherine to be a painter and an expert in the use of the printing press machine. This made Catherine acquire a higher status because apart from being his wife, she acquired a new role as Blake’s partner.
The most important people in the life of Blake were: Mr. Fuseli, Reverend A.S. Mathew, William Godwin, John Flaxman, and Elizabeth Montagu. These are the people who can be said to have shaped the life of Blake. All the fame he earned was linked to these people. They were the only people who believed in him, understood him, and stood by him at all times. Mr. Swedenborg was another person who really influenced Blake’s life through his written literature. He was a Swedish philosopher who lived in London until his death in 1772.
Blak interest in poetry sprung up when he was about 12 years but was negatively impacted by the fact that he was introduced to manual works instead of literature. In 1783, Blake released his first poetry book referred to as Poetical sketches, Songs of experience, and later Songs of experience in the year 1794. One of the most famous works of Blake is a poem named The Tyger. In this poem, Blake was not expressing his current opinions and this made him to feel as an outsider, as a man living in a society he did not belong. He was not against the French revolutions like many poets of the time were, but he disliked the moments of terror caused by the Frenchmen and Americans. Blake’s engraving, The marriage of heaven and hell, expresses his rebellion towards social norms which were in place in 1790. According to his wife, Blake lived in a dream world and he never looked onto life like other people. ‘He lived in paradise’. Many other people referred to Blake as a mad person who was harmless to the society. Blake in his life seemed only to acknowledge Henry Fuseli who at most times did not like his works. Fuseli always found Blake useful when he had an engraving to be done. Blake did not help Fuseli for too long as they parted ways by the year 1803.
Blake commenced his work on ` prophetic books’ which reflected on the author`s concern regarding the soul`s struggle to free its natural energies from reason and organized religion. Blake was then taken under the arm of William Hayley also a poet to Felpham where he rented a cottage. Blake`s support for Milton`s book titled: A Poem in two books, to justify the ways of god to men, landed him in trouble after a disagreement with Private John Scofield. He was charged with treason in 1803 and was later acquitted. Blake`s creativity continued flourishing and he went on to write more poems, engravings and aphorisms. He was working on his version of Canterbury Pilgrims when he produced The four zaos which were long epic poems revived in 1889 and published in 1893 under the writings of William Blake.
The Ancients are said to be Blakes` fans in his old age and shared most of his ideals. Blake can be said to have been imaginative and created his own unique style that went beyond people`s expectations during those times. He could not be termed as an amiable person and is accused of failing to get along even with his intimate circle of friends. Blake`s finances were not as successful as his works. He survived on meager commissions throughout his life. Besides his works he can also be credited for developing a new method called illuminated printing which was an improvement on the previous methods. He did not live in financial abundance but he was not indebted to anyone when he died in 1827.
Despite the fact that Blake is so famous today, most of his works belongs to the past; 18th century was only the time when engravings would only be done on copper plates. Engraving on copper plate involves too much work and it is also time consuming. Intaglio engraving is a type of printing where by words is engraved onto a surface. This kind of printing process cannot work well with ecommerce services since one can’t keep up with the demand for the same. This clearly points out why Blake doesn’t seem to have made substantial amount of money from his work. If Blake had adopted better ways of printing, he would have made a lot of money. This also points to why Blake died a poor man. Working on templates that took so much time to complete was really a waste on him.
In his life Blake did not associate himself with any political party. He used his poems to show his revolt towards the ruling class. He believed that those in power always abused their offices. The only things that Blake seemed interested were the effects of the revolution and the wars between kingdoms. This is clearly indicated in his poems where he seems to be against the revolutions that were led by the Frenchmen and the American. Blake was also against slavery and instead, he preached about ‘free love’ in his poems. Critically Blake can be seen as the first person to start rebellions against the rulers in the 18th century.
Blake is seen to have implanted the seed of ‘free love’ movement which advocated for removal of marriage restriction that had been placed by the church of the 18th century. According to this movement, marriage was a form of slavery and it urged the state to remove restrictions on homosexuality, adultery, and use of birth control methods. According to Wollstonecraft, marriage was some form of state accepted prostitution. Blake also believed that chastity was not a virtue which was clearly shown when his wife was unable to bear children and he insisted on marrying another wife. This shows the extent to which he was against some religious teachings of the 18th century. In spite of all the attacks he made in his poems against the religions of his days, he was not fully against the religion per se. He still believed in some supernatural powers. In his poem, The everlasting Gospel, he portrays a figure, Jesus, who is a bridge between divinity and humanity. His mythologies seem to mix the bible teachings and a Greek myth which tries to explain the everlasting gospel.
Today William Blake is appreciated for his great works which were not given their due worth during his times. He was a talented artist who did not have a chance to make much out of his life. May be if he had lived in the 21st century, his fortunes would have different. He was a man who stood by what he felt was right even though there were many people against him. Blake will always be remembered by the generations to come for his artistic works.
Most popular orders | 1,863 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Bose was a very active participant in the activities of Indian National Congress. He faced many difficulties and hardships for the cause of his countrymen. He was put behind the bars many times. He was an extremist leader. He did not believe in the peaceful methods of Gandhi. He became Indian National Congress President in 1938. He called the people of India to take up arms against the British. But he soon resigned from the president ship of Congress because he felt that Gandhiji objected to his approach of gaining freedom. He founded the Forward Bloc in 1940. He organised the people of India under the banner of Forward Bloc and started violent struggle against the British.
Within no time he became popular among the masses. His growing popularity was a cause of concern for the British. To crush this, he was arrested and put to jail. Even in jail, the cause of freedom kept him active. He made contacts with friends and tried to influence public opinion. During his imprisonment he felt seriously ill. He had to go to Europe for treatment.
When he came back to India, he was again arrested. He went on hunger strike. Fearing his death he was put under house arrest. He was restless to see his country free from foreign rule. He, however, managed to escape Berlin and then Singapore. In Singapore, he formed the Indian National Army (INA). His clarion call ‘Give me blood and I will give you freedom’ encouraged many Indians to join the Indian National Army. A large number of people joined him when he gave call to ‘Dilli Chalo’.
The INA consisted of those military persons who had left the Indian army while fighting against the Japanese on the Burma front. Subhash Chandra Bose went to Japan. He strengthened the INA there. With its help he intensified his fight against the British. But his army was outnumbered by the well- equipped British army. This was a big constraint on the way to his achieving freedom. He had the strength of public support that was eagerly waiting to see their country free. Meanwhile when he was on his way to Japan, his plane crashed. His untimely and unexpected death proved hail to the brimming zeal and hopes to his followers.
Controversy and Subhash Chandra Bose had close relation. This continued even in his death. His death is a great mystery. There are various kinds of stories related to his death. Many inquiry commissions have been set up so far by various governments to find out the real cause of his death, but it cannot be solved. Many people even today believe that he is still alive. He has been kept captive somewhere. Whatever may have been the ultimate fate of this son of soil, he will certainly be remembered as a great nationalist. He completely devoted himself to the cause of countrymen. He gave the slogan of Jai Hind. He is popularly known as Netaji. | <urn:uuid:a1ce1cbe-6df0-4e60-b385-075c9ec1270c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://gemmarketingsolutions.com/essay-on-the-biography-of-an-indian-hero-subhash-chandra-bose/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00531.warc.gz | en | 0.992376 | 589 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.1373876929283142,
0.47324514389038086,
0.06563130021095276,
-0.12549053132534027,
-0.29918670654296875,
0.03736330568790436,
1.1110554933547974,
0.05260808765888214,
-0.05728302150964737,
0.037358470261096954,
0.23671723902225494,
-0.1734914779663086,
0.2718614339828491,
0.5724350810050... | 2 | Bose was a very active participant in the activities of Indian National Congress. He faced many difficulties and hardships for the cause of his countrymen. He was put behind the bars many times. He was an extremist leader. He did not believe in the peaceful methods of Gandhi. He became Indian National Congress President in 1938. He called the people of India to take up arms against the British. But he soon resigned from the president ship of Congress because he felt that Gandhiji objected to his approach of gaining freedom. He founded the Forward Bloc in 1940. He organised the people of India under the banner of Forward Bloc and started violent struggle against the British.
Within no time he became popular among the masses. His growing popularity was a cause of concern for the British. To crush this, he was arrested and put to jail. Even in jail, the cause of freedom kept him active. He made contacts with friends and tried to influence public opinion. During his imprisonment he felt seriously ill. He had to go to Europe for treatment.
When he came back to India, he was again arrested. He went on hunger strike. Fearing his death he was put under house arrest. He was restless to see his country free from foreign rule. He, however, managed to escape Berlin and then Singapore. In Singapore, he formed the Indian National Army (INA). His clarion call ‘Give me blood and I will give you freedom’ encouraged many Indians to join the Indian National Army. A large number of people joined him when he gave call to ‘Dilli Chalo’.
The INA consisted of those military persons who had left the Indian army while fighting against the Japanese on the Burma front. Subhash Chandra Bose went to Japan. He strengthened the INA there. With its help he intensified his fight against the British. But his army was outnumbered by the well- equipped British army. This was a big constraint on the way to his achieving freedom. He had the strength of public support that was eagerly waiting to see their country free. Meanwhile when he was on his way to Japan, his plane crashed. His untimely and unexpected death proved hail to the brimming zeal and hopes to his followers.
Controversy and Subhash Chandra Bose had close relation. This continued even in his death. His death is a great mystery. There are various kinds of stories related to his death. Many inquiry commissions have been set up so far by various governments to find out the real cause of his death, but it cannot be solved. Many people even today believe that he is still alive. He has been kept captive somewhere. Whatever may have been the ultimate fate of this son of soil, he will certainly be remembered as a great nationalist. He completely devoted himself to the cause of countrymen. He gave the slogan of Jai Hind. He is popularly known as Netaji. | 586 | ENGLISH | 1 |
How does a hands-on scientist develop the practical skills he needs?
MATHER: You have to do hands-on stuff. In graduate school, I had to learn something about everything on the instrumentation we did there. The other scientists I worked with on COBE did the same. They built balloon payloads; they built laboratory hardware; they sawed, drilled, and soldered; they made circuit boards. You have to do stuff until you get some instinct about what hardware is like and how it acts. Someone was telling me recently that almost anybody who is anybody in ultraviolet astronomy got his start with Stu Bowyer at Berkeley. He was doing sounding rocket programs. A sounding rocket is like a miniature space program. It’s got all the problems that space observatories have, but it’s over in five minutes. A student has the opportunity to learn every aspect from beginning to end by working on such a small project. Similarly with balloon payloads, which most other people who have developed into hands-on space scientists have done. Those are the two basic categories: start off | <urn:uuid:8e75722a-b8b4-4e10-9207-71580b485667> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.experts123.com/q/how-does-a-hands-on-scientist-develop-the-practical-skills-he-needs.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00133.warc.gz | en | 0.981539 | 223 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.2877298593521118,
-0.03022395633161068,
0.18543094396591187,
-0.4686552882194519,
-0.5574270486831665,
-0.2591371238231659,
0.2830893099308014,
0.42134159803390503,
-0.3690817952156067,
-0.13508956134319305,
0.158654123544693,
-0.23506392538547516,
0.08176466077566147,
0.077597074210643... | 2 | How does a hands-on scientist develop the practical skills he needs?
MATHER: You have to do hands-on stuff. In graduate school, I had to learn something about everything on the instrumentation we did there. The other scientists I worked with on COBE did the same. They built balloon payloads; they built laboratory hardware; they sawed, drilled, and soldered; they made circuit boards. You have to do stuff until you get some instinct about what hardware is like and how it acts. Someone was telling me recently that almost anybody who is anybody in ultraviolet astronomy got his start with Stu Bowyer at Berkeley. He was doing sounding rocket programs. A sounding rocket is like a miniature space program. It’s got all the problems that space observatories have, but it’s over in five minutes. A student has the opportunity to learn every aspect from beginning to end by working on such a small project. Similarly with balloon payloads, which most other people who have developed into hands-on space scientists have done. Those are the two basic categories: start off | 213 | ENGLISH | 1 |
How to practice:
• Model for your child the more appropriate phrase or nonverbal signal he or she can use to communicate needs or desires.
• Have your child practice the new phrase or behavior before the situation in which it is likely to be needed takes place.
• During the situation, remind (prompt) your child to use the new phrase or behavior.
Vincent had a habit of shoving peers when they approached a toy he was playing with on the playground. His mother taught him to say, "I'm playing with this now. You can have it when I'm done." To help Vincent learn how to use this skill, she modeled the behavior, having Vincent approach her and try to touch a toy she was using. Next, she helped him do the same as she approached his toy. Then she accompanied him to the playground and observed him as he played near other children. When she saw a situation arising in which Vincent was likely to hit a peer, she reminded him to say the phrase they had practiced. When Vincent used the phrase, she made sure that the peer responded positively by ceasing his or her request for the toy. Finally, she talked to Vincent's teacher about using the same procedure in the classroom and at recess, so that they would all be addressing his inappropriate behavior consistently. The teacher agreed to practice using the phrase with Vincent at school and follow up by prompting him whenever necessary.
Was this article helpful? | <urn:uuid:c1e5d205-079f-4988-960c-a83011ba3cb3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.doctorabel.us/asperger-syndrome/step-4-practice-the-new-way-of-communicating.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694176.67/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127020458-20200127050458-00021.warc.gz | en | 0.987586 | 293 | 4.03125 | 4 | [
-0.3098246455192566,
-0.2789314389228821,
0.18519651889801025,
-0.5886298418045044,
-0.5686466097831726,
0.21058927476406097,
0.2941758632659912,
0.21352030336856842,
0.2737657427787781,
-0.04332137480378151,
0.33516040444374084,
-0.16913041472434998,
-0.016694210469722748,
0.4918840825557... | 1 | How to practice:
• Model for your child the more appropriate phrase or nonverbal signal he or she can use to communicate needs or desires.
• Have your child practice the new phrase or behavior before the situation in which it is likely to be needed takes place.
• During the situation, remind (prompt) your child to use the new phrase or behavior.
Vincent had a habit of shoving peers when they approached a toy he was playing with on the playground. His mother taught him to say, "I'm playing with this now. You can have it when I'm done." To help Vincent learn how to use this skill, she modeled the behavior, having Vincent approach her and try to touch a toy she was using. Next, she helped him do the same as she approached his toy. Then she accompanied him to the playground and observed him as he played near other children. When she saw a situation arising in which Vincent was likely to hit a peer, she reminded him to say the phrase they had practiced. When Vincent used the phrase, she made sure that the peer responded positively by ceasing his or her request for the toy. Finally, she talked to Vincent's teacher about using the same procedure in the classroom and at recess, so that they would all be addressing his inappropriate behavior consistently. The teacher agreed to practice using the phrase with Vincent at school and follow up by prompting him whenever necessary.
Was this article helpful? | 288 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Grace Acan and Evelyn Amony were abducted by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda when they were just girls. They were enslaved and spent years in captivity, away from their families. They managed to find their way back to freedom but have faced many new struggles since they returned home.
Voices of women and girls in war Speaking out on sexual violence in conflict
By Isabelle Masson
The Museum’s upcoming exhibit Ododo Wa: Stories of Girls in War will feature the stories of Grace and Evelyn, told from their perspectives and in their own voices. Their courage, resilience and spirit in the face of adversity will be highlighted through images, text, artifacts, animated films and interviews. “Ododo Wa” means “our stories” in their language, Acholi—a dialect of the Luo-speaking peoples of Eastern Africa.
We never stopped thinking about coming home.
Women’s and girls’ stories are crucial to understanding what makes and sustains wars. Their experiences reveal important dimensions of conflicts that are too often ignored. While sexual violence is commonly seen as an unfortunate consequence of conflict, it is in fact often a central strategy of war. In Uganda, the LRA waged war against the government for over 20 years, from the mid-1980s onward. Tens of thousands of children were abducted and forced into the ranks of the rebel army led by military and spiritual leader Joseph Kony. These children received military training and were forced to carry heavy loads of ammunition and other material through bush and mountains, walking for days on end with little food or water. In captivity, they constantly faced violence from both the rebels and the Ugandan army hunting the LRA across northern Uganda and South Sudan. Teenage girls, like Grace and Evelyn, served as soldiers and were forced into conjugal slavery. This meant that they had to serve as wives to LRA commanders and fighters, and were forced to have children with these “bush husbands” to build what Kony saw as a new and pure Acholi nation.
Grace Acan was abducted from St. Mary’s College, an all-girl Catholic boarding school in Aboke, northern Uganda, at the age of 16. She was among the 139 girls between the age of 13 and 16 kidnapped from one of the school dormitories by rebel soldiers in October 1996. Grace was a determined student, who excelled in science and English. She dreamt of independence and planned on becoming a nurse. In LRA captivity, she was enslaved and told to forget about her studies and family.
In the LRA, they favoured men. There’s that culture, that men are the rulers. They have the power to make a choice or to do what they want. Women had no voice. And this was opposite from what I was growing to be.
Grace was treated with suspicion because of her level of education and ability to speak English. Not only were her freedoms taken from her, Grace was forced to marry a commander old enough to be her father and had two of his children – one of whom was later killed in a military ambush.
Grace spent eight long years in captivity before she was finally able to escape. Her family welcomed her, along with her 14-month-old daughter. Grace soon returned to school, but she struggled to reintegrate into her community.
In 1994, 11-year-old Evelyn Amony was walking home to her grandmother’s house after school in when she was abducted by a group of LRA soldiers. Evelyn’s grandmother tried to protect her, pleading with the rebels and defying their orders not to cross a line that they drew in the sand. The soldiers would not be deterred and took her grandchild away.
Life in the LRA was organized into “family” units headed by a commander and a senior wife. Evelyn was enslaved and assigned to the LRA leader’s family, to care for two of his children. Kony referred to Evelyn as his “first born,” acting as a father figure to her in the early stage of her captivity. But soon he forced her to become his wife. Evelyn gave birth to the first of three children with him at the age of 14. In 2005, after 11 years in captivity, Evelyn was captured by government soldiers in a military ambush. She and her 10-day old baby were almost killed. Evelyn was taken to a rehabilitation centre in Gulu with her two surviving children—one of her daughters disappeared in the chaos of another military ambush. Shortly after returning home, she was asked to take part in peace negotiations between the Ugandan government and the LRA.
Returning home after captivity
Girls who were abducted by the LRA grew into women while in captivity. When they returned home, many viewed them as rebels, even though they had been taken and held by force. After all they had gone through at the hands of the LRA, young mothers and their children now faced discrimination and poor treatment back in their own communities. With limited education and support, they struggled to rebuild their lives.
When we returned, we had lost almost everything.
Finding their voices
Through different means, such as drawing the places where they had lived in captivity, survivors began to open up about their traumatic experiences. As the women shared their stories with each other, they found healing and a need to speak up about what had happened and how they, and their children, continued to face adversity.
In 2008, Evelyn and Grace co-founded the Ugandan Women’s Advocacy Network with other survivors. Today, the organization represents 900 women. From their perspectives, justice includes much-needed reparations for survivors such as access to healthcare, financial compensation, access to land ownership, education, vocational training and the recognition of inheritance rights for children born in captivity.
Many of us have children, so we really need to focus on the stability of our members – their ability to lead better life, look after their children and, of course, hope for the future.
In 2015, Evelyn published her memoir I am Evelyn Amony: Reclaiming My Life from the Lord’s Resistance Army. Grace followed suit in 2017 with her own memoir Not Yet Sunset: A Story of Survival and Perseverance in LRA Captivity.
An exhibit to amplify their voices
The Museum is currently working on an exhibit called Ododo Wa: Stories of Girls in War. “Ododo Wa” was the title of the storytelling initiative of the Ugandan Justice and Reconciliation Project that originally brought Grace, Evelyn and other women together. “Ododo wa” translates as “our stories” but it can also be used to refer to stories or tales told to children. In choosing bright colours and hand-made drawings, we seek to evoke these meanings and to connect the exhibit to the storytelling and healing process that evolved, for Grace and Evelyn, into advocacy for justice.
Ododo Wa: Stories of Girls in War will amplify Grace and Evelyn’s unique voices and perspectives. Our goal in selecting images and artifacts, writing exhibit text and creating films is to let their hopes and dreams, courage, strength, voice and agency shine through. Bright colours and hand-made drawings will help to evoke these meanings and shape a story that is ultimately one of healing and advocacy for justice.
Animation will be used for creativity in storytelling and to ensure the content is accessible to a wide audience, including younger people. We are pleased to share the first few seconds of a film that is now in development for the upcoming exhibit. These opening seconds of Grace’s film show a blue thread forming into a school uniform. The thread is made stronger by other threads, representing the survivors who joined together to form an advocacy organization.
Ododo Wa: Stories of Girls in War is being developed in close collaboration with Grace and Evelyn, and with Conjugal Slavery in War (CSiW), a project that brings together researchers and grassroots advocacy organizations from Canada, the Democratic Republic of Congo, England, Liberia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Uganda. CSiW captures a part of history that is far too often overlooked by documenting cases of forced marriage and conjugal slavery in conflict situations. In partnership with CSiW, we hope to tour the exhibit across Uganda and other countries so that it may serve as a catalyst for grassroots community dialogue on the issues of sexual violence in conflict, and justice and reparations for war-affected women and their children.
Ododo Wa: Stories of Girls in War opens in the Rights Today gallery on Level 5 in October 2019.
How can I take action on the issue of sexual violence in conflict?
What can I learn by paying attention to women’s and girls’ experiences of war?
What does justice for war-affected girls and women mean? | <urn:uuid:75757b77-2134-4af1-a58e-e2e3279be601> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://humanrights.ca/story/voices-of-women-and-girls-in-war | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00038.warc.gz | en | 0.984109 | 1,851 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.05576850846409798,
0.38379597663879395,
0.0010332157835364342,
0.1704379767179489,
0.22913624346256256,
0.3959367871284485,
-0.05482213571667671,
0.11360132694244385,
-0.2973690330982208,
0.024274218827486038,
0.3990131616592407,
-0.17409883439540863,
0.2221919298171997,
0.4452499449253... | 1 | Grace Acan and Evelyn Amony were abducted by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda when they were just girls. They were enslaved and spent years in captivity, away from their families. They managed to find their way back to freedom but have faced many new struggles since they returned home.
Voices of women and girls in war Speaking out on sexual violence in conflict
By Isabelle Masson
The Museum’s upcoming exhibit Ododo Wa: Stories of Girls in War will feature the stories of Grace and Evelyn, told from their perspectives and in their own voices. Their courage, resilience and spirit in the face of adversity will be highlighted through images, text, artifacts, animated films and interviews. “Ododo Wa” means “our stories” in their language, Acholi—a dialect of the Luo-speaking peoples of Eastern Africa.
We never stopped thinking about coming home.
Women’s and girls’ stories are crucial to understanding what makes and sustains wars. Their experiences reveal important dimensions of conflicts that are too often ignored. While sexual violence is commonly seen as an unfortunate consequence of conflict, it is in fact often a central strategy of war. In Uganda, the LRA waged war against the government for over 20 years, from the mid-1980s onward. Tens of thousands of children were abducted and forced into the ranks of the rebel army led by military and spiritual leader Joseph Kony. These children received military training and were forced to carry heavy loads of ammunition and other material through bush and mountains, walking for days on end with little food or water. In captivity, they constantly faced violence from both the rebels and the Ugandan army hunting the LRA across northern Uganda and South Sudan. Teenage girls, like Grace and Evelyn, served as soldiers and were forced into conjugal slavery. This meant that they had to serve as wives to LRA commanders and fighters, and were forced to have children with these “bush husbands” to build what Kony saw as a new and pure Acholi nation.
Grace Acan was abducted from St. Mary’s College, an all-girl Catholic boarding school in Aboke, northern Uganda, at the age of 16. She was among the 139 girls between the age of 13 and 16 kidnapped from one of the school dormitories by rebel soldiers in October 1996. Grace was a determined student, who excelled in science and English. She dreamt of independence and planned on becoming a nurse. In LRA captivity, she was enslaved and told to forget about her studies and family.
In the LRA, they favoured men. There’s that culture, that men are the rulers. They have the power to make a choice or to do what they want. Women had no voice. And this was opposite from what I was growing to be.
Grace was treated with suspicion because of her level of education and ability to speak English. Not only were her freedoms taken from her, Grace was forced to marry a commander old enough to be her father and had two of his children – one of whom was later killed in a military ambush.
Grace spent eight long years in captivity before she was finally able to escape. Her family welcomed her, along with her 14-month-old daughter. Grace soon returned to school, but she struggled to reintegrate into her community.
In 1994, 11-year-old Evelyn Amony was walking home to her grandmother’s house after school in when she was abducted by a group of LRA soldiers. Evelyn’s grandmother tried to protect her, pleading with the rebels and defying their orders not to cross a line that they drew in the sand. The soldiers would not be deterred and took her grandchild away.
Life in the LRA was organized into “family” units headed by a commander and a senior wife. Evelyn was enslaved and assigned to the LRA leader’s family, to care for two of his children. Kony referred to Evelyn as his “first born,” acting as a father figure to her in the early stage of her captivity. But soon he forced her to become his wife. Evelyn gave birth to the first of three children with him at the age of 14. In 2005, after 11 years in captivity, Evelyn was captured by government soldiers in a military ambush. She and her 10-day old baby were almost killed. Evelyn was taken to a rehabilitation centre in Gulu with her two surviving children—one of her daughters disappeared in the chaos of another military ambush. Shortly after returning home, she was asked to take part in peace negotiations between the Ugandan government and the LRA.
Returning home after captivity
Girls who were abducted by the LRA grew into women while in captivity. When they returned home, many viewed them as rebels, even though they had been taken and held by force. After all they had gone through at the hands of the LRA, young mothers and their children now faced discrimination and poor treatment back in their own communities. With limited education and support, they struggled to rebuild their lives.
When we returned, we had lost almost everything.
Finding their voices
Through different means, such as drawing the places where they had lived in captivity, survivors began to open up about their traumatic experiences. As the women shared their stories with each other, they found healing and a need to speak up about what had happened and how they, and their children, continued to face adversity.
In 2008, Evelyn and Grace co-founded the Ugandan Women’s Advocacy Network with other survivors. Today, the organization represents 900 women. From their perspectives, justice includes much-needed reparations for survivors such as access to healthcare, financial compensation, access to land ownership, education, vocational training and the recognition of inheritance rights for children born in captivity.
Many of us have children, so we really need to focus on the stability of our members – their ability to lead better life, look after their children and, of course, hope for the future.
In 2015, Evelyn published her memoir I am Evelyn Amony: Reclaiming My Life from the Lord’s Resistance Army. Grace followed suit in 2017 with her own memoir Not Yet Sunset: A Story of Survival and Perseverance in LRA Captivity.
An exhibit to amplify their voices
The Museum is currently working on an exhibit called Ododo Wa: Stories of Girls in War. “Ododo Wa” was the title of the storytelling initiative of the Ugandan Justice and Reconciliation Project that originally brought Grace, Evelyn and other women together. “Ododo wa” translates as “our stories” but it can also be used to refer to stories or tales told to children. In choosing bright colours and hand-made drawings, we seek to evoke these meanings and to connect the exhibit to the storytelling and healing process that evolved, for Grace and Evelyn, into advocacy for justice.
Ododo Wa: Stories of Girls in War will amplify Grace and Evelyn’s unique voices and perspectives. Our goal in selecting images and artifacts, writing exhibit text and creating films is to let their hopes and dreams, courage, strength, voice and agency shine through. Bright colours and hand-made drawings will help to evoke these meanings and shape a story that is ultimately one of healing and advocacy for justice.
Animation will be used for creativity in storytelling and to ensure the content is accessible to a wide audience, including younger people. We are pleased to share the first few seconds of a film that is now in development for the upcoming exhibit. These opening seconds of Grace’s film show a blue thread forming into a school uniform. The thread is made stronger by other threads, representing the survivors who joined together to form an advocacy organization.
Ododo Wa: Stories of Girls in War is being developed in close collaboration with Grace and Evelyn, and with Conjugal Slavery in War (CSiW), a project that brings together researchers and grassroots advocacy organizations from Canada, the Democratic Republic of Congo, England, Liberia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Uganda. CSiW captures a part of history that is far too often overlooked by documenting cases of forced marriage and conjugal slavery in conflict situations. In partnership with CSiW, we hope to tour the exhibit across Uganda and other countries so that it may serve as a catalyst for grassroots community dialogue on the issues of sexual violence in conflict, and justice and reparations for war-affected women and their children.
Ododo Wa: Stories of Girls in War opens in the Rights Today gallery on Level 5 in October 2019.
How can I take action on the issue of sexual violence in conflict?
What can I learn by paying attention to women’s and girls’ experiences of war?
What does justice for war-affected girls and women mean? | 1,798 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Essay on Mahatma Gandhi – Mahatma Gandhi was a great freedom fighter who fought for freedom for India throughout his life. Mahatma Gandhi was a great man who has been living in the hearts of Indians since ancient times. Every person and child of India knows him as Bapu and Father of the Nation.
Gandhi Jayanti is celebrated all over India on October 2 and this day is also celebrated as Non-Violence Day all over the world. On this occasion, many programs are organized in schools, colleges, government offices etc. to express respect and pay homage to the Father of the Nation.
Through these programs, essay writing competitions are also organized to show the importance of Mahatma Gandhi to the younger generation today.
Therefore, today we are providing you with some essays in different word limits, highlighting the life of the Father of the Nation and Bapu Ji, which you can use as per your need-
Essay on Mahatma Gandhi Contributions and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi is mostly known as ” Father of the Nation and Bapu ” for his incredible contribution. He was a great man who believed in non-violence and social unity. He had raised the voice for the social development of rural areas in India, he inspired Indians to use indigenous goods and in many ways, he also raised his voice against the British on social issues. They wanted to destroy the tradition of untouchability and discrimination from Indian culture. Later he joined the Indian independence campaign and started fighting.
In Indian history, he was a great man who transformed the dream of freedom of Indians into reality. Even today, people remember him for his great and incredible work. Even today people are given the example of their life. He was not true and non-violent from birth but he made himself non-violent.
King Harishchandra’s life had a great impact on him. After school, he completed his law studies in England and started a lawyer career. He faced a lot of problems in his life but he never gave up, he always kept moving forward.
He started a number of campaigns such as the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920, the Urban Disobedience Movement in 1930, and finally, the Quit India Movement in 1942 and all these movements proved to be effective in liberating India. Eventually, India got independence from the British Raj due to their struggles.
Mahatma Gandhi’s life was very simple, he did not believe in apartheid and caste discrimination. He also made a lot of efforts to destroy the tradition of untouchables from Indian society and due to this he also gave the name of “Harijan” to the untouchables which mean “People of God”.
Mahatma Gandhi was a great social reformer and freedom fighter and the aim of his life was to liberate India. He also inspired a lot of Indians and he believed that a human being should live a simple life and be self-supporting.
Gandhiji was against foreign goods, so he used to give prominence to indigenous things in India. Not only this but he himself used to spin the spinning wheel. They wanted to expand farming and indigenous goods in India. He was a spiritual man and he promoted spirituality in Indian politics.
Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent struggle for the country can never be forgotten. He spent his entire life in bringing freedom to the country. And on serving the country, this Mahatma died on 30 January 1948 and was cremated in the presence of millions of supporters at Rajghat, Delhi. Today, 30 January is celebrated in India as Martyr’s Day in his memory.
Essay on Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi was a great warfighter who was given the title of Father of the Nation and Mahatma due to his great works. The significant contribution made by him in the freedom struggle can never be forgotten.
Today, on the strength of his untiring efforts, sacrifice, sacrifice and dedication, all of us are breathing peace in independent India.
He was such a priest of truth and non-violence, who forced the British to leave India while walking on the path of peace, he is an inspiration to everyone. Every person of the country is influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s great ideas.
Mahatma Gandhi’s early life, family and education – Mahatma Gandhi Information
Mahatma Gandhi, considered the main architect of the freedom struggle, was born in an ordinary family on 2 October 1869 in Porbandar, Gujarat. Gandhi’s full name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
His father, Karam Chand Gandhi, was the ‘Diwan’ of Rajkot during the British rule. His mother’s name was Putlibai, a dutiful woman with religious views, whose views had a profound impact on Gandhiji.
At the same time, when he was 13 years old, he was married to Kasturba under the practice of child marriage, whom people used to fondly call him “Baa”.
Gandhiji was a very disciplined and obedient child since childhood. He completed his early education in Gujarat and then went to England to study law, from where he returned to India to start work in India, however, he did not last long in advocacy.
Mahatma Gandhi’s political career started – Mahatma Gandhi Political Career
It was during the course of his advocacy that Gandhiji had to suffer apartheid in South Africa. According to an incident with Gandhiji, once he sat in the first-class compartment of the train, he was pushed out of the train compartment.
Along with this, he was also barred from visiting many big hotels in South Africa. After which Gandhiji fought fiercely against apartheid.
He entered politics with the aim of eradicating discrimination against Indians and then gave a new dimension to the politics of the country with his prudence and proper political skills and also played an important role as a freedom fighter.
Mahatma Gandhi as a great ideological and idealist
Mahatma Gandhi was a very ideological and idealistic leader. He was a simple life, high minded person, due to his nature, people used to call him “Mahatma”.
His great ideas and idealism have also been followed by many greats like Albert Einstein, Rajendra Prasad, Sarojini Naidu, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King.
These people were staunch supporters of Gandhiji. The great personality of Gandhiji had influence not only in the country but also abroad.
Truth and non-violence were his two powerful weapons, and it was on these weapons that he forced the British to leave India.
He was a great freedom fighter and politician as well as a social worker who also made commendable efforts to remove casteism, untouchability, gender discrimination etc. in India.
Gandhi, who was engaged in the service of the nation throughout his life, was assassinated by Nathuram Godse on January 30, 1948, shortly after the independence of the country.
He was a great figure and man of the age, who never gave up on the truth even in the toughest of circumstances and kept steadfastly determined to pursue his goal. Everyone needs to learn from their life. | <urn:uuid:c6b16540-3a6d-42e3-8206-cf725025ab2a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://sscguides.com/essay-on-mahatma-gandhi/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606269.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122012204-20200122041204-00496.warc.gz | en | 0.985708 | 1,529 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.0938812792301178,
0.9642932415008545,
-0.09256735444068909,
-0.24577337503433228,
-0.4301910698413849,
0.00572560541331768,
0.6922742128372192,
0.22959093749523163,
-0.033832013607025146,
-0.015311084687709808,
-0.1102658212184906,
0.17097681760787964,
0.10705963522195816,
0.53483879566... | 10 | Essay on Mahatma Gandhi – Mahatma Gandhi was a great freedom fighter who fought for freedom for India throughout his life. Mahatma Gandhi was a great man who has been living in the hearts of Indians since ancient times. Every person and child of India knows him as Bapu and Father of the Nation.
Gandhi Jayanti is celebrated all over India on October 2 and this day is also celebrated as Non-Violence Day all over the world. On this occasion, many programs are organized in schools, colleges, government offices etc. to express respect and pay homage to the Father of the Nation.
Through these programs, essay writing competitions are also organized to show the importance of Mahatma Gandhi to the younger generation today.
Therefore, today we are providing you with some essays in different word limits, highlighting the life of the Father of the Nation and Bapu Ji, which you can use as per your need-
Essay on Mahatma Gandhi Contributions and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi is mostly known as ” Father of the Nation and Bapu ” for his incredible contribution. He was a great man who believed in non-violence and social unity. He had raised the voice for the social development of rural areas in India, he inspired Indians to use indigenous goods and in many ways, he also raised his voice against the British on social issues. They wanted to destroy the tradition of untouchability and discrimination from Indian culture. Later he joined the Indian independence campaign and started fighting.
In Indian history, he was a great man who transformed the dream of freedom of Indians into reality. Even today, people remember him for his great and incredible work. Even today people are given the example of their life. He was not true and non-violent from birth but he made himself non-violent.
King Harishchandra’s life had a great impact on him. After school, he completed his law studies in England and started a lawyer career. He faced a lot of problems in his life but he never gave up, he always kept moving forward.
He started a number of campaigns such as the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920, the Urban Disobedience Movement in 1930, and finally, the Quit India Movement in 1942 and all these movements proved to be effective in liberating India. Eventually, India got independence from the British Raj due to their struggles.
Mahatma Gandhi’s life was very simple, he did not believe in apartheid and caste discrimination. He also made a lot of efforts to destroy the tradition of untouchables from Indian society and due to this he also gave the name of “Harijan” to the untouchables which mean “People of God”.
Mahatma Gandhi was a great social reformer and freedom fighter and the aim of his life was to liberate India. He also inspired a lot of Indians and he believed that a human being should live a simple life and be self-supporting.
Gandhiji was against foreign goods, so he used to give prominence to indigenous things in India. Not only this but he himself used to spin the spinning wheel. They wanted to expand farming and indigenous goods in India. He was a spiritual man and he promoted spirituality in Indian politics.
Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent struggle for the country can never be forgotten. He spent his entire life in bringing freedom to the country. And on serving the country, this Mahatma died on 30 January 1948 and was cremated in the presence of millions of supporters at Rajghat, Delhi. Today, 30 January is celebrated in India as Martyr’s Day in his memory.
Essay on Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi was a great warfighter who was given the title of Father of the Nation and Mahatma due to his great works. The significant contribution made by him in the freedom struggle can never be forgotten.
Today, on the strength of his untiring efforts, sacrifice, sacrifice and dedication, all of us are breathing peace in independent India.
He was such a priest of truth and non-violence, who forced the British to leave India while walking on the path of peace, he is an inspiration to everyone. Every person of the country is influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s great ideas.
Mahatma Gandhi’s early life, family and education – Mahatma Gandhi Information
Mahatma Gandhi, considered the main architect of the freedom struggle, was born in an ordinary family on 2 October 1869 in Porbandar, Gujarat. Gandhi’s full name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
His father, Karam Chand Gandhi, was the ‘Diwan’ of Rajkot during the British rule. His mother’s name was Putlibai, a dutiful woman with religious views, whose views had a profound impact on Gandhiji.
At the same time, when he was 13 years old, he was married to Kasturba under the practice of child marriage, whom people used to fondly call him “Baa”.
Gandhiji was a very disciplined and obedient child since childhood. He completed his early education in Gujarat and then went to England to study law, from where he returned to India to start work in India, however, he did not last long in advocacy.
Mahatma Gandhi’s political career started – Mahatma Gandhi Political Career
It was during the course of his advocacy that Gandhiji had to suffer apartheid in South Africa. According to an incident with Gandhiji, once he sat in the first-class compartment of the train, he was pushed out of the train compartment.
Along with this, he was also barred from visiting many big hotels in South Africa. After which Gandhiji fought fiercely against apartheid.
He entered politics with the aim of eradicating discrimination against Indians and then gave a new dimension to the politics of the country with his prudence and proper political skills and also played an important role as a freedom fighter.
Mahatma Gandhi as a great ideological and idealist
Mahatma Gandhi was a very ideological and idealistic leader. He was a simple life, high minded person, due to his nature, people used to call him “Mahatma”.
His great ideas and idealism have also been followed by many greats like Albert Einstein, Rajendra Prasad, Sarojini Naidu, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King.
These people were staunch supporters of Gandhiji. The great personality of Gandhiji had influence not only in the country but also abroad.
Truth and non-violence were his two powerful weapons, and it was on these weapons that he forced the British to leave India.
He was a great freedom fighter and politician as well as a social worker who also made commendable efforts to remove casteism, untouchability, gender discrimination etc. in India.
Gandhi, who was engaged in the service of the nation throughout his life, was assassinated by Nathuram Godse on January 30, 1948, shortly after the independence of the country.
He was a great figure and man of the age, who never gave up on the truth even in the toughest of circumstances and kept steadfastly determined to pursue his goal. Everyone needs to learn from their life. | 1,499 | ENGLISH | 1 |
From the moment Elizabeth I became Queen, there was one question that everyone was asking-who will the Queen marry? Most people believed it would be one of the
first things Elizabeth would do. They expected her to select a husband to help here run the country, and more importantly, to get her pregnant so that there would be an heir to succeed her.
Elizabeth was young and there were high hopes that soon England would have a royal family again. If Elizabeth died without having a child the future would be uncertain. Many feared that the rivalry for the crown would lead to civil war. In the early weeks of her reign there were many suitors for Elizabeth’s hand. Elizabeth was the most sought after women in Europe. She received offers of marriage from Kings, Princes and Dukes but whom should she marry?
Choosing a husband:
Making the right choice of husband would not be so easy. Elizabeth did not want to repeat her sister’s mistake by marrying a man who would be unpopular with her people. What did Elizabeth need to think about when choosing a suitable husband?
Checklist for suitable husband:
- It would please her Protestant subjects if her was a Protestant and make them angry if he was a Catholic.
- He should not be too powerful (a foreign King was no good) Englishmen did not want foreigners interfering in England’s business.
- He must be of a suitable rank to marry the Queen any old peasant would not do!
- If she married an Englishmen she must make sure not to make other Englishmen jealous. If they were jealous they might rebel against her.
- She must ensure that the marriage brought an alliance that was good for England.
1.King Philip II of Spain.Philip was a powerful Catholic. He had been married to Elizabeth’s half sister Mary. That marriage was so unpopular it had caused a rebellion.
2.King Eric of Sweden
Eric of Sweden was given a lot of thought by Elizabeth and her Ministers. Eric was a Protestant, he was also popular in the country, and when it was rumoured
that Elizabeth had accepted his proposal, medals were made in London with a picture of Elizabeth and Eric on them. But Eric was not rich and a marriage to him was of little benefit to England, as it did not give England a strong European ally.
3. Robert Dudley.
Elizabeth was believed to have fallen in love with one of her own subjects, Lord Robert Dudley. Lord Robert was Elizabeth’s Master of Horse. They had been friends when they were children and he was one of the few men Elizabeth thought wanted her for herself not because she was Queen. Lord Robert was Protestant and English.
But he was not of equal rank and would not give England a Foreign ally. There was also another problem. He was already married! He married a girl called Amy Robsart when he was Seventeen. If this wasn’t bad enough he was the son of a traitor and the grandson of a traitor. Treason
seemed to run in the family. Many English men believed he could not be trusted.
Things became worse when Lord Robert’s wife died in mysterious circumstances and there were rumours she had been murdered. Some even said that the queen had been involved in her death!
4. Archduke Charles
The Archduke Charles was also a serious candidate and marriage to him remained a possibility for several years. But the Archduke was a Catholic, and as a Catholic, his suit was not popular with the Protestants on Elizabeth’s Council.
5. Francis, Duke of Alencon, later Anjou.
The only other serious contender for Elizabeth’s hand in marriage was Francis, Duke of Alencon, later Duke of Anjou. He was the son of Catherine de Medici, Queen Mother of France, and a brother to the French King. He was a lot younger than Elizabeth but marriage to him would bring England a good alliance. The French were Catholic, but did not appear to be as hostile to English Protestantism as the
Spanish were. Alencon himself was also known to have sympathy with the French Protestants and did not mind marrying a Protestant Queen. This was the most serious foreign courtship of Elizabeth’s reign, and it seemed that Elizabeth would marry him. Francis even came to England for Elizabeth to meet him. The Queen quite liked the Frenchman, who she called her “frog”, even though he was not good looking and had been scared by an attack of the small pox. Elizabeth announced before some of her courtiers that she would marry him, kissed him, and gave him a ring.
Facts PDF Worksheet:
- Aimed at Students studying at UK Year 8/9 or equivalent
- Free to download
- Use as you wish in the classroom or home environment
- Structured study guide and challenging tasks. | <urn:uuid:830f7cca-cc6f-4665-8bd2-f82bf32cf614> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://schoolhistory.co.uk/early-modern/elizabeth-i/the-importance-of-a-elizabeth-i-marriage/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00075.warc.gz | en | 0.993304 | 1,012 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.4661480486392975,
0.3519066572189331,
0.11593753099441528,
-0.1991124153137207,
-0.09639126062393188,
0.024468418210744858,
0.13103443384170532,
-0.07006429135799408,
0.2682836651802063,
0.17910897731781006,
-0.09578371047973633,
-0.03151853755116463,
0.16144773364067078,
0.063864976167... | 1 | From the moment Elizabeth I became Queen, there was one question that everyone was asking-who will the Queen marry? Most people believed it would be one of the
first things Elizabeth would do. They expected her to select a husband to help here run the country, and more importantly, to get her pregnant so that there would be an heir to succeed her.
Elizabeth was young and there were high hopes that soon England would have a royal family again. If Elizabeth died without having a child the future would be uncertain. Many feared that the rivalry for the crown would lead to civil war. In the early weeks of her reign there were many suitors for Elizabeth’s hand. Elizabeth was the most sought after women in Europe. She received offers of marriage from Kings, Princes and Dukes but whom should she marry?
Choosing a husband:
Making the right choice of husband would not be so easy. Elizabeth did not want to repeat her sister’s mistake by marrying a man who would be unpopular with her people. What did Elizabeth need to think about when choosing a suitable husband?
Checklist for suitable husband:
- It would please her Protestant subjects if her was a Protestant and make them angry if he was a Catholic.
- He should not be too powerful (a foreign King was no good) Englishmen did not want foreigners interfering in England’s business.
- He must be of a suitable rank to marry the Queen any old peasant would not do!
- If she married an Englishmen she must make sure not to make other Englishmen jealous. If they were jealous they might rebel against her.
- She must ensure that the marriage brought an alliance that was good for England.
1.King Philip II of Spain.Philip was a powerful Catholic. He had been married to Elizabeth’s half sister Mary. That marriage was so unpopular it had caused a rebellion.
2.King Eric of Sweden
Eric of Sweden was given a lot of thought by Elizabeth and her Ministers. Eric was a Protestant, he was also popular in the country, and when it was rumoured
that Elizabeth had accepted his proposal, medals were made in London with a picture of Elizabeth and Eric on them. But Eric was not rich and a marriage to him was of little benefit to England, as it did not give England a strong European ally.
3. Robert Dudley.
Elizabeth was believed to have fallen in love with one of her own subjects, Lord Robert Dudley. Lord Robert was Elizabeth’s Master of Horse. They had been friends when they were children and he was one of the few men Elizabeth thought wanted her for herself not because she was Queen. Lord Robert was Protestant and English.
But he was not of equal rank and would not give England a Foreign ally. There was also another problem. He was already married! He married a girl called Amy Robsart when he was Seventeen. If this wasn’t bad enough he was the son of a traitor and the grandson of a traitor. Treason
seemed to run in the family. Many English men believed he could not be trusted.
Things became worse when Lord Robert’s wife died in mysterious circumstances and there were rumours she had been murdered. Some even said that the queen had been involved in her death!
4. Archduke Charles
The Archduke Charles was also a serious candidate and marriage to him remained a possibility for several years. But the Archduke was a Catholic, and as a Catholic, his suit was not popular with the Protestants on Elizabeth’s Council.
5. Francis, Duke of Alencon, later Anjou.
The only other serious contender for Elizabeth’s hand in marriage was Francis, Duke of Alencon, later Duke of Anjou. He was the son of Catherine de Medici, Queen Mother of France, and a brother to the French King. He was a lot younger than Elizabeth but marriage to him would bring England a good alliance. The French were Catholic, but did not appear to be as hostile to English Protestantism as the
Spanish were. Alencon himself was also known to have sympathy with the French Protestants and did not mind marrying a Protestant Queen. This was the most serious foreign courtship of Elizabeth’s reign, and it seemed that Elizabeth would marry him. Francis even came to England for Elizabeth to meet him. The Queen quite liked the Frenchman, who she called her “frog”, even though he was not good looking and had been scared by an attack of the small pox. Elizabeth announced before some of her courtiers that she would marry him, kissed him, and gave him a ring.
Facts PDF Worksheet:
- Aimed at Students studying at UK Year 8/9 or equivalent
- Free to download
- Use as you wish in the classroom or home environment
- Structured study guide and challenging tasks. | 973 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Katonah is named for Chief Katonah, an American Indian from whom the land of Bedford was purchased by a group of English colonists. Founded with the name Whitlockville, the town changed its name, and later was moved to its present site in 1897, when its former site (Old Katonah) was flooded by the construction of the Cross River Reservoir. More than 50 buildings were moved from the old site to New Katonah, rolled on logs pulled by horses. The move was originally ordered to start in 1894, but litigation delayed the process by almost three years.
Eleven-year-old child named B. Robertson wrote the following to a children magazine on March 2nd, 1897:
“ The people of Katonah do not want to have it thought that New York city has made them move because they are careless about their drainage. It is because the city is going to make a new reservoir where the old village of Katonah now stands. Katonah has three churches, a public library and reading-room, a village improvement association, and a graded school, and was proud of itself. ”
— 11-year-old B. Robertson, in a letter to a children magazine
Katonah was not the only village affected by New York City's growing demand for water. The villages of Kirbyville and New Castle Corners were also condemned by the city but were never moved.
During the American Revolution military battles or skirmishes did not take place in the area that is now the Village of Katonah. However, most local men joined the Continental side, with some joining the New York 4th Regiment of the Line and most joining the local Militia. Though the Bedford Township lay in what was called "Neutral Ground", supposedly not molested by military of either side, its inhabitants were preyed on by the lawless of both sides. Actually, this area suffered less from lawless depredations than other areas in the Neutral Ground, because of the proximity of the Croton River and the "Westchester Lines", a sparse string of outposts defended by units of the Continental Army.
The Katonah Village Historic District, and St. Luke's Episcopal Church are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The John Jay Homestead and Stepping Stones, home of Bill and Lois Wilson, received the designation of National Historic Landmark.
Copyright 2020 Hudson Gateway Multiple Listing Service. All Rights Reserved.
Data is updated as of Jan 28, 2020 4:44:pm
All information deemed reliable, but not guaranteed, and should be independently verified. | <urn:uuid:5a633795-85f8-4eb8-8530-2cb154d0b327> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.nelsonsalazar.com/community/area/Katonah/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00447.warc.gz | en | 0.980586 | 535 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
0.12576735019683838,
0.15229129791259766,
0.06957539170980453,
0.15524888038635254,
-0.23148246109485626,
0.36562344431877136,
0.47155413031578064,
-0.3412839472293854,
-0.6100533604621887,
0.2169894129037857,
-0.47962701320648193,
0.07798372954130173,
0.0036509260535240173,
0.263676673173... | 1 | Katonah is named for Chief Katonah, an American Indian from whom the land of Bedford was purchased by a group of English colonists. Founded with the name Whitlockville, the town changed its name, and later was moved to its present site in 1897, when its former site (Old Katonah) was flooded by the construction of the Cross River Reservoir. More than 50 buildings were moved from the old site to New Katonah, rolled on logs pulled by horses. The move was originally ordered to start in 1894, but litigation delayed the process by almost three years.
Eleven-year-old child named B. Robertson wrote the following to a children magazine on March 2nd, 1897:
“ The people of Katonah do not want to have it thought that New York city has made them move because they are careless about their drainage. It is because the city is going to make a new reservoir where the old village of Katonah now stands. Katonah has three churches, a public library and reading-room, a village improvement association, and a graded school, and was proud of itself. ”
— 11-year-old B. Robertson, in a letter to a children magazine
Katonah was not the only village affected by New York City's growing demand for water. The villages of Kirbyville and New Castle Corners were also condemned by the city but were never moved.
During the American Revolution military battles or skirmishes did not take place in the area that is now the Village of Katonah. However, most local men joined the Continental side, with some joining the New York 4th Regiment of the Line and most joining the local Militia. Though the Bedford Township lay in what was called "Neutral Ground", supposedly not molested by military of either side, its inhabitants were preyed on by the lawless of both sides. Actually, this area suffered less from lawless depredations than other areas in the Neutral Ground, because of the proximity of the Croton River and the "Westchester Lines", a sparse string of outposts defended by units of the Continental Army.
The Katonah Village Historic District, and St. Luke's Episcopal Church are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The John Jay Homestead and Stepping Stones, home of Bill and Lois Wilson, received the designation of National Historic Landmark.
Copyright 2020 Hudson Gateway Multiple Listing Service. All Rights Reserved.
Data is updated as of Jan 28, 2020 4:44:pm
All information deemed reliable, but not guaranteed, and should be independently verified. | 550 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This article discusses the corpi santi, or whole skeletons of saints, which were
brought to Malta from the catacombs of Rome in the eighteenth century. Here they had a
diff erent meaning than they had in northern Europe. Malta was not aff ected by the Thirty
Years’ War and therefore did not have to replace relics destroyed by the Protestants. The
Maltese church also had no need to emphasize its connection with Rome. These saints were
honored in Malta because they were heroes, having died for Christ as martyrs. Parishioners
also perceived corpi santi as patrons, explaining why they were fully integrated within the
parish. They rendered the churches in which they were exhibited centers of local devotion,
thereby according prestige to the parish and intensifying rivalry between parishes.
The saints also gave identity to the parish, so that parents even named children after them. | <urn:uuid:a9c0681f-1a88-42ee-8619-01fe47cc2a26> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.berghahnjournals.com/abstract/journals/historical-reflections/43/3/hrrh430301.xml?rskey=dQR3pj&result=8 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00398.warc.gz | en | 0.991984 | 189 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.10526566207408905,
0.4534614384174347,
0.03243386745452881,
-0.1694476455450058,
-0.1105637326836586,
-0.1600436270236969,
-0.07855439186096191,
0.38726016879081726,
0.48804721236228943,
0.1484408676624298,
-0.08189091831445694,
-0.262922465801239,
0.39713335037231445,
0.305838763713836... | 1 | This article discusses the corpi santi, or whole skeletons of saints, which were
brought to Malta from the catacombs of Rome in the eighteenth century. Here they had a
diff erent meaning than they had in northern Europe. Malta was not aff ected by the Thirty
Years’ War and therefore did not have to replace relics destroyed by the Protestants. The
Maltese church also had no need to emphasize its connection with Rome. These saints were
honored in Malta because they were heroes, having died for Christ as martyrs. Parishioners
also perceived corpi santi as patrons, explaining why they were fully integrated within the
parish. They rendered the churches in which they were exhibited centers of local devotion,
thereby according prestige to the parish and intensifying rivalry between parishes.
The saints also gave identity to the parish, so that parents even named children after them. | 188 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In the rare occasion where any individual broke away from the band and hunted by himself, scaring the herd before the call to hunt was given, no notice was taken at the immediate time, but that night a party of ogichidaag would approach the man’s lodge and call him out. When he came, he was grabbed and his shirt was cut to shreds. He would then be flogged by the leader of the ogichidaag. When the punishment was over, the man would be asked if he would ever again violate custom by hunting ahead of the party. If he said no, he was freed. If he said he would, he would be driven from the camp.
If a man violating the rules agreed to follow the rules, but failed to honor his word, he might be killed or else his property would be smashed and destroyed, his lodge cut up, and he would be shamed publicly. If, after this chastisement, he truly repented, at the end of a few days the ogichidaag would go about the camp and collect new items for the man and restore his property so that he could take care of his family.
This system was learned and used by the Metis of Red River – most who came from Ojibwe families and spent significant time living and hunting with them. Much like their Ojibwe family, the Metis would elect hunt leaders and eventually enacted “laws of the hunt” which were based on the Ojibwe rules. The Metis rules of the hunt were as follows:
For more information:
Ross, Alexander (1855) The Fur Hunters of the Far West: A Narrative of Adventures in the Oregon and Rocky Mountains, Volume 1. Smith, Elder and Company,
Skinner, Alanson (1914) Political Organizations, Cults, and Ceremonies of the Plains-Ojibway and Plains-Cree Indians. the University of California
A collaborative effort of members of the Ojibwe and Metis communities | <urn:uuid:470df48b-f0cc-40d9-b6ad-a448809b73ab> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.dibaajimowin.com/tawnkiyash/the-ojibwe-rules-of-the-hunt-and-their-influence-on-the-metis | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00097.warc.gz | en | 0.986124 | 422 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.42768770456314087,
0.5211873054504395,
0.2484150528907776,
-0.10013199597597122,
0.348194420337677,
-0.4831962585449219,
0.24273045361042023,
0.1799723505973816,
-0.504062294960022,
0.15217307209968567,
0.10420474410057068,
0.11403190344572067,
0.08650456368923187,
0.3087990880012512,
... | 8 | In the rare occasion where any individual broke away from the band and hunted by himself, scaring the herd before the call to hunt was given, no notice was taken at the immediate time, but that night a party of ogichidaag would approach the man’s lodge and call him out. When he came, he was grabbed and his shirt was cut to shreds. He would then be flogged by the leader of the ogichidaag. When the punishment was over, the man would be asked if he would ever again violate custom by hunting ahead of the party. If he said no, he was freed. If he said he would, he would be driven from the camp.
If a man violating the rules agreed to follow the rules, but failed to honor his word, he might be killed or else his property would be smashed and destroyed, his lodge cut up, and he would be shamed publicly. If, after this chastisement, he truly repented, at the end of a few days the ogichidaag would go about the camp and collect new items for the man and restore his property so that he could take care of his family.
This system was learned and used by the Metis of Red River – most who came from Ojibwe families and spent significant time living and hunting with them. Much like their Ojibwe family, the Metis would elect hunt leaders and eventually enacted “laws of the hunt” which were based on the Ojibwe rules. The Metis rules of the hunt were as follows:
For more information:
Ross, Alexander (1855) The Fur Hunters of the Far West: A Narrative of Adventures in the Oregon and Rocky Mountains, Volume 1. Smith, Elder and Company,
Skinner, Alanson (1914) Political Organizations, Cults, and Ceremonies of the Plains-Ojibway and Plains-Cree Indians. the University of California
A collaborative effort of members of the Ojibwe and Metis communities | 412 | ENGLISH | 1 |
|About the Book|
The Pygmies is a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne (born Nathaniel Hathorne- July 4, 1804 - May 19, 1864) was an American novelist and short story writer. He was born in 1804 in Salem, Massachusetts to Nathaniel Hathorne and the former ElizabethMoreThe Pygmies is a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne (born Nathaniel Hathorne- July 4, 1804 - May 19, 1864) was an American novelist and short story writer. He was born in 1804 in Salem, Massachusetts to Nathaniel Hathorne and the former Elizabeth Clarke Manning. His ancestors include John Hathorne, the only judge involved in the Salem witch trials who never repented of his actions. Nathaniel later added a w to make his name Hawthorne in order to hide this relation. He entered Bowdoin College in 1821, was elected to Phi Beta Kappa in 1824, and graduated in 1825. Hawthorne published his first work, a novel titled Fanshawe, in 1828- he later tried to suppress it, feeling it was not equal to the standard of his later work. He published several short stories in various periodicals which he collected in 1837 as Twice-Told Tales. The next year, he became engaged to Sophia Peabody. He worked at a Custom House and joined Brook Farm, a transcendentalist community, before marrying Peabody in 1842. The couple moved to The Old Manse in Concord, Massachusetts, later moving to Salem, the Berkshires, then to The Wayside in Concord. The Scarlet Letter was published in 1850, followed by a succession of other novels. A political appointment took Hawthorne and family to Europe before their return to The Wayside in 1860. Hawthorne died on May 19, 1864, and was survived by his wife and their three children. Much of Hawthornes writing centers on New England, many works featuring moral allegories with a Puritan inspiration. His fiction works are considered part of the Romantic movement and, more specifically, Dark romanticism. His themes often center on the inherent evil and sin of humanity, and his works often have moral messages and deep psychological complexity. His published works include novels, short stories, and a biography of his friend Franklin Pierce. | <urn:uuid:51a32839-bd64-44de-a965-5e52004e6c86> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://primariacerna.eu/literature1zi/the-pygmies-275.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700675.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127112805-20200127142805-00031.warc.gz | en | 0.98951 | 464 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
0.04391438513994217,
0.24883028864860535,
0.3810643255710602,
-0.16305868327617645,
-0.496919184923172,
-0.25551655888557434,
-0.4735558331012726,
-0.4174322485923767,
-0.001556124771013856,
0.17165657877922058,
0.21966272592544556,
-0.16151711344718933,
-0.08392082899808884,
0.22811011970... | 1 | |About the Book|
The Pygmies is a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne (born Nathaniel Hathorne- July 4, 1804 - May 19, 1864) was an American novelist and short story writer. He was born in 1804 in Salem, Massachusetts to Nathaniel Hathorne and the former ElizabethMoreThe Pygmies is a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne (born Nathaniel Hathorne- July 4, 1804 - May 19, 1864) was an American novelist and short story writer. He was born in 1804 in Salem, Massachusetts to Nathaniel Hathorne and the former Elizabeth Clarke Manning. His ancestors include John Hathorne, the only judge involved in the Salem witch trials who never repented of his actions. Nathaniel later added a w to make his name Hawthorne in order to hide this relation. He entered Bowdoin College in 1821, was elected to Phi Beta Kappa in 1824, and graduated in 1825. Hawthorne published his first work, a novel titled Fanshawe, in 1828- he later tried to suppress it, feeling it was not equal to the standard of his later work. He published several short stories in various periodicals which he collected in 1837 as Twice-Told Tales. The next year, he became engaged to Sophia Peabody. He worked at a Custom House and joined Brook Farm, a transcendentalist community, before marrying Peabody in 1842. The couple moved to The Old Manse in Concord, Massachusetts, later moving to Salem, the Berkshires, then to The Wayside in Concord. The Scarlet Letter was published in 1850, followed by a succession of other novels. A political appointment took Hawthorne and family to Europe before their return to The Wayside in 1860. Hawthorne died on May 19, 1864, and was survived by his wife and their three children. Much of Hawthornes writing centers on New England, many works featuring moral allegories with a Puritan inspiration. His fiction works are considered part of the Romantic movement and, more specifically, Dark romanticism. His themes often center on the inherent evil and sin of humanity, and his works often have moral messages and deep psychological complexity. His published works include novels, short stories, and a biography of his friend Franklin Pierce. | 525 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Tithe Award and Map, Thoralby
Since the early Middle Ages, all householders were required to pay tithes to the church assessed at a tenth of what a person earned, grew or produced. Tithes were defined as "the tenth part of the increase, yearly arising and renewing from the profits of lands, the stock upon lands, and the personal industry of the inhabitants." They were usually paid in kind e.g. one in ten of the lambs born each year, a tenth of the hay harvest or one in ten of the horseshoes made by the village blacksmith.
After the Reformation in the 1530s much land passed from the Church to lay owners, who also inherited entitlement to receive tithes. By the early 19th century, tithes in Thoralby, Bishopdale and Newbiggin were payable to John Hutton and Christopher Other, who had leased them from Trinity College, Cambridge.
However, tithe payment in kind seemed a very out-of-date practice, while payment of tithes per se became unpopular against a background of industrialisation, religious dissent and agricultural depression. The 1836 Tithe Commutation Act required tithes in kind to be converted to more convenient monetary payments called tithe rent charges. To make this conversion, a Tithe Survey was undertaken to confirm which land was subject to tithes, who owned it, how much was payable and to whom. The monetary payments to be made were determined by commissioners appointed by the crown.
The tithe apportionment (award) for Thoralby was drawn up in 1840. The apportionment listed all the fields, woodlands and houses, their owners and occupiers and how much they were required to pay. Of particular interest was the fact that each field was listed by name together with its size and whether it was arable, meadow or pasture.
Tithe maps are usually manuscript (drawn by hand) and are often earlier in date than the earliest Ordnance Survey maps. They show all the fields and houses, giving each a number.
Click on the button below to view a transcript of the tithe apportionment and map for Thoralby. | <urn:uuid:8734c752-df61-4bbd-ba4c-f28e600d7eb6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thoralbythroughtime.net/copy-of-1939-id-register | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00226.warc.gz | en | 0.983665 | 447 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.06477882713079453,
0.04562883451581001,
-0.013483395799994469,
-0.21781429648399353,
0.19917668402194977,
-0.3590938448905945,
-0.00664088549092412,
0.031039826571941376,
-0.03537394106388092,
0.0971241444349289,
-0.031013011932373047,
-0.5372185707092285,
0.0336010716855526,
0.32022401... | 6 | Tithe Award and Map, Thoralby
Since the early Middle Ages, all householders were required to pay tithes to the church assessed at a tenth of what a person earned, grew or produced. Tithes were defined as "the tenth part of the increase, yearly arising and renewing from the profits of lands, the stock upon lands, and the personal industry of the inhabitants." They were usually paid in kind e.g. one in ten of the lambs born each year, a tenth of the hay harvest or one in ten of the horseshoes made by the village blacksmith.
After the Reformation in the 1530s much land passed from the Church to lay owners, who also inherited entitlement to receive tithes. By the early 19th century, tithes in Thoralby, Bishopdale and Newbiggin were payable to John Hutton and Christopher Other, who had leased them from Trinity College, Cambridge.
However, tithe payment in kind seemed a very out-of-date practice, while payment of tithes per se became unpopular against a background of industrialisation, religious dissent and agricultural depression. The 1836 Tithe Commutation Act required tithes in kind to be converted to more convenient monetary payments called tithe rent charges. To make this conversion, a Tithe Survey was undertaken to confirm which land was subject to tithes, who owned it, how much was payable and to whom. The monetary payments to be made were determined by commissioners appointed by the crown.
The tithe apportionment (award) for Thoralby was drawn up in 1840. The apportionment listed all the fields, woodlands and houses, their owners and occupiers and how much they were required to pay. Of particular interest was the fact that each field was listed by name together with its size and whether it was arable, meadow or pasture.
Tithe maps are usually manuscript (drawn by hand) and are often earlier in date than the earliest Ordnance Survey maps. They show all the fields and houses, giving each a number.
Click on the button below to view a transcript of the tithe apportionment and map for Thoralby. | 459 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Day 15 of the chemistry advent timeline features three women in chemistry who made key contributions.
Ida Noddack discovered rhenium with her husband and was also the first to suggest the concept of nuclear fission. Though other chemists and physicists initially mocked her claims, she was later proved correct.
Kathleen Lonsdale, a pioneer in X-ray crystallography, provided crystallographic evidence of benzene’s structure. She was also involved work on synthetic diamonds, and one of the structural forms of diamond is named after her.
Gerty Cori researched biochemical reactions in the human body with her husband. The two were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work. Despite the fact that they worked as laboratory partners, when they first started working together at Washington University she was paid a tenth of the wage that was paid to her husband. | <urn:uuid:071e0dd3-554e-4850-9efa-7430a6d684e4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.compoundchem.com/2018advent/2018advent15/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00345.warc.gz | en | 0.985874 | 178 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
-0.35154104232788086,
0.46315526962280273,
0.13310647010803223,
0.23464250564575195,
-0.12423412501811981,
-0.16027630865573883,
0.4486089050769806,
0.2038157880306244,
-0.33926528692245483,
-0.07409938424825668,
0.2543342709541321,
-0.6051869988441467,
-0.05587838962674141,
0.208151832222... | 11 | Day 15 of the chemistry advent timeline features three women in chemistry who made key contributions.
Ida Noddack discovered rhenium with her husband and was also the first to suggest the concept of nuclear fission. Though other chemists and physicists initially mocked her claims, she was later proved correct.
Kathleen Lonsdale, a pioneer in X-ray crystallography, provided crystallographic evidence of benzene’s structure. She was also involved work on synthetic diamonds, and one of the structural forms of diamond is named after her.
Gerty Cori researched biochemical reactions in the human body with her husband. The two were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work. Despite the fact that they worked as laboratory partners, when they first started working together at Washington University she was paid a tenth of the wage that was paid to her husband. | 176 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world. this is a quote by Harriet Tubman. Early life for Harriet Tubman was horrible because she was born a SLAVE. Now how did Harriet tubman change the world well she did so much, but here’s one she got rights for african americans. Now how did harriet Tubman accomplish her dream or goal. Well she freed thousands of slaves.
Harriet Tubman was born a slave in Maryland and born around 1820 to 1821. Harriet Tubman’s real name was Araminta Ross but she used her mother’s name instead. Harriet Tubman also lived in a one room cabin with eleven children. When six Harriet was taken to another family and had to take care of a baby. Harriet was Sometimes Beaten and could only eat table scraps. Then Harriet Tubman had some jobs on the plantation. Such as plowing the fields and loading produce into wagons. Harriet Tubman became strong doing manual labor like hauling logs and driving oxan. Then when she was thirteen Harriet Tubman got horrible head injury. And you might ask how well Harriet Tubman went to town and went inside of a countryside store and a slave owner tried to through a two pound weight from the storekeeperr’s scales at his slave but missed him and hit Harriet instead and it almost Killed her and it caused her head dizzy spells ( Dizzy spell are when you get light headed and you have to sit down if not you will fall down.) and blackouts for the rest of her life. ( Blackout are when you completely blackout so you basically passout.) After Harriet Tubman learned there were states that slavery was OUTLAWED!
Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "How Did Harriet Tubman Change The World" essay for youCreate order
Slaves escaped the North Underground Railroad. But the underground railroad was not a real railroad it was a number of safe homes for slaves called stations it would help hide slaves as they travelled up north. Whoever helped the slaves go to station to station they were called conductors they would help them until they reached the north. In 18445 Harriet Tubman decided to escape through the underground railroad. After a long and scary ride Harriet Tubman made it to Pennsylvania and was finally free. In 1850 the fugitive slave act passed.this meant that slaves could be taken from free states and returned to their owner. What you had to do to be free was that you had to escape through Canada and Harriet Tubman wanted to help others escape to Canada including her family. So she became an underground railroad conductor and became a famous one. Harriet Tubman led nineteen different escapes from the south and helped around 300 slaves to escape and became known as Moses. Harriet Tubman led her people to freedom and she was brave and she helped her mother and father escape to, and Harriet Tubman NEVER lost a slave and never got caught. Harriet Tubman also helped in the Civil War she helped wounded soldiers and was a spy for the North she also helped the Military campaign and led to rescue over seven hundred fifty slaves. After war Harriet Tubman lived in New York and helped poor and sick people.
Harriet Tubman was an extraordinary person she fought for rights for African Americans.Harriet Tubman freed thousands of slaves and freed around three hundred from Maryland to Pennsylvania but Harriet Tubman felt bad about leaving so she went back and she heard that her niece and her two children were being sold and Harriet Tubman snuck them out. Harriet Tubman was such a great person because she has done all of and more with a chronic head disease. Sometimes Harriet Tubman had visions and she would write about using her nighttimers and used them to free slaves.
We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper | <urn:uuid:fe4b3313-3a05-43c8-851c-7027ef0e8f96> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studydriver.com/how-did-harriet-tubman-change-the-world/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250625097.75/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124191133-20200124220133-00326.warc.gz | en | 0.986468 | 824 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.2997702956199646,
-0.011332599446177483,
0.5348448753356934,
0.3457300364971161,
-0.04381520301103592,
0.2113240659236908,
0.1653626710176468,
-0.05210963636636734,
-0.20792412757873535,
0.3514804244041443,
0.40447860956192017,
0.08812178671360016,
-0.20662513375282288,
-0.0992261320352... | 1 | Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world. this is a quote by Harriet Tubman. Early life for Harriet Tubman was horrible because she was born a SLAVE. Now how did Harriet tubman change the world well she did so much, but here’s one she got rights for african americans. Now how did harriet Tubman accomplish her dream or goal. Well she freed thousands of slaves.
Harriet Tubman was born a slave in Maryland and born around 1820 to 1821. Harriet Tubman’s real name was Araminta Ross but she used her mother’s name instead. Harriet Tubman also lived in a one room cabin with eleven children. When six Harriet was taken to another family and had to take care of a baby. Harriet was Sometimes Beaten and could only eat table scraps. Then Harriet Tubman had some jobs on the plantation. Such as plowing the fields and loading produce into wagons. Harriet Tubman became strong doing manual labor like hauling logs and driving oxan. Then when she was thirteen Harriet Tubman got horrible head injury. And you might ask how well Harriet Tubman went to town and went inside of a countryside store and a slave owner tried to through a two pound weight from the storekeeperr’s scales at his slave but missed him and hit Harriet instead and it almost Killed her and it caused her head dizzy spells ( Dizzy spell are when you get light headed and you have to sit down if not you will fall down.) and blackouts for the rest of her life. ( Blackout are when you completely blackout so you basically passout.) After Harriet Tubman learned there were states that slavery was OUTLAWED!
Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "How Did Harriet Tubman Change The World" essay for youCreate order
Slaves escaped the North Underground Railroad. But the underground railroad was not a real railroad it was a number of safe homes for slaves called stations it would help hide slaves as they travelled up north. Whoever helped the slaves go to station to station they were called conductors they would help them until they reached the north. In 18445 Harriet Tubman decided to escape through the underground railroad. After a long and scary ride Harriet Tubman made it to Pennsylvania and was finally free. In 1850 the fugitive slave act passed.this meant that slaves could be taken from free states and returned to their owner. What you had to do to be free was that you had to escape through Canada and Harriet Tubman wanted to help others escape to Canada including her family. So she became an underground railroad conductor and became a famous one. Harriet Tubman led nineteen different escapes from the south and helped around 300 slaves to escape and became known as Moses. Harriet Tubman led her people to freedom and she was brave and she helped her mother and father escape to, and Harriet Tubman NEVER lost a slave and never got caught. Harriet Tubman also helped in the Civil War she helped wounded soldiers and was a spy for the North she also helped the Military campaign and led to rescue over seven hundred fifty slaves. After war Harriet Tubman lived in New York and helped poor and sick people.
Harriet Tubman was an extraordinary person she fought for rights for African Americans.Harriet Tubman freed thousands of slaves and freed around three hundred from Maryland to Pennsylvania but Harriet Tubman felt bad about leaving so she went back and she heard that her niece and her two children were being sold and Harriet Tubman snuck them out. Harriet Tubman was such a great person because she has done all of and more with a chronic head disease. Sometimes Harriet Tubman had visions and she would write about using her nighttimers and used them to free slaves.
We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper | 849 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This topic was a lot of fun to educate the children with. It was nice to see them learning something that was relevant and meaningful.
I wasn’t really sure how to teach them this so I started by looking online. I went onto Pinterest and searched WW1; there were endless resources and printables for the children to do. The first things I printed were poppy pictures for them to paint to incorporate art - I managed to find a ‘we remember’ poster along with a cross and poppies. I then thought: how will I go about covering the other subjects and how I could include them?
My teenager suggested to me to bake a trench cake as she had made one before in secondary school. I went onto Google to have a look at the images to see what a trench cake was and found some fantastic cakes. I found the recipe for a simple fruit cake. The children loved making the fruit cake and getting their hands messy. Once the cake had baked and cooled we went about creating their trench cake. We dug out the inside of the cake to show the depth of the trenches. We then made sandbags out of marzipan and a ladder out of the trench was made with icing. My son loved this so much he created a little soldier out of marzipan and icing to put into the trenches.
This topic was stretched out over a week as to fill the children’s time. I noticed, online, that some people were making their own Christmas wreaths which I thought could be adopted to make a poppy wreath. So the children made poppies out of felt sheets (again, I found a template on Pinterest). Once they made their poppies we used a glue gun to attach them to the polystyrene wreath. The fun part was going on a leaf hunt. We went for a walk to the local park to find all different shades and types of leaves and twigs which we glued to the wreath.
During the topic we took a trip to The Museum of Somerset in Taunton as their military museum is fab. The children looked at the medals on display to get some medal inspiration for their own creations, I also got them to go around and write down 5 facts that they could find me within the military museum. While we were there they got to try on three different types of army attire which they loved doing – of course they gave me their best poses!
I looked online and found a few WW1 worksheets like a ‘fill in the missing vowels in the military related words’ and a WW1 word search. To end the week we looked at poetry about WW1. We printed ‘Flanders Field’ and talked about its meaning and how, because red poppies thrived in the broken ground of the battlefield, the writer included them in the poem as symbols of the fallen soldiers buried there.
All in all the children had a fantastic week and I really feel like we’ve achieved something. It’s the first time since home edding began in September that I’ve done an actual topic and the children loved it. All the completed work went on a topic board on the wall and they enjoyed being able to see their achievements for the week. | <urn:uuid:32fd3fdc-7806-48af-8ce0-f0302d03f1cd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.tauntonhomeeducation.com/single-post/2016/11/13/Our-Topic-World-War-I-and-Armistice-Day | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00364.warc.gz | en | 0.989239 | 668 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.2440599799156189,
0.4165458083152771,
0.5070216655731201,
-0.24199771881103516,
-0.19457487761974335,
0.07977639138698578,
-0.08825111389160156,
0.4758205711841583,
-0.4568706452846527,
0.14321094751358032,
0.019499972462654114,
-0.3016397953033447,
0.2514302730560303,
0.435751259326934... | 4 | This topic was a lot of fun to educate the children with. It was nice to see them learning something that was relevant and meaningful.
I wasn’t really sure how to teach them this so I started by looking online. I went onto Pinterest and searched WW1; there were endless resources and printables for the children to do. The first things I printed were poppy pictures for them to paint to incorporate art - I managed to find a ‘we remember’ poster along with a cross and poppies. I then thought: how will I go about covering the other subjects and how I could include them?
My teenager suggested to me to bake a trench cake as she had made one before in secondary school. I went onto Google to have a look at the images to see what a trench cake was and found some fantastic cakes. I found the recipe for a simple fruit cake. The children loved making the fruit cake and getting their hands messy. Once the cake had baked and cooled we went about creating their trench cake. We dug out the inside of the cake to show the depth of the trenches. We then made sandbags out of marzipan and a ladder out of the trench was made with icing. My son loved this so much he created a little soldier out of marzipan and icing to put into the trenches.
This topic was stretched out over a week as to fill the children’s time. I noticed, online, that some people were making their own Christmas wreaths which I thought could be adopted to make a poppy wreath. So the children made poppies out of felt sheets (again, I found a template on Pinterest). Once they made their poppies we used a glue gun to attach them to the polystyrene wreath. The fun part was going on a leaf hunt. We went for a walk to the local park to find all different shades and types of leaves and twigs which we glued to the wreath.
During the topic we took a trip to The Museum of Somerset in Taunton as their military museum is fab. The children looked at the medals on display to get some medal inspiration for their own creations, I also got them to go around and write down 5 facts that they could find me within the military museum. While we were there they got to try on three different types of army attire which they loved doing – of course they gave me their best poses!
I looked online and found a few WW1 worksheets like a ‘fill in the missing vowels in the military related words’ and a WW1 word search. To end the week we looked at poetry about WW1. We printed ‘Flanders Field’ and talked about its meaning and how, because red poppies thrived in the broken ground of the battlefield, the writer included them in the poem as symbols of the fallen soldiers buried there.
All in all the children had a fantastic week and I really feel like we’ve achieved something. It’s the first time since home edding began in September that I’ve done an actual topic and the children loved it. All the completed work went on a topic board on the wall and they enjoyed being able to see their achievements for the week. | 642 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Alluvial gold was found along Reedy Creek in 1858 and alluvial mining peaked in 1864 when there was a large rush to a tributary called Nuggetty Gully. About 400 miners were said to have attended this rush. After the initial frenzy of the rush, alluvial miners settled along the creek constructing a number of water races to facilitate banks sluicing.
The alluvial mining population along Reedy Creek dramatically increased in 1866 when some 300 Chinese miners arrived, rising to 450 by the end of year. The Chinese miners erected stores and many huts. By 1868, most of the Chinese miners had deserted Reedy Creek, those that stayed were reported working for European puddling machine owners.
The Reedy Creek field experienced a revival during the late 1870s when prospectors proved a payable resource in the defunct Doyles Reef mine. The erection of a crushing battery at the mine led to other abandoned mines in the vicinity being taken up. By 1881 the field had six batteries and the larger mines were reported as being well-capitalised and fully equipped with rock drills, pumping and winding gear, etc. Average yields from the Reedy Creek reefs in 1881 were from 1oz to 10 ounces per ton.
The three principal Reedy Creek mines on the field during the 1880s were the Langridge, Crown, and Doyle’s. Doyle’s had the deepest shaft, down 610ft by 1884. By 1888, these three claims had worked out their shallow ground and needed to prove deeper ground, and the mining registrar suggested that the companies would do better to amalgamate and sink one main shaft, as the three lines of reef were only about 400ft apart. ‘At present,’ he wrote, ‘there are nine enginedrivers, three legal managers, and three mining managers, besides firewood for three engines required.’ Amalgamation took place soon after, and Langridge & Doyle’s United GMC was formed.
Further attempts to develop the Reedy Creek reefs did not bear fruit after 1890. | <urn:uuid:2ba9961c-f0a9-42cc-9367-ba0fb0381892> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.broadfordhistorical.org.au/featured-photos-blog/gold-mining-in-reedy-creek | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599718.13/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120165335-20200120194335-00411.warc.gz | en | 0.980838 | 432 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.16538670659065247,
-0.3120529055595398,
-0.16820849478244781,
0.5702646970748901,
-0.01558419968932867,
-0.12119975686073303,
-0.1254870444536209,
-0.1900007277727127,
-0.5641031861305237,
-0.2259344905614853,
0.42471814155578613,
-0.5734249353408813,
0.11749135702848434,
0.226519152522... | 14 | Alluvial gold was found along Reedy Creek in 1858 and alluvial mining peaked in 1864 when there was a large rush to a tributary called Nuggetty Gully. About 400 miners were said to have attended this rush. After the initial frenzy of the rush, alluvial miners settled along the creek constructing a number of water races to facilitate banks sluicing.
The alluvial mining population along Reedy Creek dramatically increased in 1866 when some 300 Chinese miners arrived, rising to 450 by the end of year. The Chinese miners erected stores and many huts. By 1868, most of the Chinese miners had deserted Reedy Creek, those that stayed were reported working for European puddling machine owners.
The Reedy Creek field experienced a revival during the late 1870s when prospectors proved a payable resource in the defunct Doyles Reef mine. The erection of a crushing battery at the mine led to other abandoned mines in the vicinity being taken up. By 1881 the field had six batteries and the larger mines were reported as being well-capitalised and fully equipped with rock drills, pumping and winding gear, etc. Average yields from the Reedy Creek reefs in 1881 were from 1oz to 10 ounces per ton.
The three principal Reedy Creek mines on the field during the 1880s were the Langridge, Crown, and Doyle’s. Doyle’s had the deepest shaft, down 610ft by 1884. By 1888, these three claims had worked out their shallow ground and needed to prove deeper ground, and the mining registrar suggested that the companies would do better to amalgamate and sink one main shaft, as the three lines of reef were only about 400ft apart. ‘At present,’ he wrote, ‘there are nine enginedrivers, three legal managers, and three mining managers, besides firewood for three engines required.’ Amalgamation took place soon after, and Langridge & Doyle’s United GMC was formed.
Further attempts to develop the Reedy Creek reefs did not bear fruit after 1890. | 467 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In the Bahamas, we know next to nothing about the British colonial governors, who oversaw and administered, the public affairs of the colony. Truth is, we care little today for the names and personalities of these white men, who were appointed by Parliament in London. It’s a shame, because the actions and personalities of these men, helped to shape the Bahamas, during for all of its existence, under British rule. This really only ended in 1973. These colonial governors, such as they were, are a part of the island’s collective history, whether we like it or not. Bahamians should be able to name governors, the same way some can so easily mumble off names of past United States Presidents.
1835 – In the months and few years following the end of slavery, there were many disputes between former slaves and their masters.
In 1835, Bahamas Governor, William MacBean George Colebrooke, wrote a letter to a stipendiary magistrate which could only be described as a colonial slap. The magistrate had conducted court in the Bluff, Eleuthera to settle a dispute between a former slave master and his former slave. Governor Colebrooke was clearly angry that the magistrate, had taken it upon himself, to rewrite the provisions contained in the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1834.
Slave emancipation, in 1834, didn’t end enforced servitude for the negro and mulatto. What the Abolition Act did, was to move the definition of servitude labour, from master and slave, to employer and apprentice. Provisions within the 1834 Act provided more protection and rights to the Apprentice; more than they ever had as slave. It also legally provided something the negro did not have before. There was now a definitive time limit in which forced labour could be extracted from the former slave. Apprenticeships were to last for seven years, and not one minute longer.
Stipendiary Magistrates and Special Judges were hired from England, Ireland and Scotland to visit the various inhabited Out Islands, by boat, to conduct local court. They heard complaints, disputes and issued writs. This was entirely more prudent than having those involved, in some sort of minor legal dispute, having to make the lengthy journey to Nassau to receive satisfaction.
After Emancipation, many disputes were occurring between former slavemasters and former slaves now called employers and apprentices. Masters were unaccustomed to the new abolition laws. This was especially prevalent on the Out Islands. Negroes and Mulattoes fully aware of the idea of freedom, balked against being treated like a slave and not as the quasi-free, indentured apprentices they now were.
In 1835, a local court took place in the Bluff, Eleuthera, before Thomas Robert Winder, Esquire, Special Justice and Edward Eustace Hill, Special Justice.
Sam, an apprentice was charged with being absent from service to his master for 10 months, despite prodding by constables and another Mr. Smith Special Justice, to go back to service. Sam also flouted the law by working the King’s land, without permission. Sam also was harbouring another runaway apprentice, by the name of, Tulip.
Trial was heard at the Bluff, Eleuthera. Sam begged for the mercy of the court after admitting all charges.
Sentence was passed in Nassau.
Sam was given one month hard labour, 30 lashes of the whip, and had his apprenticeship extended by 10 months.
Response by Governor Colebrooke to the addition of 10 months to Sam’s apprenticeship period.
“I have received your Dispatch dated the 9th of October, No. 95 including the Returns required in my circular, Dispatch of the 12 of July, of the Punishments inflicted on the apprenticed labourers, in the Bahama Islands.
In the list of those Punishments, I perceive an entry made of a case, in which the offender, was condemned to an extension of the term of apprenticeship, for the term of ten months.
I do not at present perceive how such a sentence can be reconciled with the 20th clause is the Act of Parliament, for the Abolition of Slavery, which forbids in the most express terms, the infliction of any such punishments under the authority of any Act of Assembly.
That clause, it is true, provides that during the period of 7 years after apprenticeship, a labourer, may be compelled to atone to his employers for the time which he may have subtracted from his service, by an illegal absence, and for which he may not have made up, by labour performed during his own leisure; but between the future adjustment of this final account between Parties, and the imposition of a prolonged apprenticeship as a penalty for a crime, there is a essential distinction and unless you are in possession of some conclusive argument, in favour of the lawfulness of such punishments, you will immediately rescind all such as have been already imposed and admonish the special magistrates, to abstain from repetition of the practice.
I need hardly observe, that no such argument, can be drawn from language contained in the Colonial Statute, which of course cannot supersede or contravene the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
I have the honour to be …” | <urn:uuid:09e6a508-a1b9-4a81-be76-650b27146ade> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://bahamianology.com/former-slave-sam-charged-with-hiding-runaway-apprentice-tulip-disobeying-his-master-and-working-the-kings-land-without-permission-the-bluff-eleuthera-1835/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250615407.46/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124040939-20200124065939-00118.warc.gz | en | 0.981353 | 1,099 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.4119762182235718,
0.19924837350845337,
0.583787202835083,
-0.2537168264389038,
0.12918148934841156,
-0.12841688096523285,
0.21117910742759705,
-0.3887317180633545,
-0.07508321106433868,
0.39203712344169617,
0.24902433156967163,
-0.03140399605035782,
-0.511948823928833,
0.413212478160858... | 14 | In the Bahamas, we know next to nothing about the British colonial governors, who oversaw and administered, the public affairs of the colony. Truth is, we care little today for the names and personalities of these white men, who were appointed by Parliament in London. It’s a shame, because the actions and personalities of these men, helped to shape the Bahamas, during for all of its existence, under British rule. This really only ended in 1973. These colonial governors, such as they were, are a part of the island’s collective history, whether we like it or not. Bahamians should be able to name governors, the same way some can so easily mumble off names of past United States Presidents.
1835 – In the months and few years following the end of slavery, there were many disputes between former slaves and their masters.
In 1835, Bahamas Governor, William MacBean George Colebrooke, wrote a letter to a stipendiary magistrate which could only be described as a colonial slap. The magistrate had conducted court in the Bluff, Eleuthera to settle a dispute between a former slave master and his former slave. Governor Colebrooke was clearly angry that the magistrate, had taken it upon himself, to rewrite the provisions contained in the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1834.
Slave emancipation, in 1834, didn’t end enforced servitude for the negro and mulatto. What the Abolition Act did, was to move the definition of servitude labour, from master and slave, to employer and apprentice. Provisions within the 1834 Act provided more protection and rights to the Apprentice; more than they ever had as slave. It also legally provided something the negro did not have before. There was now a definitive time limit in which forced labour could be extracted from the former slave. Apprenticeships were to last for seven years, and not one minute longer.
Stipendiary Magistrates and Special Judges were hired from England, Ireland and Scotland to visit the various inhabited Out Islands, by boat, to conduct local court. They heard complaints, disputes and issued writs. This was entirely more prudent than having those involved, in some sort of minor legal dispute, having to make the lengthy journey to Nassau to receive satisfaction.
After Emancipation, many disputes were occurring between former slavemasters and former slaves now called employers and apprentices. Masters were unaccustomed to the new abolition laws. This was especially prevalent on the Out Islands. Negroes and Mulattoes fully aware of the idea of freedom, balked against being treated like a slave and not as the quasi-free, indentured apprentices they now were.
In 1835, a local court took place in the Bluff, Eleuthera, before Thomas Robert Winder, Esquire, Special Justice and Edward Eustace Hill, Special Justice.
Sam, an apprentice was charged with being absent from service to his master for 10 months, despite prodding by constables and another Mr. Smith Special Justice, to go back to service. Sam also flouted the law by working the King’s land, without permission. Sam also was harbouring another runaway apprentice, by the name of, Tulip.
Trial was heard at the Bluff, Eleuthera. Sam begged for the mercy of the court after admitting all charges.
Sentence was passed in Nassau.
Sam was given one month hard labour, 30 lashes of the whip, and had his apprenticeship extended by 10 months.
Response by Governor Colebrooke to the addition of 10 months to Sam’s apprenticeship period.
“I have received your Dispatch dated the 9th of October, No. 95 including the Returns required in my circular, Dispatch of the 12 of July, of the Punishments inflicted on the apprenticed labourers, in the Bahama Islands.
In the list of those Punishments, I perceive an entry made of a case, in which the offender, was condemned to an extension of the term of apprenticeship, for the term of ten months.
I do not at present perceive how such a sentence can be reconciled with the 20th clause is the Act of Parliament, for the Abolition of Slavery, which forbids in the most express terms, the infliction of any such punishments under the authority of any Act of Assembly.
That clause, it is true, provides that during the period of 7 years after apprenticeship, a labourer, may be compelled to atone to his employers for the time which he may have subtracted from his service, by an illegal absence, and for which he may not have made up, by labour performed during his own leisure; but between the future adjustment of this final account between Parties, and the imposition of a prolonged apprenticeship as a penalty for a crime, there is a essential distinction and unless you are in possession of some conclusive argument, in favour of the lawfulness of such punishments, you will immediately rescind all such as have been already imposed and admonish the special magistrates, to abstain from repetition of the practice.
I need hardly observe, that no such argument, can be drawn from language contained in the Colonial Statute, which of course cannot supersede or contravene the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
I have the honour to be …” | 1,109 | ENGLISH | 1 |
About Herodotus (from Wikipedia):
The father of history as Cicero called him, and a writer possessed of remarkable narrative gifts, enormous scope, and considerable charm, Herodotus has always been beloved by readers well versed in the classics.
Herodotus was an ancient Greek historian who was born in Halicarnassus, and lived in the 5th century BC (c. 484 BC – c. 425 BC). He has been called the “Father of History” since he was the first historian known to collect his materials systematically, test their accuracy to a certain extent and arrange them in a well-constructed and vivid narrative. The Histories — his masterpiece and the only work he is known to have produced — is a record of his “inquiry” (or ἱστορία historía, a word that passed into Latin and took on its modern meaning of history), being an investigation of the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars and including a wealth of geographical and ethnographical information. | <urn:uuid:b84677f6-763c-4ca1-88d9-1c804ec6efb0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.gohd.com.sg/shop/herodotus-a-new-and-literal-version-henry-cary-1874/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251678287.60/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125161753-20200125190753-00552.warc.gz | en | 0.986721 | 219 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
0.23256315290927887,
0.3015502095222473,
0.5661481618881226,
-0.05812971293926239,
-0.4143977165222168,
-0.5412305593490601,
0.3716897666454315,
0.6201235055923462,
-0.4445701241493225,
-0.1897323578596115,
-0.06292077898979187,
-0.4012962281703949,
-0.1764153391122818,
0.7014713287353516,... | 11 | About Herodotus (from Wikipedia):
The father of history as Cicero called him, and a writer possessed of remarkable narrative gifts, enormous scope, and considerable charm, Herodotus has always been beloved by readers well versed in the classics.
Herodotus was an ancient Greek historian who was born in Halicarnassus, and lived in the 5th century BC (c. 484 BC – c. 425 BC). He has been called the “Father of History” since he was the first historian known to collect his materials systematically, test their accuracy to a certain extent and arrange them in a well-constructed and vivid narrative. The Histories — his masterpiece and the only work he is known to have produced — is a record of his “inquiry” (or ἱστορία historía, a word that passed into Latin and took on its modern meaning of history), being an investigation of the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars and including a wealth of geographical and ethnographical information. | 219 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Leonardo da Vinci
He was a genius who lived during the Renaissance.
This is believed to be a self-portait of Leonardo when he was around 60 years of age.
The great Italian artist, mathematician, scientist, engineer, architect, writer and inventor, Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, was born on 15 April, 1452. It is written that he was born 'at the third hour of the night'.
The name 'da Vinci' actually means 'from Vinci' because Vinci is the name of the small town, near to Florence, where Leonardo's family came from. He was actually born in a farmhouse in the village of Anchiano, just 3 km from Vinci.
The first part of his name, Leonardo di ser Piero , means 'Leonardo the son of Mr. Peter.' Piero (Peter) was his father's first name and he worked as a notary (rather like a solicitor.) His father's family was middle-class and well-to-do.
Leonardo's mother was called Caterina and she was a peasant-girl. She was not married to Leonardo's father and would not be able to do so because of her low social class. Instead, Leonardo's father married a girl from a wealthy family and Caterina was made to marry a farmer. The child grew up in his father's household and spent much time in the countryside, observing nature.
Everyone could see that Leonardo was very talented. He played the lyre, sang beautifully, was excellent at maths and enjoyed drawing animals and nature. He was fascinated by birds and their ability to fly.
Below is a drawing by Leonardo in 1473 of the local landscape. This drawing is called Il Paesaggio.
The teenage Leonardo was sent to Florence to be trained by Andrea del Verrocchio who was a very well-known and highly-considered artist, sculptor and goldsmith.
At this time, Florence was ruled by the de' Medici family. They were great patrons of art and Verrocchio's workshop was their favourite one. In other words, Verrocchio was the artist of the time in Florence.
Below is an image of the painting called the Baptism of Christ. In Italian it is il Battesimo di Cristo. This painting was created in collaboration with Verrocchio in his workshop between the years 1475 and 1478. It is believed that the angel on the far left was painted by Leonardo.
There is a story that, upon seeing Leonardo's skill in painting the angel, Verrocchio felt that he himself was no longer good enough to be an artist and he never painted again.
This is a close-up of Leonardo's angel.
One of Leonardo's most famous paintings is The Last Supper (completed in 1498). In Italian, it is called Il Cenacolo. It is also called La Ultima Cena and it is one of the most reproduced paintings in the world. It depicts the dramatic moment when Jesus has just announced that one of His disciples will betray Him. The characters in the painting are all reacting with shock and surprise.
The Last Supper is painted on a wall inside the Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. This method of painting is called 'fresco'. In Italian it is 'affresco' - meaning 'fresh'.
Why is this method of painting called 'fresh?' It requires applying paint to wet, fresh plaster on a wall. However, Leonardo did not use the best quality ingredients when he created The Last Supper and it deteriorated very quickly. It has been repaired many times.
Below is an image of The Last Supper.
Another famous painting by Leonardo is the Mona Lisa. Mona means 'my lady'. The painting is called La Gioconda in Italian. The woman in the painting is generally believed to be Lisa Gherardini and she was the wife of a wealthy businessman called Francesco del Giocondo, from Florence. It is said that the painting was requested by the Giocondo family to decorate their new home and to celebrate the birth of their second son.
The portrait was nicknamed La Gioconda because of a double meaning:-
1. 'Gioconda' is the feminine form of the family surname.
2. The family surname 'Giocondo' also means 'joyful' in Italian. In the painting, the lady is smiling - in other words, she is the 'joyful one.'
However, there is a great deal of mystery about the true identity of the woman in the Mona Lisa. Was she really Lisa Gherardini?
Some historians believe that she could even be Caterina, Leonardo's mother! Will the mystery ever be solved?..........
Leonardo started to paint the Mona Lisa around 1502 and he spent many years working on it. It belongs to the French Government and can be seen at Le Musée du Louvre, Paris.
Leonardo's most famous drawing is The Vitruvian Man (around 1487). In Italian it is called L'Uomo Vitruviano. It is kept in le Gallerie dell' Accademia in Venice. The drawing is a study of proportion and geometry in the human shape. It is named after the ancient Roman architect Vitruvius who lived from 80-70 BC to 15 BC. Leonardo's drawing is based on the notes written by Vitruvius about perfect proportion in architecture and the human body.
A Euro coin depicting The Vitruvian Man.
Leonardo wrote lots of notes in 'mirror writing'. This means that they can only be read by holding them in front of a mirror and reading the reflection. As Leonardo was left-handed, he had the ability to write from the right side of the page towards the left. Leonardo was also known to write notes in code.
Leonardo dreamed of being able to build 'a flying machine.' He sketched ideas for flying machines by making observations of how birds fly. Below are some of Leonardo's designs.
He had amazingly original ideas and drew up designs for lots of inventions - including automobiles, submarines, battle machines, bridges and weapons.
It is quite fascinating to think that those ideas that seemed weird or impossible then, now exist as normal objects that are used everyday. Below is his design for a battle machine (a tank).
Leonardo was fascinated by anatomy and made detailed studies of human and animal skeletons and of their bodies. It was as if he was studying to be both a doctor and a vet!
He also studied like a botanist, making detailed sketches of plants.
In addition, Leonardo could also draw accurate maps. Below is a map of the town of Imola.
All of this leads to the following question:
Was there anything that Leonardo did not know how to do?
He seems to have been an all-round genius!
In 1516, Leonardo moved to France where he was asked to paint for the French King Francis I. He took the Mona Lisa with him. King Francis bought the painting from Leonardo for 4000 écus. It has belonged to France ever since! Below is a portrait of Francis I.
Leonardo died in France on 2 May 1519 at the royal manor house called Clos Lucé where he had resided as a guest of King Francis I during his years in France.
King Francis had become a close friend and it is believed he was at Leonardo's bedside when he died. Below is a painting by Ménageot, depicting the death of Leonardo in the presence of the French king.
At Leonardo's funeral, sixty beggars followed the procession. This had been one of Leonardo's requests before he died.
Painting above by Ménageot: the death of Leonardo da Vinci in the arms of François I.
Leonardo's tomb is in the Chapel of Saint-Hubert in the grounds of le Château d'Amboise, which was the residence of King Francis I.
It is believed that Leonardo was a vegetarian and an animal-lover. He hated cruelty towards animals. He is known to have said:
Verrà il tempo in cui l'uomo non dovrà più uccidere per mangiare, ed anche l'uccisione di un solo animale sarà considerato un grave delitto.
The time will come when man will not have to kill in order to eat and even the killing of just one animal will be considered a crime.
The well-known Italian artist and architect called Giorgio Vasari (1511 - 1574) once said:
Passeggiando tra le bancarelle del mercato a Firenze, un giorno Leonardo si imbatté in un venditore di uccellini, tutti, ovviamente, chiusi in gabbia. Commosso fino alle lacrime, il grande artista li comprò tutti e poi li lasciò volare via, liberi.
Whilst strolling through the market stalls of Florence, one day Leonardo came across a seller of birds, all obviously in a cage. Moved to tears, the great artist bought all of them and then let them fly away, free.
Leonardo said many wise and interesting things. One of his most famous quotations is this:
Sì come una giornata bene spesa da lieto dormire, così una vita bene usata da lieto morire.
Just as a day well-spent brings happy sleep, so does a life well-used bring happy death.
The French King, Francis I, who had been such a great friend and admirer of Leonardo, said after the artist's death: 'There has never been another man born into the world who knew as much as Leonardo.'
An Interesting Fact:
Leonardo had a nephew called Pierino da Vinci. He too was a great artist and sculptor. It was believed that he had inherited his famous uncle's talent. Unfortunately, he died at the early age of 23 years in 1553. Just look at the quality of his work below! Uncle Leonardo would be very proud!
(Young River God - visible at the Louvre Museum, Paris)
Grazie, Leonardo da Vinci!
Thank you, Leonardo, for all your amazing art, observations and inventions.
You were definitely way ahead of your time!
King Francis was correct - you did know more than everyone else.
Today, centuries later, your inspirational work gives us so much to discuss!
Leonardo da Vinci Quotations
Leonardo da Vinci Quiz
Famous Italian People | <urn:uuid:37ec6904-4865-4843-9b2d-f59993f1c821> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.euroclub-schools.org/leonardo-da-vinci | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00029.warc.gz | en | 0.981406 | 2,241 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
0.20023000240325928,
0.3286491334438324,
0.05185071378946304,
0.05598246678709984,
-0.6336167454719543,
0.03902613744139671,
0.3410760164260864,
0.22044119238853455,
0.28956693410873413,
0.11685620248317719,
0.19895312190055847,
-0.44964849948883057,
0.28611716628074646,
0.3311522305011749... | 6 | Leonardo da Vinci
He was a genius who lived during the Renaissance.
This is believed to be a self-portait of Leonardo when he was around 60 years of age.
The great Italian artist, mathematician, scientist, engineer, architect, writer and inventor, Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, was born on 15 April, 1452. It is written that he was born 'at the third hour of the night'.
The name 'da Vinci' actually means 'from Vinci' because Vinci is the name of the small town, near to Florence, where Leonardo's family came from. He was actually born in a farmhouse in the village of Anchiano, just 3 km from Vinci.
The first part of his name, Leonardo di ser Piero , means 'Leonardo the son of Mr. Peter.' Piero (Peter) was his father's first name and he worked as a notary (rather like a solicitor.) His father's family was middle-class and well-to-do.
Leonardo's mother was called Caterina and she was a peasant-girl. She was not married to Leonardo's father and would not be able to do so because of her low social class. Instead, Leonardo's father married a girl from a wealthy family and Caterina was made to marry a farmer. The child grew up in his father's household and spent much time in the countryside, observing nature.
Everyone could see that Leonardo was very talented. He played the lyre, sang beautifully, was excellent at maths and enjoyed drawing animals and nature. He was fascinated by birds and their ability to fly.
Below is a drawing by Leonardo in 1473 of the local landscape. This drawing is called Il Paesaggio.
The teenage Leonardo was sent to Florence to be trained by Andrea del Verrocchio who was a very well-known and highly-considered artist, sculptor and goldsmith.
At this time, Florence was ruled by the de' Medici family. They were great patrons of art and Verrocchio's workshop was their favourite one. In other words, Verrocchio was the artist of the time in Florence.
Below is an image of the painting called the Baptism of Christ. In Italian it is il Battesimo di Cristo. This painting was created in collaboration with Verrocchio in his workshop between the years 1475 and 1478. It is believed that the angel on the far left was painted by Leonardo.
There is a story that, upon seeing Leonardo's skill in painting the angel, Verrocchio felt that he himself was no longer good enough to be an artist and he never painted again.
This is a close-up of Leonardo's angel.
One of Leonardo's most famous paintings is The Last Supper (completed in 1498). In Italian, it is called Il Cenacolo. It is also called La Ultima Cena and it is one of the most reproduced paintings in the world. It depicts the dramatic moment when Jesus has just announced that one of His disciples will betray Him. The characters in the painting are all reacting with shock and surprise.
The Last Supper is painted on a wall inside the Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. This method of painting is called 'fresco'. In Italian it is 'affresco' - meaning 'fresh'.
Why is this method of painting called 'fresh?' It requires applying paint to wet, fresh plaster on a wall. However, Leonardo did not use the best quality ingredients when he created The Last Supper and it deteriorated very quickly. It has been repaired many times.
Below is an image of The Last Supper.
Another famous painting by Leonardo is the Mona Lisa. Mona means 'my lady'. The painting is called La Gioconda in Italian. The woman in the painting is generally believed to be Lisa Gherardini and she was the wife of a wealthy businessman called Francesco del Giocondo, from Florence. It is said that the painting was requested by the Giocondo family to decorate their new home and to celebrate the birth of their second son.
The portrait was nicknamed La Gioconda because of a double meaning:-
1. 'Gioconda' is the feminine form of the family surname.
2. The family surname 'Giocondo' also means 'joyful' in Italian. In the painting, the lady is smiling - in other words, she is the 'joyful one.'
However, there is a great deal of mystery about the true identity of the woman in the Mona Lisa. Was she really Lisa Gherardini?
Some historians believe that she could even be Caterina, Leonardo's mother! Will the mystery ever be solved?..........
Leonardo started to paint the Mona Lisa around 1502 and he spent many years working on it. It belongs to the French Government and can be seen at Le Musée du Louvre, Paris.
Leonardo's most famous drawing is The Vitruvian Man (around 1487). In Italian it is called L'Uomo Vitruviano. It is kept in le Gallerie dell' Accademia in Venice. The drawing is a study of proportion and geometry in the human shape. It is named after the ancient Roman architect Vitruvius who lived from 80-70 BC to 15 BC. Leonardo's drawing is based on the notes written by Vitruvius about perfect proportion in architecture and the human body.
A Euro coin depicting The Vitruvian Man.
Leonardo wrote lots of notes in 'mirror writing'. This means that they can only be read by holding them in front of a mirror and reading the reflection. As Leonardo was left-handed, he had the ability to write from the right side of the page towards the left. Leonardo was also known to write notes in code.
Leonardo dreamed of being able to build 'a flying machine.' He sketched ideas for flying machines by making observations of how birds fly. Below are some of Leonardo's designs.
He had amazingly original ideas and drew up designs for lots of inventions - including automobiles, submarines, battle machines, bridges and weapons.
It is quite fascinating to think that those ideas that seemed weird or impossible then, now exist as normal objects that are used everyday. Below is his design for a battle machine (a tank).
Leonardo was fascinated by anatomy and made detailed studies of human and animal skeletons and of their bodies. It was as if he was studying to be both a doctor and a vet!
He also studied like a botanist, making detailed sketches of plants.
In addition, Leonardo could also draw accurate maps. Below is a map of the town of Imola.
All of this leads to the following question:
Was there anything that Leonardo did not know how to do?
He seems to have been an all-round genius!
In 1516, Leonardo moved to France where he was asked to paint for the French King Francis I. He took the Mona Lisa with him. King Francis bought the painting from Leonardo for 4000 écus. It has belonged to France ever since! Below is a portrait of Francis I.
Leonardo died in France on 2 May 1519 at the royal manor house called Clos Lucé where he had resided as a guest of King Francis I during his years in France.
King Francis had become a close friend and it is believed he was at Leonardo's bedside when he died. Below is a painting by Ménageot, depicting the death of Leonardo in the presence of the French king.
At Leonardo's funeral, sixty beggars followed the procession. This had been one of Leonardo's requests before he died.
Painting above by Ménageot: the death of Leonardo da Vinci in the arms of François I.
Leonardo's tomb is in the Chapel of Saint-Hubert in the grounds of le Château d'Amboise, which was the residence of King Francis I.
It is believed that Leonardo was a vegetarian and an animal-lover. He hated cruelty towards animals. He is known to have said:
Verrà il tempo in cui l'uomo non dovrà più uccidere per mangiare, ed anche l'uccisione di un solo animale sarà considerato un grave delitto.
The time will come when man will not have to kill in order to eat and even the killing of just one animal will be considered a crime.
The well-known Italian artist and architect called Giorgio Vasari (1511 - 1574) once said:
Passeggiando tra le bancarelle del mercato a Firenze, un giorno Leonardo si imbatté in un venditore di uccellini, tutti, ovviamente, chiusi in gabbia. Commosso fino alle lacrime, il grande artista li comprò tutti e poi li lasciò volare via, liberi.
Whilst strolling through the market stalls of Florence, one day Leonardo came across a seller of birds, all obviously in a cage. Moved to tears, the great artist bought all of them and then let them fly away, free.
Leonardo said many wise and interesting things. One of his most famous quotations is this:
Sì come una giornata bene spesa da lieto dormire, così una vita bene usata da lieto morire.
Just as a day well-spent brings happy sleep, so does a life well-used bring happy death.
The French King, Francis I, who had been such a great friend and admirer of Leonardo, said after the artist's death: 'There has never been another man born into the world who knew as much as Leonardo.'
An Interesting Fact:
Leonardo had a nephew called Pierino da Vinci. He too was a great artist and sculptor. It was believed that he had inherited his famous uncle's talent. Unfortunately, he died at the early age of 23 years in 1553. Just look at the quality of his work below! Uncle Leonardo would be very proud!
(Young River God - visible at the Louvre Museum, Paris)
Grazie, Leonardo da Vinci!
Thank you, Leonardo, for all your amazing art, observations and inventions.
You were definitely way ahead of your time!
King Francis was correct - you did know more than everyone else.
Today, centuries later, your inspirational work gives us so much to discuss!
Leonardo da Vinci Quotations
Leonardo da Vinci Quiz
Famous Italian People | 2,164 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Posted December 4, 2019
Gray squirrels are among the most common species of squirrel in North America. They are diurnal mammals, meaning they search for food during the day and sleep at night. Gray squirrels live in nests called dreys, which are typically made up of twigs, leaves, grass, and bark.
During the winter months, gray squirrels sleep for long periods, but they do not hibernate. They are less active during the winter, leaving their warm dreys to eat the food they have stored from foraging during the warmer months. Gray squirrels eat fruit, plants, insects, nuts, and seeds, much like many birds; they bury nuts and seeds as a food source during the winter, and any that remain buried have the potential to grow into a new plant. This scattering process aids in distributing seeds around the environment.
Gray squirrels are found in many places where humans live, so the next time you see a squirrel digging in your yard or eating out of your bird feeder, know that they are just trying to make it through the winter and find a tasty snack. | <urn:uuid:e748f965-eec7-437a-9263-45889135d047> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://warehamlandtrust.org/naturalists-corner-gray-squirrels/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700675.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127112805-20200127142805-00436.warc.gz | en | 0.98276 | 227 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
-0.04450192302465439,
-0.21549193561077118,
0.17325611412525177,
-0.1984686255455017,
0.6254767179489136,
0.22466996312141418,
0.13111160695552826,
-0.1054711565375328,
-0.09802397340536118,
0.1387205868959427,
0.037187445908784866,
-0.16455046832561493,
0.15339499711990356,
0.135826840996... | 1 | Posted December 4, 2019
Gray squirrels are among the most common species of squirrel in North America. They are diurnal mammals, meaning they search for food during the day and sleep at night. Gray squirrels live in nests called dreys, which are typically made up of twigs, leaves, grass, and bark.
During the winter months, gray squirrels sleep for long periods, but they do not hibernate. They are less active during the winter, leaving their warm dreys to eat the food they have stored from foraging during the warmer months. Gray squirrels eat fruit, plants, insects, nuts, and seeds, much like many birds; they bury nuts and seeds as a food source during the winter, and any that remain buried have the potential to grow into a new plant. This scattering process aids in distributing seeds around the environment.
Gray squirrels are found in many places where humans live, so the next time you see a squirrel digging in your yard or eating out of your bird feeder, know that they are just trying to make it through the winter and find a tasty snack. | 228 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Charles I came to the throne in 1625 after the death of his father, James I. Like his father, he believed in the Divine Right of Kings. Although only parliament could pass laws and grant money for war, because they refused to do as he wished, Charles chose to rule without them.
Charles made repeated mistakes throughout his reign that took the country into Civil War and ultimately led to his death on January 30th 1649.
In the first year of his reign, Charles married Princess Henrietta Maria of France, a Catholic. Parliament were concerned about the marriage because they did not want to see a return to Catholicism and they believed that a Catholic Queen would raise their children to the Catholic faith.
Instead of listening to the advice of his Parliament, Charles chose the Duke of Buckingham as his main advisor. Parliament disliked Buckingham and resented his level of power over the King. In 1623 he had been responsible for taking England to war with Spain and parliament used this to bring a charge of treason against him.
However, the King dismissed parliament in order to save his favourite. In 1627, Buckingham led a campaign into France which saw the English army badly defeated. In 1628, while preparing for a naval invasion of France, Buckingham was assassinated.
The monarch’s income was paid out of customs duties and when a new King or Queen came to the throne parliament voted for their income to be paid for life. In Charles I’s case, though, it was only granted for one year. The members of parliament wanted to make sure that Charles did not dismiss them. Their plan did not work, Charles chose to rule alone and found his own way of getting money.
It had always been the custom that in times of war, people living on the coast, would pay extra taxes for the defence of the coastline by naval ships.
In 1634, Charles decided that ‘ship money’ should be paid all the time. One year later he demanded that people living inland should also pay ‘ship money’. The people were not pleased and a man named John Hampden refused to pay the tax until it had been agreed by parliament.
The case went to court and the judge found Charles’ actions to be legal. The people had no choice but to pay.
In 1639, Charles needed an army to go to Scotland to force the Scots to use the English Prayer book. A new tax was introduced to pay for the army. People now had to pay two taxes and many simply refused. Many of those jailed for not paying the taxes were released by sympathetic jailors. By 1639 most of the population was against Charles. ‘Ship Money’ was made illegal in 1641.
The Protestants had been upset by Charles’ marriage to Catholic Henrietta Maria of France. They were even more upset when Charles, together with Archbishop Laud, began making changes to the Church of England. It was ordered that churches be decorated once again and that sermons should not be just confined to the Bible. A new English Prayer Book was introduced in 1637.
Charles also demanded that the new English Prayer Book be used in Scottish Churches. This was a very big mistake. The Scots were more anti-Catholic than the English and many of them were Puritans. There were riots in Scotland against the new service and Charles was forced to raise an army to fight against the Scots. The English army was defeated by the Scots and Charles foolishly agreed to pay Scotland ?850 per day until the matter was settled. Money he did not have!
The Irish Catholics were fed up with being ruled by English Protestants who had been given land in Ireland by James I.
In 1641, news reached London that the Catholics were revolting. As the news travelled it was exaggerated and Londoners learned that 20,000 Protestants had been murdered. Rumours spread that Charles was behind the rebellion in a bid to make the whole of the United Kingdom Catholic.
An army had to be sent to Ireland to put the rebellion down but who was to control the army. Parliament was worried that if Charles had control of the army he would use it to regain control over Parliament. In the same way, if Parliament controlled the army they would use it to control the King. It was a stalemate.
One of Charles I’s major mistakes was that he was unable to gain the co-operation of his parliament. His determined belief in the Divine Right of Kings led to his dismissing parliament in 1629 and ruling without them. The fact that he did not have a parliament to grant him money meant that he had to tax his people heavier and introduce unpleasant taxes such as ship money (see above). It was only when Charles needed an army to fight against Scotland that he was forced to recall parliament in 1640. This parliament remained in office for so many years that it is known as the Long Parliament.
The Long Parliament
Having been dismissed from office for eleven years, this parliament was determined to make the most of being recalled and Charles’ favourite, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, of treason. Strafford was executed in May 1641.
In November 1641, parliament presented the King with a list of complaints called the Grand Remonstrance that asked for the power of bishops to be reduced and for Charles’ councillors to be men trusted by parliament. Not all members of parliament were in favour of it and it was only passed by 159 votes to 148.
In January 1642 Charles made what was the most foolish move of his reign. He burst into the Houses of Parliament with 400 soldiers and demanded that the five leading MPs be arrested. The five MPs had had advance warning and had fled.
Charles dismissing Parliament
In June 1642 the Long Parliament passed a new set of demands called the Nineteen Proposals that called for the King’s powers to be greatly reduced and a greater control of government to be given to parliament. This move divided parliament between those who supported the Nineteen Proposals and those who thought parliament had gone too far.
Both Parliament and Charles began collecting together their own armies. War was inevitable. People were forced to choose sides and on 22nd August 1642, the King raised his standard at Nottingham.
This post is part of our larger historical resource on the English Civil War. For a comprehensive overview of the English Civil War, click here.
Cite This Article"English Civil War – Charles I – The Slide to War" History on the Net
© 2000-2020, Salem Media.
January 28, 2020 <https://www.historyonthenet.com/english-civil-war-charles-i-the-slide-to-war>
More Citation Information. | <urn:uuid:ab0b01fc-3db9-4f64-b3a5-b4f2a6da53c2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historyonthenet.com/english-civil-war-charles-i-the-slide-to-war | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00155.warc.gz | en | 0.98942 | 1,378 | 3.8125 | 4 | [
-0.21194984018802643,
0.5805072784423828,
0.17720192670822144,
-0.2671356201171875,
0.12946638464927673,
-0.3570239543914795,
0.29497578740119934,
-0.03591855987906456,
0.2528967559337616,
-0.0806722491979599,
0.08542507886886597,
-0.08190767467021942,
-0.059740953147411346,
0.156063318252... | 1 | Charles I came to the throne in 1625 after the death of his father, James I. Like his father, he believed in the Divine Right of Kings. Although only parliament could pass laws and grant money for war, because they refused to do as he wished, Charles chose to rule without them.
Charles made repeated mistakes throughout his reign that took the country into Civil War and ultimately led to his death on January 30th 1649.
In the first year of his reign, Charles married Princess Henrietta Maria of France, a Catholic. Parliament were concerned about the marriage because they did not want to see a return to Catholicism and they believed that a Catholic Queen would raise their children to the Catholic faith.
Instead of listening to the advice of his Parliament, Charles chose the Duke of Buckingham as his main advisor. Parliament disliked Buckingham and resented his level of power over the King. In 1623 he had been responsible for taking England to war with Spain and parliament used this to bring a charge of treason against him.
However, the King dismissed parliament in order to save his favourite. In 1627, Buckingham led a campaign into France which saw the English army badly defeated. In 1628, while preparing for a naval invasion of France, Buckingham was assassinated.
The monarch’s income was paid out of customs duties and when a new King or Queen came to the throne parliament voted for their income to be paid for life. In Charles I’s case, though, it was only granted for one year. The members of parliament wanted to make sure that Charles did not dismiss them. Their plan did not work, Charles chose to rule alone and found his own way of getting money.
It had always been the custom that in times of war, people living on the coast, would pay extra taxes for the defence of the coastline by naval ships.
In 1634, Charles decided that ‘ship money’ should be paid all the time. One year later he demanded that people living inland should also pay ‘ship money’. The people were not pleased and a man named John Hampden refused to pay the tax until it had been agreed by parliament.
The case went to court and the judge found Charles’ actions to be legal. The people had no choice but to pay.
In 1639, Charles needed an army to go to Scotland to force the Scots to use the English Prayer book. A new tax was introduced to pay for the army. People now had to pay two taxes and many simply refused. Many of those jailed for not paying the taxes were released by sympathetic jailors. By 1639 most of the population was against Charles. ‘Ship Money’ was made illegal in 1641.
The Protestants had been upset by Charles’ marriage to Catholic Henrietta Maria of France. They were even more upset when Charles, together with Archbishop Laud, began making changes to the Church of England. It was ordered that churches be decorated once again and that sermons should not be just confined to the Bible. A new English Prayer Book was introduced in 1637.
Charles also demanded that the new English Prayer Book be used in Scottish Churches. This was a very big mistake. The Scots were more anti-Catholic than the English and many of them were Puritans. There were riots in Scotland against the new service and Charles was forced to raise an army to fight against the Scots. The English army was defeated by the Scots and Charles foolishly agreed to pay Scotland ?850 per day until the matter was settled. Money he did not have!
The Irish Catholics were fed up with being ruled by English Protestants who had been given land in Ireland by James I.
In 1641, news reached London that the Catholics were revolting. As the news travelled it was exaggerated and Londoners learned that 20,000 Protestants had been murdered. Rumours spread that Charles was behind the rebellion in a bid to make the whole of the United Kingdom Catholic.
An army had to be sent to Ireland to put the rebellion down but who was to control the army. Parliament was worried that if Charles had control of the army he would use it to regain control over Parliament. In the same way, if Parliament controlled the army they would use it to control the King. It was a stalemate.
One of Charles I’s major mistakes was that he was unable to gain the co-operation of his parliament. His determined belief in the Divine Right of Kings led to his dismissing parliament in 1629 and ruling without them. The fact that he did not have a parliament to grant him money meant that he had to tax his people heavier and introduce unpleasant taxes such as ship money (see above). It was only when Charles needed an army to fight against Scotland that he was forced to recall parliament in 1640. This parliament remained in office for so many years that it is known as the Long Parliament.
The Long Parliament
Having been dismissed from office for eleven years, this parliament was determined to make the most of being recalled and Charles’ favourite, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, of treason. Strafford was executed in May 1641.
In November 1641, parliament presented the King with a list of complaints called the Grand Remonstrance that asked for the power of bishops to be reduced and for Charles’ councillors to be men trusted by parliament. Not all members of parliament were in favour of it and it was only passed by 159 votes to 148.
In January 1642 Charles made what was the most foolish move of his reign. He burst into the Houses of Parliament with 400 soldiers and demanded that the five leading MPs be arrested. The five MPs had had advance warning and had fled.
Charles dismissing Parliament
In June 1642 the Long Parliament passed a new set of demands called the Nineteen Proposals that called for the King’s powers to be greatly reduced and a greater control of government to be given to parliament. This move divided parliament between those who supported the Nineteen Proposals and those who thought parliament had gone too far.
Both Parliament and Charles began collecting together their own armies. War was inevitable. People were forced to choose sides and on 22nd August 1642, the King raised his standard at Nottingham.
This post is part of our larger historical resource on the English Civil War. For a comprehensive overview of the English Civil War, click here.
Cite This Article"English Civil War – Charles I – The Slide to War" History on the Net
© 2000-2020, Salem Media.
January 28, 2020 <https://www.historyonthenet.com/english-civil-war-charles-i-the-slide-to-war>
More Citation Information. | 1,415 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Sports and Race in Washington, DC
In 1947, Jackie Robinson broke Major League baseball’s color barrier. He went on to become a symbol of positive change in the United States, an early indicator of the impending civil rights movement. During the 1940s, ‘50s, and ‘60s African-Americans were gradually hired into each of the major professional sports leagues. In fact, the sports arena was one of the first places where blacks were accepted on a national scale. However, not all professional sports teams welcomed black athletes with open arms. Unfortunately, segregation in professional sports occurred right here in the District long after Jackie Robinson played his first game for the Dodgers.
The National Football League’s Washington Redskins, who played their home games in the District of Columbia, were still segregated in 1961. Not only were the Redskins still segregated, they were the only team in the NFL who had not yet signed a black player. The owner of the Redskins, George Preston Marshall, was a pompous racist, unwilling to curb his prejudices. Marshall’s only concerns were making money and staying loyal to stodgy and bigoted politicians in power at the time. Marshall paralleled the governmental institutions of the early 1960s. He conducted business and made money at the expense of African-Americans and ignored their needs, just as the government often ignored the needs of African-Americans of Washington.
In fact, the Redskins’ target audience until the mid-sixties was primarily not Washington, DC, but the south. America’s south, like the District of Columbia, had a large African-American population that had been abused for hundreds of years with the institutions of slavery, and segregation. African-American were continuously ignored and exploited. Only the needs and wants of whites were paid any attention to by politicians. Washington Post columnist Ken Denlinger examines the situation in an article written in 1992:
Until the Atlanta Falcons entered the NFL in 1966, when the Miami Dolphins also joined the American Football League, there were no pro football teams in the entire southeast and beyond […] In 1956, the Redskins had a network of 60 radio and 29 television stations. One of the radio stations was in Albany, N.Y. Nearly all the other sight-and-sound outlets were in Virginia, West Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida (Denlinger M4).
This information may not seem to have any racist intent, but it just shows that the Redksins were marketed to a white audience that was miles from the large black population in the Redskins home city of Washington. Thomas G. Smith, a professor writing in an article for the Journal for Sports History notes that Marshall could hire blacks to perform custodial duties and allow black fans support the team by purchasing tickets, but he did not want to offend the southern audience by allowing a black player to take the field (Smith 8).
Members of the black... | <urn:uuid:3d332adf-2637-42be-b6dd-87200f0d7b36> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/sports-and-race-in-washington-dc | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00121.warc.gz | en | 0.983082 | 591 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.06638603657484055,
0.19801251590251923,
-0.05096418410539627,
-0.3158230185508728,
0.03104843758046627,
0.7296817302703857,
0.0300819743424654,
0.20906054973602295,
0.08596739917993546,
0.17041948437690735,
0.19046887755393982,
-0.09924551844596863,
-0.3017057180404663,
0.10026089847087... | 1 | Sports and Race in Washington, DC
In 1947, Jackie Robinson broke Major League baseball’s color barrier. He went on to become a symbol of positive change in the United States, an early indicator of the impending civil rights movement. During the 1940s, ‘50s, and ‘60s African-Americans were gradually hired into each of the major professional sports leagues. In fact, the sports arena was one of the first places where blacks were accepted on a national scale. However, not all professional sports teams welcomed black athletes with open arms. Unfortunately, segregation in professional sports occurred right here in the District long after Jackie Robinson played his first game for the Dodgers.
The National Football League’s Washington Redskins, who played their home games in the District of Columbia, were still segregated in 1961. Not only were the Redskins still segregated, they were the only team in the NFL who had not yet signed a black player. The owner of the Redskins, George Preston Marshall, was a pompous racist, unwilling to curb his prejudices. Marshall’s only concerns were making money and staying loyal to stodgy and bigoted politicians in power at the time. Marshall paralleled the governmental institutions of the early 1960s. He conducted business and made money at the expense of African-Americans and ignored their needs, just as the government often ignored the needs of African-Americans of Washington.
In fact, the Redskins’ target audience until the mid-sixties was primarily not Washington, DC, but the south. America’s south, like the District of Columbia, had a large African-American population that had been abused for hundreds of years with the institutions of slavery, and segregation. African-American were continuously ignored and exploited. Only the needs and wants of whites were paid any attention to by politicians. Washington Post columnist Ken Denlinger examines the situation in an article written in 1992:
Until the Atlanta Falcons entered the NFL in 1966, when the Miami Dolphins also joined the American Football League, there were no pro football teams in the entire southeast and beyond […] In 1956, the Redskins had a network of 60 radio and 29 television stations. One of the radio stations was in Albany, N.Y. Nearly all the other sight-and-sound outlets were in Virginia, West Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida (Denlinger M4).
This information may not seem to have any racist intent, but it just shows that the Redksins were marketed to a white audience that was miles from the large black population in the Redskins home city of Washington. Thomas G. Smith, a professor writing in an article for the Journal for Sports History notes that Marshall could hire blacks to perform custodial duties and allow black fans support the team by purchasing tickets, but he did not want to offend the southern audience by allowing a black player to take the field (Smith 8).
Members of the black... | 602 | ENGLISH | 1 |
King Henry I of England was the youngest son of William the Conqueror. He was also the only Norman king who could read and write. This education came from his upbringing in the church, unlike his siblings. Henry I had a long and successful reign in England, and due to his ambitious nature, he expanded his kingdom into Normandy.
Henry I of England
Henry I was not originally intended to be King of England. William the Conqueror’s eldest son, Robert Curthose, fought against his father at the siege of Mantes, but was still first in line to the throne. But on William the Conqueror’s death bed, Robert was only granted the Duchy of Normandy, while William’s second son, William II (Rufus), was granted England. Henry I, William’s youngest son only received money.
William II, had a quick and unpopular reign, and died rather suspiciously in a hunting accident in 1100. Henry was present at the time! However, William II had already nominated their older brother Robert (inset) as his heir, so Henry I had to act quickly to secure the treasury, and was crowned on 5 August 1100 at Westminster Abbey, before Robert returned from the Crusades.
Henry I knew this would result in a rebellion from Robert, so he publicly distanced himself from the unpopular policies of William II, and also favoured himself with the church. Henry then married Matilda, daughter of Malcolm III of Scotland, which helped his alliance with the Scots and the Anglo-Saxons (as Matilda was niece to Edgar the Atheling). A strategic move to support his new position.
Henry Duke of Normandy
In 1101, Robert had returned from the Crusades, and immediately invaded England. However, Henry I was able to negotiate with Robert, offering him a good pension. Relative peace ensued for five years, but rebel barons and Robert himself were causing civil unrest in Normandy, and continually disputing with Henry. So Henry I decided to invade Normandy, to put to rest his rebellious brother and his barons. The Battle of Tinchebray proceeded in 1106, in Tinchebray, Normandy. Henry I and his knights had a decisive victory. He imprisoned Robert in Devizes castle, and then relocated him to Cardiff castle, where Robert eventually died.
Henry I was now Duke of Normandy as well as King of England. His control of Normandy was challenged by Loius VI of France, who recognised Robert Curthose’s son, William Clito, as legitimate heir. A major rebellion followed in Normandy, from 1116 – 1119. Henry I was again victorious, this time at the Battle of Bremule, and a peace settlement was agreed with Loius VI in 1120.
Henry I Beauclerc and the Investiture Controversy
Henry I was known as Henry Beauclerc, which means ‘good writer’. He was well educated in Latin and Liberal Arts, and primarily educated by the church. His father, William I, had a good relationship with the English church, reforming it with support from Lanfranc, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lanfranc would become a close advisor of Williams. But, William II (Rufus) had pretty much destroyed this special relationship. Henry, much like his father, also wanted to church reform, but ended up becoming involved in the Investiture Controversy. This was a significant conflict between the church and the state. With all the back and forth disputes between Rome and Westminster, the Archbishop at the time, Anselm, decided to go into exile and live out his days in the peace and quiet of an abbey.
The investiture decided who would appoint and invest in the clergy, which had always been the role of the king. The pope declared this unlawful, which would mean Henry would have little say in which clergy could be appointed. The concern for the king would be the potential for the appointed clergyman to have an awful lot of power. Henry therefore ignored this, and the pope threatened him with excommunication. So, as a compromise, Henry renounced investiture but kept authority over church lands. This meant that Henry would continue to keep the church revenues, and have the say on who lived in church properties.
Henry I Descendants
Henry I’s eldest son and legitimate heir to the throne, William Aetheling, tragically died during a crossing from France to England on the White Ship, a new fast ship in Henry’s fleet. The ship crashed into a rock soon after they set off, and capsized. William, who was safely in a life-boat, decided to return to the sinking ship to save his half-sister, Matilda. However, the life-boat soon became consumed with too many people trying to save themselves, and sank too, taking William with it. Further more, Henry’s illegitimate son, Richard, also drowned. It is said that the Henry I never smiled again.
Henry had no choice now, but to name Matilda as his heir. This decision would lead to civil war after his death.
Henry I Facts
- Henry I was born in September 1068, Selby, Yorkshire
- His father was William the Conqueror
- His mother was Matilda of Flanders
- He was crowned on 5 August 1100 at Westminster Abbey, aged 31
- He married Matilda, daughter of Malcolm III of Scotland and then later Adeliza, daughter of Geoffrey VII, Count of Louvain
- He had 4 legitimate children, most notably:
- William Aetheling, Matilda
- He died on 1 December 1135 at St Denis-en-Lyons, Rouen aged 67, and was buried at Reading Abbey
- He was the only Norman King of England who was literate, and was known as Beauclerc (good writer)
Henry I – King of England and Duke of Normandy | <urn:uuid:0d5d17c7-4d6e-42e3-89fb-e6513d4788d0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.discovermiddleages.co.uk/king-henry-i/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607118.51/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122131612-20200122160612-00534.warc.gz | en | 0.988552 | 1,222 | 3.890625 | 4 | [
-0.11520357429981232,
0.6985387802124023,
0.08622856438159943,
-0.4198787212371826,
-0.3060505986213684,
-0.39826345443725586,
0.05085446685552597,
-0.008239740505814552,
0.04358331486582756,
-0.22355861961841583,
-0.11652332544326782,
-0.45071035623550415,
0.3774993419647217,
0.2264689505... | 5 | King Henry I of England was the youngest son of William the Conqueror. He was also the only Norman king who could read and write. This education came from his upbringing in the church, unlike his siblings. Henry I had a long and successful reign in England, and due to his ambitious nature, he expanded his kingdom into Normandy.
Henry I of England
Henry I was not originally intended to be King of England. William the Conqueror’s eldest son, Robert Curthose, fought against his father at the siege of Mantes, but was still first in line to the throne. But on William the Conqueror’s death bed, Robert was only granted the Duchy of Normandy, while William’s second son, William II (Rufus), was granted England. Henry I, William’s youngest son only received money.
William II, had a quick and unpopular reign, and died rather suspiciously in a hunting accident in 1100. Henry was present at the time! However, William II had already nominated their older brother Robert (inset) as his heir, so Henry I had to act quickly to secure the treasury, and was crowned on 5 August 1100 at Westminster Abbey, before Robert returned from the Crusades.
Henry I knew this would result in a rebellion from Robert, so he publicly distanced himself from the unpopular policies of William II, and also favoured himself with the church. Henry then married Matilda, daughter of Malcolm III of Scotland, which helped his alliance with the Scots and the Anglo-Saxons (as Matilda was niece to Edgar the Atheling). A strategic move to support his new position.
Henry Duke of Normandy
In 1101, Robert had returned from the Crusades, and immediately invaded England. However, Henry I was able to negotiate with Robert, offering him a good pension. Relative peace ensued for five years, but rebel barons and Robert himself were causing civil unrest in Normandy, and continually disputing with Henry. So Henry I decided to invade Normandy, to put to rest his rebellious brother and his barons. The Battle of Tinchebray proceeded in 1106, in Tinchebray, Normandy. Henry I and his knights had a decisive victory. He imprisoned Robert in Devizes castle, and then relocated him to Cardiff castle, where Robert eventually died.
Henry I was now Duke of Normandy as well as King of England. His control of Normandy was challenged by Loius VI of France, who recognised Robert Curthose’s son, William Clito, as legitimate heir. A major rebellion followed in Normandy, from 1116 – 1119. Henry I was again victorious, this time at the Battle of Bremule, and a peace settlement was agreed with Loius VI in 1120.
Henry I Beauclerc and the Investiture Controversy
Henry I was known as Henry Beauclerc, which means ‘good writer’. He was well educated in Latin and Liberal Arts, and primarily educated by the church. His father, William I, had a good relationship with the English church, reforming it with support from Lanfranc, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lanfranc would become a close advisor of Williams. But, William II (Rufus) had pretty much destroyed this special relationship. Henry, much like his father, also wanted to church reform, but ended up becoming involved in the Investiture Controversy. This was a significant conflict between the church and the state. With all the back and forth disputes between Rome and Westminster, the Archbishop at the time, Anselm, decided to go into exile and live out his days in the peace and quiet of an abbey.
The investiture decided who would appoint and invest in the clergy, which had always been the role of the king. The pope declared this unlawful, which would mean Henry would have little say in which clergy could be appointed. The concern for the king would be the potential for the appointed clergyman to have an awful lot of power. Henry therefore ignored this, and the pope threatened him with excommunication. So, as a compromise, Henry renounced investiture but kept authority over church lands. This meant that Henry would continue to keep the church revenues, and have the say on who lived in church properties.
Henry I Descendants
Henry I’s eldest son and legitimate heir to the throne, William Aetheling, tragically died during a crossing from France to England on the White Ship, a new fast ship in Henry’s fleet. The ship crashed into a rock soon after they set off, and capsized. William, who was safely in a life-boat, decided to return to the sinking ship to save his half-sister, Matilda. However, the life-boat soon became consumed with too many people trying to save themselves, and sank too, taking William with it. Further more, Henry’s illegitimate son, Richard, also drowned. It is said that the Henry I never smiled again.
Henry had no choice now, but to name Matilda as his heir. This decision would lead to civil war after his death.
Henry I Facts
- Henry I was born in September 1068, Selby, Yorkshire
- His father was William the Conqueror
- His mother was Matilda of Flanders
- He was crowned on 5 August 1100 at Westminster Abbey, aged 31
- He married Matilda, daughter of Malcolm III of Scotland and then later Adeliza, daughter of Geoffrey VII, Count of Louvain
- He had 4 legitimate children, most notably:
- William Aetheling, Matilda
- He died on 1 December 1135 at St Denis-en-Lyons, Rouen aged 67, and was buried at Reading Abbey
- He was the only Norman King of England who was literate, and was known as Beauclerc (good writer)
Henry I – King of England and Duke of Normandy | 1,244 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Lucius Verus, (15 December 130 – 23 January 169 AD) was the co-emperor of Rome with his adopted older brother Marcus Aurelius from 161 until 169 when he died. Lucius and his brother were an important emperor in the middle of the 2nd Century, Lucius is the less famous of the two. They were both picked out as young boys by the past Emperor Hadrian to be the then-reinging-emperor Antoninus’s successors, just as Antoninus was Hadrian’s adopted successor. They were the first co-emperors to rule Rome, despite the senate plans for Marcus to rule alone, to which Marcus refused unless Lucius received equal powers. They ruled together well which set an example for following Emperors to come.
Marcus controlled the city of Rome and the campaigns along the northern frontier whilst Lucius was responsible for gathering a massive army and setting out East. When Lucius and his troops returned to Rome, the city had been struck by a mass of the smallpox pandemic. The Romans believed that Lucius and his troops were the cause of the disease being released, that they had disturbed the temple of Apollo angering the god of Health and Diseases resulting in the disease being unleashed. Lucius succumbed to this disease ending his life, and some might say, ended the Roman Empire’s glory days. Marcus went on to rule solo until his son, Commodus, joined him in 177. Marcus died in 180.
Immortales: Lucius Verus and Marcus Aureli: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE0kH9NyCLU | <urn:uuid:f82abd46-2652-4420-b60e-4e6ce946c43c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.myminifactory.com/es/object/3d-print-portrait-of-lucius-auelius-verus-designated-emperor-136-138-ad-101968 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00121.warc.gz | en | 0.987732 | 331 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.48519963026046753,
0.4670574963092804,
0.4485165476799011,
-0.0332062765955925,
-0.4665200710296631,
-0.24087505042552948,
0.07855306565761566,
0.09565238654613495,
-0.010074349120259285,
-0.505824625492096,
0.2651211619377136,
-0.3861981928348541,
0.2764027714729309,
0.2774254083633423... | 6 | Lucius Verus, (15 December 130 – 23 January 169 AD) was the co-emperor of Rome with his adopted older brother Marcus Aurelius from 161 until 169 when he died. Lucius and his brother were an important emperor in the middle of the 2nd Century, Lucius is the less famous of the two. They were both picked out as young boys by the past Emperor Hadrian to be the then-reinging-emperor Antoninus’s successors, just as Antoninus was Hadrian’s adopted successor. They were the first co-emperors to rule Rome, despite the senate plans for Marcus to rule alone, to which Marcus refused unless Lucius received equal powers. They ruled together well which set an example for following Emperors to come.
Marcus controlled the city of Rome and the campaigns along the northern frontier whilst Lucius was responsible for gathering a massive army and setting out East. When Lucius and his troops returned to Rome, the city had been struck by a mass of the smallpox pandemic. The Romans believed that Lucius and his troops were the cause of the disease being released, that they had disturbed the temple of Apollo angering the god of Health and Diseases resulting in the disease being unleashed. Lucius succumbed to this disease ending his life, and some might say, ended the Roman Empire’s glory days. Marcus went on to rule solo until his son, Commodus, joined him in 177. Marcus died in 180.
Immortales: Lucius Verus and Marcus Aureli: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE0kH9NyCLU | 344 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Lieutenant Colonel John By arrived in Canada from England in 1829 to build the Rideau Canal. In the same year, Colonel By founded Bytown, which had two villages. Upper Town lay on the west side of the Rideau Canal.
The other, Lower Town, was founded east of the canal and was bordered by the Rideau River and Sussex, Clarence, and Rideau Street.
In 1827, Colonel By decided to build a market building on George Street in Lower Town. This large timber structure held a weighing machine, a market space, and a public meeting hall. It was the first ByWard Market.
The market building was dismantled in 1842, but demands from the community convinced the city to build a new one. The second market officially opened on November 6, 1848.
Unfortunately, in 1862 the second market building was destroyed by a fire. The city council understood how important the market was and made plans to build the third Byward Market building in the same lot. It reopened in 1865.
Bytown was renamed Ottawa in 1855. The city was growing rapidly, and the ByWard Market followed suit. Four lots were bought for more market space. A bell was purchased to mark the opening of business. It still hangs in the ByWard Market building today and is rung every morning by locals and visitors.
The market struggled with overcrowding, so in 1871 it was proposed that the market should expand into a new building. The new lot was between George and York. The fourth ByWard Market building, designed by James Mather, opened in April 1876.
In the early 1900s, vendors had to follow certain odd rules. For example, in 1908, the Market Inspector sent out a notice stating that “Spitting on the pavements… is a misdemeanour and punishable by fine or imprisonment”.
In 1926 a second fire caused the destruction of the market building. Its replacement still exists today and is nearly 100 years old. Vendors, buskers, and store owners continue to use the market to make a living and share their work. | <urn:uuid:9a8a1cda-95af-439a-80fa-4f61c06f676a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.ottawamarkets.ca/byward-market | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00495.warc.gz | en | 0.981785 | 429 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.10847172141075134,
0.22747230529785156,
0.28648534417152405,
-0.03970938175916672,
-0.32501021027565,
0.18666598200798035,
-0.010366689413785934,
0.21544645726680756,
-0.13107004761695862,
0.00524078868329525,
0.0755491852760315,
-0.418409526348114,
0.06422722339630127,
-0.0729474499821... | 4 | Lieutenant Colonel John By arrived in Canada from England in 1829 to build the Rideau Canal. In the same year, Colonel By founded Bytown, which had two villages. Upper Town lay on the west side of the Rideau Canal.
The other, Lower Town, was founded east of the canal and was bordered by the Rideau River and Sussex, Clarence, and Rideau Street.
In 1827, Colonel By decided to build a market building on George Street in Lower Town. This large timber structure held a weighing machine, a market space, and a public meeting hall. It was the first ByWard Market.
The market building was dismantled in 1842, but demands from the community convinced the city to build a new one. The second market officially opened on November 6, 1848.
Unfortunately, in 1862 the second market building was destroyed by a fire. The city council understood how important the market was and made plans to build the third Byward Market building in the same lot. It reopened in 1865.
Bytown was renamed Ottawa in 1855. The city was growing rapidly, and the ByWard Market followed suit. Four lots were bought for more market space. A bell was purchased to mark the opening of business. It still hangs in the ByWard Market building today and is rung every morning by locals and visitors.
The market struggled with overcrowding, so in 1871 it was proposed that the market should expand into a new building. The new lot was between George and York. The fourth ByWard Market building, designed by James Mather, opened in April 1876.
In the early 1900s, vendors had to follow certain odd rules. For example, in 1908, the Market Inspector sent out a notice stating that “Spitting on the pavements… is a misdemeanour and punishable by fine or imprisonment”.
In 1926 a second fire caused the destruction of the market building. Its replacement still exists today and is nearly 100 years old. Vendors, buskers, and store owners continue to use the market to make a living and share their work. | 467 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A Texas Tech paleontologist and colleagues have discovered a new species of the Triassic-age dinosaur in the West Texas back country. The female phytosaur was found in an ancient oxbow lake created by a flood and unknown river where she sank to the bottom some 205 million years ago and about 120 feet away a larger male was found. Unfortunately their bodies have deteriorated with time, but their skulls remained. The article is available in Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
The researchers named this new phytosaur as Machaeroprosopus lottorum after the Lott family who owns the ranch where the dinosaur was found.
According to Bill Mueller, assistant curator of Paleontology at the Museum of Texas Tech University, “We found them in an area we’d been excavating in. I think we’ve gotten four skulls out of that area already. Doug Cunningham found this specimen, and then we dug it up. When he found it, just the very back end of the skull was sticking out of the ground. The rest was buried. We excavated it and brought it into the museum to finish preparation.”
Cunningham, a retired firefighter and currently a field research assistant at the museum, recalls finding the female skull back in June 2001. Initial inspection of the skull made Cunningham wonder if this discovery would add a new species to science. Cunningham notes, “It was really well preserved with the teeth and everything. Finding one with teeth is pretty rare. It was so odd, but when they come out of the ground, you have a long way to go to actually see what you have because they’re still covered in matrix. We were all kind of in awe of it. It had this long, skinny snout. It was quite a bit different. It took me years to get it prepped and ready. At the time, I was working full-time and I did that on my days off.”
The researchers looked at the supratemporal fenestra, the snout and the shape of the bones at the back of head and made comparisons with other phytosaurs and determined that they had a new species. Mueller notes, today West Texas is an arid and dusty place, however during the Triassic period, it was a swampy, tropical rain forest. At that time, landmasses were converged to form Pangaea (super continent). The swampy lands were covered with conifers and ferns where phytosaurs could hide and wait for prey. Mueller goes on further to say, “A phytosaur resembles a crocodile. They had basically the same lifestyle as the modern crocodile by living in and around the water, eating fish, and whatever animals came to the margins of the rivers and lakes. But one of the big differences is the external nares, the nose, is back up next to its eyes instead of at the end of its snout.”
According to Mueller, it is easy to tell the sexes of the phytosaurs because the male has a bony crest stretched from the nostrils by the eyes to the tip of the animal’s beak of which the female doesn’t have. Looking at the length of the female skull, which was 3 feet, Mueller and colleagues were able to determine that she was approximately 16 to 17 feet in length. They reported that the male was around 17 to 18 feet in length. The researchers also note that these phytosaurs had thin jaws, suggesting they hunted mostly fish as opposed to large prey.
Photo from Wikipedia.org | <urn:uuid:0cf22a96-0b5e-4326-ba08-910164d5a9c3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://bionews-tx.com/news/2014/01/31/new-triassic-phytosaur-discovered-by-texas-tech-paleontologists/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250609478.50/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123071220-20200123100220-00013.warc.gz | en | 0.983358 | 746 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
-0.3948686420917511,
0.1327531933784485,
0.46175453066825867,
0.28861182928085327,
-0.05698743462562561,
0.18149316310882568,
-0.04210444912314415,
0.10677644610404968,
-0.4494882822036743,
-0.13706153631210327,
0.39262253046035767,
-0.47849541902542114,
0.20609572529792786,
0.155366688966... | 1 | A Texas Tech paleontologist and colleagues have discovered a new species of the Triassic-age dinosaur in the West Texas back country. The female phytosaur was found in an ancient oxbow lake created by a flood and unknown river where she sank to the bottom some 205 million years ago and about 120 feet away a larger male was found. Unfortunately their bodies have deteriorated with time, but their skulls remained. The article is available in Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
The researchers named this new phytosaur as Machaeroprosopus lottorum after the Lott family who owns the ranch where the dinosaur was found.
According to Bill Mueller, assistant curator of Paleontology at the Museum of Texas Tech University, “We found them in an area we’d been excavating in. I think we’ve gotten four skulls out of that area already. Doug Cunningham found this specimen, and then we dug it up. When he found it, just the very back end of the skull was sticking out of the ground. The rest was buried. We excavated it and brought it into the museum to finish preparation.”
Cunningham, a retired firefighter and currently a field research assistant at the museum, recalls finding the female skull back in June 2001. Initial inspection of the skull made Cunningham wonder if this discovery would add a new species to science. Cunningham notes, “It was really well preserved with the teeth and everything. Finding one with teeth is pretty rare. It was so odd, but when they come out of the ground, you have a long way to go to actually see what you have because they’re still covered in matrix. We were all kind of in awe of it. It had this long, skinny snout. It was quite a bit different. It took me years to get it prepped and ready. At the time, I was working full-time and I did that on my days off.”
The researchers looked at the supratemporal fenestra, the snout and the shape of the bones at the back of head and made comparisons with other phytosaurs and determined that they had a new species. Mueller notes, today West Texas is an arid and dusty place, however during the Triassic period, it was a swampy, tropical rain forest. At that time, landmasses were converged to form Pangaea (super continent). The swampy lands were covered with conifers and ferns where phytosaurs could hide and wait for prey. Mueller goes on further to say, “A phytosaur resembles a crocodile. They had basically the same lifestyle as the modern crocodile by living in and around the water, eating fish, and whatever animals came to the margins of the rivers and lakes. But one of the big differences is the external nares, the nose, is back up next to its eyes instead of at the end of its snout.”
According to Mueller, it is easy to tell the sexes of the phytosaurs because the male has a bony crest stretched from the nostrils by the eyes to the tip of the animal’s beak of which the female doesn’t have. Looking at the length of the female skull, which was 3 feet, Mueller and colleagues were able to determine that she was approximately 16 to 17 feet in length. They reported that the male was around 17 to 18 feet in length. The researchers also note that these phytosaurs had thin jaws, suggesting they hunted mostly fish as opposed to large prey.
Photo from Wikipedia.org | 731 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Joe Rocchio is a senior vegetation ecologist at the Department of Natural Resources.
It was a quiet August morning on the western Olympic peninsula. I was gearing up for another day of surveying for rare and high quality wetlands. In front of me was today’s mission—a 40-acre wetland.
The previous few days were challenging, consisting of difficult romps through dense, coastal swamp forests and I was not in the mood to repeat those adventures. As I stood on the edge of the wetland, finishing off my coffee and hoping the caffeine surge would get me over this lethargy, I looked toward the middle of the wetland and saw what looked like a thicket of tall shrubs. That meant another brutal day of bushwhacking. Ugh.
After a few minutes of hesitation, I took one last sip of coffee and jumped in. The first 20 meters were as expected—very mucky soils and slow going. At least there was no deep water and so far, the shrub density wasn’t too bad. The next 50 meters proved to be a bit drier but the shrubs were getting denser. And, those shrubs toward the middle were now looking like they would be over my head. Not looking forward to that.
After a few more minutes of plowing toward those tall shrubs, I came to an abrupt change in the vegetation. Waist-high shrubs all of a sudden dropped below my knees—same species, just dwarf versions of them. How could those tall shrubs I feared be so short? Their density also changed dramatically. They went from occupying all available space to being scattered. In between the dwarf shrubs was this continuous, fluffy, pillow-y, carpet of peat moss radiating beautiful shades of deep red, rusty orange, and lime green colors. These changes were not gradual—the transition was abrupt and clear.
This dwarf vegetation extended in front of me across a large, flat area. Trees changed too. In the area of dense shrubs, the scattered trees grew to 10-15 meters tall. But where the dwarf shrubs occurred the trees were short and looked like bonsai. The water levels had changed as well. The ground surface underneath the dense shrubs was moist but not wet. However, when the dwarf shrubs appeared, I noticed that the water level was at the soil surface–the ground was saturated and squishy.
As I looked back toward where I started, wondering what was going on, it hit me—no, floored me—I had just walked uphill. The area covered by scattered dwarf shrubs where I was now standing was higher than where I started. Okay, but why is the high point wetter than the slope leading up to it? Gravity doesn’t work this way. Water is supposed to move downhill, not uphill. Wetlands are supposed to occur where water collects in low points on the landscapes, not in places where water flows to the top of a hill. Where the heck was I?
Having spent a lot of time reading about the peatlands that occur in the high latitudes of Canada and Europe, and dreaming that one day I might be able to visit those boggy paradises, I started to piece together what I had just stumbled upon. It seemed I had just stepped into a raised bog—something that had never before been documented in the western United States. I felt like Indiana Jones finding the Ark of the Covenant.
I was by myself that day and didn’t have anybody to share this discovery with so I walked around the bog exuberantly talking to myself, “Dang, this is a raised bog. Right? Yes, it’s raised.”
Although I was blind to all the signs when I first walked into the bog, it was so obvious to me now.
“Look at how the edges slope DOWN toward the forest. The top of this bog is clearly above the edge. But, wait, raised bogs are not supposed to occur here. Well, here it is. True that. Wow, I just found a raised bog!”
I engaged Dr. David Cooper at Colorado State University to help design a research project that would provide the necessary information to determine whether Crowberry Bog was indeed a true, raised bog. We installed 15 well nests across the site. At each nest are three to four groundwater wells that allow us to measure the water table, direction of water movement, and water chemistry.
If Crowberry Bog was a true, raised bog, it would have the following characteristics: (1) The water table would be tightly associated with precipitation events; (2) the direction of water movement would be downward and lateral, at least in the winters months (if water movement was upward, that would indicate groundwater inputs); (3) the pH and calcium concentrations would be very low and less than found in local precipitation; and (4) vegetation patterns would show distinct zonation associated with these measures.
After a few years of data collection, it was apparent that Crowberry Bog indeed possessed all of these characteristics! And, it is old. During our research, I found a scientific paper from 1974 that described a peat core collected from Crowberry Bog that showed the peat was about 5 m deep and started to accumulate nearly 16,000 years ago! Ancient and rare.
It has been eight years since that August morning and five years since I proposed that the site be designated a state Natural Area Preserve. Recently, the Board of Natural Resources voted to protect Crowberry Bog by transferring these lands into the Washington State Natural Areas program. The site is now permanently set aside for research, education, and, best of all, to conserve an incredibly beautiful and special place. I hope to help protect many other examples of Washington’s ecological treasures over the course of my career but if this happens to be the only place I’ve been successful, I will be content. | <urn:uuid:7f6eb7d7-f7fc-46fb-8098-a6842dea9979> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://washingtondnr.wordpress.com/2019/12/05/discovering-an-ecological-anomaly-crowberry-bog/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694071.63/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126230255-20200127020255-00306.warc.gz | en | 0.980822 | 1,224 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
0.19580353796482086,
-0.31713443994522095,
0.3411349356174469,
-0.25238823890686035,
0.6999484300613403,
-0.06468014419078827,
0.021018944680690765,
0.06616850197315216,
-0.12341906130313873,
-0.05349813401699066,
0.35006290674209595,
-0.1670457124710083,
0.35296162962913513,
0.37719729542... | 4 | Joe Rocchio is a senior vegetation ecologist at the Department of Natural Resources.
It was a quiet August morning on the western Olympic peninsula. I was gearing up for another day of surveying for rare and high quality wetlands. In front of me was today’s mission—a 40-acre wetland.
The previous few days were challenging, consisting of difficult romps through dense, coastal swamp forests and I was not in the mood to repeat those adventures. As I stood on the edge of the wetland, finishing off my coffee and hoping the caffeine surge would get me over this lethargy, I looked toward the middle of the wetland and saw what looked like a thicket of tall shrubs. That meant another brutal day of bushwhacking. Ugh.
After a few minutes of hesitation, I took one last sip of coffee and jumped in. The first 20 meters were as expected—very mucky soils and slow going. At least there was no deep water and so far, the shrub density wasn’t too bad. The next 50 meters proved to be a bit drier but the shrubs were getting denser. And, those shrubs toward the middle were now looking like they would be over my head. Not looking forward to that.
After a few more minutes of plowing toward those tall shrubs, I came to an abrupt change in the vegetation. Waist-high shrubs all of a sudden dropped below my knees—same species, just dwarf versions of them. How could those tall shrubs I feared be so short? Their density also changed dramatically. They went from occupying all available space to being scattered. In between the dwarf shrubs was this continuous, fluffy, pillow-y, carpet of peat moss radiating beautiful shades of deep red, rusty orange, and lime green colors. These changes were not gradual—the transition was abrupt and clear.
This dwarf vegetation extended in front of me across a large, flat area. Trees changed too. In the area of dense shrubs, the scattered trees grew to 10-15 meters tall. But where the dwarf shrubs occurred the trees were short and looked like bonsai. The water levels had changed as well. The ground surface underneath the dense shrubs was moist but not wet. However, when the dwarf shrubs appeared, I noticed that the water level was at the soil surface–the ground was saturated and squishy.
As I looked back toward where I started, wondering what was going on, it hit me—no, floored me—I had just walked uphill. The area covered by scattered dwarf shrubs where I was now standing was higher than where I started. Okay, but why is the high point wetter than the slope leading up to it? Gravity doesn’t work this way. Water is supposed to move downhill, not uphill. Wetlands are supposed to occur where water collects in low points on the landscapes, not in places where water flows to the top of a hill. Where the heck was I?
Having spent a lot of time reading about the peatlands that occur in the high latitudes of Canada and Europe, and dreaming that one day I might be able to visit those boggy paradises, I started to piece together what I had just stumbled upon. It seemed I had just stepped into a raised bog—something that had never before been documented in the western United States. I felt like Indiana Jones finding the Ark of the Covenant.
I was by myself that day and didn’t have anybody to share this discovery with so I walked around the bog exuberantly talking to myself, “Dang, this is a raised bog. Right? Yes, it’s raised.”
Although I was blind to all the signs when I first walked into the bog, it was so obvious to me now.
“Look at how the edges slope DOWN toward the forest. The top of this bog is clearly above the edge. But, wait, raised bogs are not supposed to occur here. Well, here it is. True that. Wow, I just found a raised bog!”
I engaged Dr. David Cooper at Colorado State University to help design a research project that would provide the necessary information to determine whether Crowberry Bog was indeed a true, raised bog. We installed 15 well nests across the site. At each nest are three to four groundwater wells that allow us to measure the water table, direction of water movement, and water chemistry.
If Crowberry Bog was a true, raised bog, it would have the following characteristics: (1) The water table would be tightly associated with precipitation events; (2) the direction of water movement would be downward and lateral, at least in the winters months (if water movement was upward, that would indicate groundwater inputs); (3) the pH and calcium concentrations would be very low and less than found in local precipitation; and (4) vegetation patterns would show distinct zonation associated with these measures.
After a few years of data collection, it was apparent that Crowberry Bog indeed possessed all of these characteristics! And, it is old. During our research, I found a scientific paper from 1974 that described a peat core collected from Crowberry Bog that showed the peat was about 5 m deep and started to accumulate nearly 16,000 years ago! Ancient and rare.
It has been eight years since that August morning and five years since I proposed that the site be designated a state Natural Area Preserve. Recently, the Board of Natural Resources voted to protect Crowberry Bog by transferring these lands into the Washington State Natural Areas program. The site is now permanently set aside for research, education, and, best of all, to conserve an incredibly beautiful and special place. I hope to help protect many other examples of Washington’s ecological treasures over the course of my career but if this happens to be the only place I’ve been successful, I will be content. | 1,203 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.