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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Today in 1577 Francis Drake left for his voyage around the world. He would go on to successfully circumnavigate the globe, the first English explorer to do so, on a journey that took 1020 days. Drake had sailed in the Caribbean a few times on trading missions, and he had learned about how to navigate around the West Indies on these trips.
Five ships set sail from Plymouth in 1577, and the Golden Hind (which had been called the Pelican at this point) was the largest. The Golden Hind, renamed when the ship reached the Pacific, was the only one to come back. 56 men made it home with him.
The point of the journey wasn’t originally to sail around the world – it was simply to try to intercept the gold and jewels that the Spanish were removing from South America, and Drake captured 26 tons of silver, half a ton of gold, thousands of coins, pieces of jewellery, and jewels. After he captured the goods, he couldn’t go home the way he’d planned because Spanish were waiting for him. So he moved north, up the coast to present day California, made it up to Vancouver trying to find the North West passage. He wasn’t successful in finding it, and so he had to turn west to Japan. He sailed across the Pacific Ocean, past the north coast of Australia, into Indonesia and the Spice Islands where he also got six tons of cloves – which were almost worth their weight in Gold at the time. Then he went southwest past India, and around Africa. People in England were surprised when he returned home, as he had long been assumed dead.
The value of the goods he brought back were worth over half a billion dollars in today’s money. He was nicknamed El Draco by the Spanish, and was knighted.
That’s your Tudor Minute for today. Remember you can dive deeper into life in 16th century England through the Renaissance English History Podcast at englandcast.com where there are several episodes on Drake, and explorers of the Elizabethan era.Episode Links:
Episode 31: Trade and Exploration – https://www.englandcast.com/2017/07/throwback-episode-31-trade-exploration-16th-century/ | <urn:uuid:a4b38f04-8f78-4ceb-9fbc-6ef3d0e0baae> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://tudorfair.com/blogs/the-tudor-fair-blog/tudor-minute-december-13-bon-voyage-sir-francis-1 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594603.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119122744-20200119150744-00307.warc.gz | en | 0.985716 | 469 | 3.375 | 3 | [
0.11710081249475479,
0.0007571994210593402,
0.3246252238750458,
-0.34291306138038635,
-0.15445949137210846,
-0.2766088843345642,
0.1712765246629715,
0.4689181447029114,
-0.12269072234630585,
0.09381216019392014,
0.1168413981795311,
-0.5097455382347107,
-0.15959927439689636,
0.4349847435951... | 7 | Today in 1577 Francis Drake left for his voyage around the world. He would go on to successfully circumnavigate the globe, the first English explorer to do so, on a journey that took 1020 days. Drake had sailed in the Caribbean a few times on trading missions, and he had learned about how to navigate around the West Indies on these trips.
Five ships set sail from Plymouth in 1577, and the Golden Hind (which had been called the Pelican at this point) was the largest. The Golden Hind, renamed when the ship reached the Pacific, was the only one to come back. 56 men made it home with him.
The point of the journey wasn’t originally to sail around the world – it was simply to try to intercept the gold and jewels that the Spanish were removing from South America, and Drake captured 26 tons of silver, half a ton of gold, thousands of coins, pieces of jewellery, and jewels. After he captured the goods, he couldn’t go home the way he’d planned because Spanish were waiting for him. So he moved north, up the coast to present day California, made it up to Vancouver trying to find the North West passage. He wasn’t successful in finding it, and so he had to turn west to Japan. He sailed across the Pacific Ocean, past the north coast of Australia, into Indonesia and the Spice Islands where he also got six tons of cloves – which were almost worth their weight in Gold at the time. Then he went southwest past India, and around Africa. People in England were surprised when he returned home, as he had long been assumed dead.
The value of the goods he brought back were worth over half a billion dollars in today’s money. He was nicknamed El Draco by the Spanish, and was knighted.
That’s your Tudor Minute for today. Remember you can dive deeper into life in 16th century England through the Renaissance English History Podcast at englandcast.com where there are several episodes on Drake, and explorers of the Elizabethan era.Episode Links:
Episode 31: Trade and Exploration – https://www.englandcast.com/2017/07/throwback-episode-31-trade-exploration-16th-century/ | 469 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Edgar Allan Poe was a bizarre and often scary writer. People throughout history have often wondered why his writings were so fantastically different and unusual. They were not the result of a diseased mind, as some think. Rather they came from a tense and miserable life. Edgar Allan Poe was not a happy man. He was a victim of fate from the moment he was born to his death only forty years later. He died alone and unappreciated. It is quite obvious that his life affected his writings in a great way. In order to understand why, the historical background of Poe must be known.
Poe was born in Boston, Massachusetts on January 19, 1809. His parents were touring actors and both died before he was three years old. After this, he was taken into the home of John Allan, a prosperous merchant who lived in Richmond, Virginia. 1 When he was six, he studied in England for five years. Not much else is known about his childhood, except that it was uneventful. In 1826, when Poe was seventeen years old he entered the University of Virginia. It was also at this time that he was engaged to marry his childhood sweetheart, Sarah Elmira Royster.
He was a good student, but only stayed for a ear. He did not have enough money to make ends meet, so he ran up extremely large gambling debts to trying make more money. Then he could not afford to go to school anymore. John Allan refused to pay off Poe’s debts, and broke off his engagement to Sarah Elmira Royster. Since Poe had no other means of support, he enlisted in the army. By this time however, he had written and printed his first book, Tammerlane, and Minor Poems (1829). 2 After a few months though, John Allan and Poe were reconciled.
Allan arranged for Poe to be released from the army and enrolled him at West Point. During this time, his fellow cadets helped him publish another book of poetry. However, John Allan again did not provide Poe with enough money, and Poe decided to leave this time before racking up any more debts Still, Poe had no money and necessity forced him to live with his aunt, Mrs. Clemm, in Baltimore, Maryland. None of his poetry had sold particularly well, so he decided to write stories. He could find no publisher for his stories, and so resorted to entering writing contests to make money and receive exposure.
He was rarely successful, but eventually won. His short story, MS. Found in a Bottle was well liked and one of the judges in the contest, John P. Kennedy, befriended him. 3 It was on Kennedy’s recommendation that Poe became assistant editor of the Southern Literary Messenger, published at Richmond by T. W. White. It was at this time that Poe went through a period of emotional instability that he tried to control by drinking. This was a mistake because he was extremely sensitive to alcohol and became very drunk just from one or two drinks.
In May of 1836 Poe married his cousin, Virginia and brought her and her mother to live with him in Richmond. It was during this time that Poe produced a number of stories and even some verse. 4 Over the next few years, Poe went from good times to bad. He had become the editor of magazines and had written books, but none of these were paying off enough. He would always be laid off the editorial staff for differences over policies. He was doing so poorly that by the end of 1846 he was asking his friends and admirers for help. He was then living in a cottage with Mrs. Clemm and Virginia.
Virginia was dying of consumption and had to sleep in an unheated room. After six years f marriage she had become very ill, and her disease had driven Poe to distraction. Virginia died on January 30, 1847, and Poe broke down. It is here that much is learned about him and why he wrote the way he did. All of his life he had wanted to be loved and to have someone to love. Yet one by one, he kept losing the women in his life. His mother, Mrs. Allan, and now Virginia. He had wanted to lead a life of wealth and luxury and still, despite his tremendous talent, was forced to live as a poor man.
When he reached manhood, after a sheltered childhood and teenage years, is life seemed to be caught up in failures. So, he did what most people do. He found a way to escape. His method was writing. He found so much in common with his characters, that his life began to emulate theirs. Although it is probably the other way around. How tragic that the one thing that he was good at never seemed to do him any good. No matter what he wrote, he just kept sinking further and further into an abyss. This abyss could be called death or ultimate despair.
When we read Poe’s stories, we often find ourselves wondering how such a mind could function in society. This quotation from American Writers: A Collection of Literary Biographies, very accurately describes the landscape of Poe’s stories: The world of Poe’s tales is a nightmarish universe. You cross wasted lands, silent, forsaken landscapes where both life and waters stagnate. Here and there you catch sight of lugubrious feudal buildings suggestive of horrible and mysterious happenings…… The inside of these sinister buildings is just as disquieting as the outside.
Everything is dark there, from the ebony furniture to the oaken ceiling. The walls are ung with heavy tapestries to which mysterious drafts constantly give ‘a hideous and uneasy animation. ‘ Even the windows are ‘of a leaden hue,’ so that the rays of either sun or moon passing through fall ‘with a ghastly lustre on the objects within. ‘ ……. it is usually night in the ghastly (one of his favorite adjectives) or red-blood light of the moon that Poe’s tales take place-or in the middle of terrific storms lit up by lurid flashes of lightning.
None of Poe’s characters could ever be normal, since they lived in this bizarre world. All of his heroes are usually alone, and if they are not crazy, they are on their way to becoming so rapidly. This leads one to wonder, just how lucid Poe was when he wrote these stories. Was he crazy or just upset and confused? Most texts and histories of Poe have it that he was influenced not only by his life, but by other writers. These include Hawthorne, Charles Brockden Brown, E. T. A. Hoffman, and William Godwin to name a few. Many of his stories show similarities to the works of the aforementioned.
Therefore another point is brought up, was Poe writing these stories as he result of a tortured existence and a need to escape, or was he writing to please readers and critics? In letters he wrote, he often pokes fun at his stories and says that they are sometimes intended as satire or banter. Also in his letters, he describes horrible events seemingly without any concern. So who can tell how he really felt since he might not have been totally sane and rational at the time. Even though Poe writes such bizarre tales he is never quite taken in with them. He fears but is at the same time skeptical.
He is frantic but at the same time lucid. It is not until the very end that Poe was consumed by something, and died. It might have been fear or something worse, something that could only be scraped up from the bottom of a nightmare. That is what killed him. Poe’s stories contain within them a fascination for death, decay, and insanity. He also displays very morbid characteristics and in some cases, sadistic. His murderers always seem to delight in killing their victims in the most painful and agonizing way. Still, terror seems to be the main theme. That is what Poe tries to bring about in his stories.
For example, in The Fall of he House of Usher what kills Roderick Usher is the sheer terror of his sister who appeared to have come back from the dead. According to Marie Bonaparte, one of Freud’s friends and disciples, all the disorders Poe suffered from can be explained by the Oedipus Complex and the trauma he suffered when his mother died. The Oedipus Complex is best described as a child’s unconscious desire for the exclusive love of the parent of the opposite sex. The desire includes jealousy toward the parent of the same sex and the unconscious wish for that parent’s death.
In fact, upon examining the omen in Poe’s stories, we find that they bear striking resemblance to the mother that Poe never had. So one gets a glimpse at how Poe’s life, filled with insurmountable obstacles and full of disappointments, indeed played a role in his writing. A good comparison would be Vincent Van Gogh. He also endured hardship and died at an early age. Poe was only forty when he passed away. Insignificant in his lifetime, it was only after his death that he was appreciated. He is now acclaimed as one of the greatest writers in American history. It is indeed a pity that he will never know or care. | <urn:uuid:00839807-e4e9-4c18-a8fa-fea4080e8e79> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studyboss.com/topic/writer | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592636.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118135205-20200118163205-00553.warc.gz | en | 0.992099 | 1,921 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.20639747381210327,
0.3361472487449646,
0.3839888572692871,
0.36019012331962585,
-0.15782156586647034,
-0.21896889805793762,
0.45757466554641724,
-0.33360081911087036,
-0.129889115691185,
-0.2982885539531708,
0.3844282031059265,
0.2862907648086548,
-0.1368592381477356,
0.0386908873915672... | 5 | Edgar Allan Poe was a bizarre and often scary writer. People throughout history have often wondered why his writings were so fantastically different and unusual. They were not the result of a diseased mind, as some think. Rather they came from a tense and miserable life. Edgar Allan Poe was not a happy man. He was a victim of fate from the moment he was born to his death only forty years later. He died alone and unappreciated. It is quite obvious that his life affected his writings in a great way. In order to understand why, the historical background of Poe must be known.
Poe was born in Boston, Massachusetts on January 19, 1809. His parents were touring actors and both died before he was three years old. After this, he was taken into the home of John Allan, a prosperous merchant who lived in Richmond, Virginia. 1 When he was six, he studied in England for five years. Not much else is known about his childhood, except that it was uneventful. In 1826, when Poe was seventeen years old he entered the University of Virginia. It was also at this time that he was engaged to marry his childhood sweetheart, Sarah Elmira Royster.
He was a good student, but only stayed for a ear. He did not have enough money to make ends meet, so he ran up extremely large gambling debts to trying make more money. Then he could not afford to go to school anymore. John Allan refused to pay off Poe’s debts, and broke off his engagement to Sarah Elmira Royster. Since Poe had no other means of support, he enlisted in the army. By this time however, he had written and printed his first book, Tammerlane, and Minor Poems (1829). 2 After a few months though, John Allan and Poe were reconciled.
Allan arranged for Poe to be released from the army and enrolled him at West Point. During this time, his fellow cadets helped him publish another book of poetry. However, John Allan again did not provide Poe with enough money, and Poe decided to leave this time before racking up any more debts Still, Poe had no money and necessity forced him to live with his aunt, Mrs. Clemm, in Baltimore, Maryland. None of his poetry had sold particularly well, so he decided to write stories. He could find no publisher for his stories, and so resorted to entering writing contests to make money and receive exposure.
He was rarely successful, but eventually won. His short story, MS. Found in a Bottle was well liked and one of the judges in the contest, John P. Kennedy, befriended him. 3 It was on Kennedy’s recommendation that Poe became assistant editor of the Southern Literary Messenger, published at Richmond by T. W. White. It was at this time that Poe went through a period of emotional instability that he tried to control by drinking. This was a mistake because he was extremely sensitive to alcohol and became very drunk just from one or two drinks.
In May of 1836 Poe married his cousin, Virginia and brought her and her mother to live with him in Richmond. It was during this time that Poe produced a number of stories and even some verse. 4 Over the next few years, Poe went from good times to bad. He had become the editor of magazines and had written books, but none of these were paying off enough. He would always be laid off the editorial staff for differences over policies. He was doing so poorly that by the end of 1846 he was asking his friends and admirers for help. He was then living in a cottage with Mrs. Clemm and Virginia.
Virginia was dying of consumption and had to sleep in an unheated room. After six years f marriage she had become very ill, and her disease had driven Poe to distraction. Virginia died on January 30, 1847, and Poe broke down. It is here that much is learned about him and why he wrote the way he did. All of his life he had wanted to be loved and to have someone to love. Yet one by one, he kept losing the women in his life. His mother, Mrs. Allan, and now Virginia. He had wanted to lead a life of wealth and luxury and still, despite his tremendous talent, was forced to live as a poor man.
When he reached manhood, after a sheltered childhood and teenage years, is life seemed to be caught up in failures. So, he did what most people do. He found a way to escape. His method was writing. He found so much in common with his characters, that his life began to emulate theirs. Although it is probably the other way around. How tragic that the one thing that he was good at never seemed to do him any good. No matter what he wrote, he just kept sinking further and further into an abyss. This abyss could be called death or ultimate despair.
When we read Poe’s stories, we often find ourselves wondering how such a mind could function in society. This quotation from American Writers: A Collection of Literary Biographies, very accurately describes the landscape of Poe’s stories: The world of Poe’s tales is a nightmarish universe. You cross wasted lands, silent, forsaken landscapes where both life and waters stagnate. Here and there you catch sight of lugubrious feudal buildings suggestive of horrible and mysterious happenings…… The inside of these sinister buildings is just as disquieting as the outside.
Everything is dark there, from the ebony furniture to the oaken ceiling. The walls are ung with heavy tapestries to which mysterious drafts constantly give ‘a hideous and uneasy animation. ‘ Even the windows are ‘of a leaden hue,’ so that the rays of either sun or moon passing through fall ‘with a ghastly lustre on the objects within. ‘ ……. it is usually night in the ghastly (one of his favorite adjectives) or red-blood light of the moon that Poe’s tales take place-or in the middle of terrific storms lit up by lurid flashes of lightning.
None of Poe’s characters could ever be normal, since they lived in this bizarre world. All of his heroes are usually alone, and if they are not crazy, they are on their way to becoming so rapidly. This leads one to wonder, just how lucid Poe was when he wrote these stories. Was he crazy or just upset and confused? Most texts and histories of Poe have it that he was influenced not only by his life, but by other writers. These include Hawthorne, Charles Brockden Brown, E. T. A. Hoffman, and William Godwin to name a few. Many of his stories show similarities to the works of the aforementioned.
Therefore another point is brought up, was Poe writing these stories as he result of a tortured existence and a need to escape, or was he writing to please readers and critics? In letters he wrote, he often pokes fun at his stories and says that they are sometimes intended as satire or banter. Also in his letters, he describes horrible events seemingly without any concern. So who can tell how he really felt since he might not have been totally sane and rational at the time. Even though Poe writes such bizarre tales he is never quite taken in with them. He fears but is at the same time skeptical.
He is frantic but at the same time lucid. It is not until the very end that Poe was consumed by something, and died. It might have been fear or something worse, something that could only be scraped up from the bottom of a nightmare. That is what killed him. Poe’s stories contain within them a fascination for death, decay, and insanity. He also displays very morbid characteristics and in some cases, sadistic. His murderers always seem to delight in killing their victims in the most painful and agonizing way. Still, terror seems to be the main theme. That is what Poe tries to bring about in his stories.
For example, in The Fall of he House of Usher what kills Roderick Usher is the sheer terror of his sister who appeared to have come back from the dead. According to Marie Bonaparte, one of Freud’s friends and disciples, all the disorders Poe suffered from can be explained by the Oedipus Complex and the trauma he suffered when his mother died. The Oedipus Complex is best described as a child’s unconscious desire for the exclusive love of the parent of the opposite sex. The desire includes jealousy toward the parent of the same sex and the unconscious wish for that parent’s death.
In fact, upon examining the omen in Poe’s stories, we find that they bear striking resemblance to the mother that Poe never had. So one gets a glimpse at how Poe’s life, filled with insurmountable obstacles and full of disappointments, indeed played a role in his writing. A good comparison would be Vincent Van Gogh. He also endured hardship and died at an early age. Poe was only forty when he passed away. Insignificant in his lifetime, it was only after his death that he was appreciated. He is now acclaimed as one of the greatest writers in American history. It is indeed a pity that he will never know or care. | 1,902 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Vortigern and King Constans
D URING nearly all the time that the Romans remained in Britain, the Britons fought with them and rebelled against them. But, strange to say, hardly had the Romans gone away than the Britons wanted them to come back.
While they remained in Britain the Romans took all the strongest and bravest of the Britons for soldiers. They made them go into the Roman army and taught them how to fight like the Romans. When they left Britain they took away all these British soldiers as well as their own. So the poor country was left with very few men who were able to fight. There were no great generals either like Cassivelaunus, Caractacus or Boadicea to lead them. And in those days, when people were almost always fighting and quarrelling, it was very necessary not only to have brave soldiers, but wise generals.
You will remember that the Romans built two walls across Britain, in order to keep back the wild people who lived in the north—that is, in the part of the island which we now call Scotland.
As long as the Romans remained in Britain they rebuilt and repaired these walls whenever it was necessary. Soldiers, too, lived in the forts, which were placed at short distances along the walls. These soldiers kept watch so that the Picts and Scots had not much chance of getting into the south part of the island.
But when the Romans went away, there was no one to guard and repair these walls. The Picts and Scots soon found this out. They broke down the walls and overran the whole south country, reaching even as far as London. Fierce and brave as the Britons were, they were no match for the Picts and Scots. Besides, they had very few soldiers left, and no great leader. So in despair they sent a letter to the Roman Emperor, asking for help. This letter was so sad, that it was called "The groans of the Britons."
"Come and help us," it said, "for the barbarians drive us into the sea, and the sea drives us back again to the barbarians. So those of us who are not killed in battle are drowned, and soon there will be none of us left at all."
The Romans, you remember, called the Britons barbarians, and now the Britons in their turn called the Picts and Scots barbarians.
But by this time the Romans had as much as they could do to fight their own battles. They could spare no soldiers to send to Britain, so the Britons had to help themselves as best they could.
It was a very sad and miserable time for Britain, till at last a wise king called Constantine began to reign, and he succeeded in driving the Picts and Scots back into their own country.
But one day a wicked Pict killed this wise king, and things became as bad as ever, if not worse. For the people, besides fighting with their enemies, began to quarrel among themselves as to who should be king next.
King Constantine had three sons. The eldest, Constans, was a monk. A monk is a man who takes a vow that he will not marry and have a home of his own. He lives in a big house with other monks, and spends his time in praying, in reading good books, and in helping people who are poor or ill.
Constantine's eldest son was a man like this; his two younger sons, who were called Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon, were little boys.
Now some people said, "We cannot have a monk for our king." Others said, "We cannot have little boys." So they quarrelled.
Among the nobles of Britain was a prince called Vortigern. He was very wise, but not very good. He now went to Constans and said to him, "Your father is dead. Your brothers are only little boys. You ought to be king. Be a monk no longer, but trust yourself to me and I will make you king. Only you must promise to take me for your chief adviser."
It is considered a very wicked thing for a man to break his vows and cease to be a monk, after he has promised to be one for all his life. But perhaps Constans was rather tired of that way of living, for he promised to do everything that Vortigern asked.
Vortigern took Constans away from the monastery, as the house in which monks live is called. They went to London together and Vortigern marched into the king's palace, took the crown, and put it on Constans's head. Then he told the people that Constans was their new king.
The people were not very pleased at having a king chosen for them in this way, but, as Vortigern was such a powerful prince, they were afraid to fight with him. So they let Constans be king.
Now Vortigern really wanted to get the whole of the power for himself. He knew that Constans, having lived all his life in a monastery, could not know much about ruling people. So, although Constans was called king, it was really Vortigern who ruled. First, Vortigern took charge of the king's money. Next, he got all the strong castles into his hands, and filled them with his own soldiers. Then he said to the King, "I hear that the Picts and Scots are coming to fight against us again. We ought to have more soldiers."
King Constans replied, "I leave everything to you. Get more soldiers if you think we need them."
Then Vortigern said, "I think the Picts would be the very best soldiers to get. They will come and fight for us, if we pay them well." In those days people did not always fight for their own country. There were many soldiers who would fight for any country and any cause, if only they were paid well.
So Vortigern sent to Scotland for a hundred Picts. When they came he treated them very kindly. He gave them more money and better food and clothes than any of the other soldiers. The Picts thought Vortigern was a very kind master. They soon saw that he really had all the power, and that Constans was only a pretence king.
Now Vortigern wanted these Picts to murder Constans. But he was too cunning to tell them this plainly, so one day he appeared with a sad face and told the Picts that Constans gave him so little money that he could not afford to live in Britain any more, and must go somewhere else.
This made the Picts very angry with Constans. They were so afraid of losing their kind master, that they resolved to kill Constans and make Vortigern king.
That night, while Constans was asleep, they rushed into his room, cut off his head, and carried it to Vortigern.
Vortigern was really delighted that his plan had succeeded so well. But he pretended to be very sad at the death of Constans, and very angry with those who had killed him. He ordered all the Picts to be put into prison, and then had their heads cut off. He did this because he was afraid they might say afterwards that he had told them to murder Constans.
When the two little boys, Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon, heard what had happened to their brother, King Constans, they were afraid that Vortigern might kill them too. For although Vortigern tried hard to make believe that he had had nothing to do with the murder of Constans, the people felt quite sure that he was really to blame for it. So Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon fled away to that part of France called Brittany, where they remained in safety for many years. | <urn:uuid:5cc8c5be-e5eb-4119-a71b-afa926f3a7f9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.gatewaytotheclassics.com/browse/display.php?author=marshall&book=island&story=vortigern | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00534.warc.gz | en | 0.993001 | 1,644 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.3620387613773346,
0.38163238763809204,
0.5433191061019897,
0.05828547850251198,
-0.09037923067808151,
-0.4290006160736084,
-0.2660099267959595,
0.21964961290359497,
0.06487049162387848,
-0.20624792575836182,
-0.10242675244808197,
-0.5526326298713684,
0.23283877968788147,
0.1639770865440... | 6 | Vortigern and King Constans
D URING nearly all the time that the Romans remained in Britain, the Britons fought with them and rebelled against them. But, strange to say, hardly had the Romans gone away than the Britons wanted them to come back.
While they remained in Britain the Romans took all the strongest and bravest of the Britons for soldiers. They made them go into the Roman army and taught them how to fight like the Romans. When they left Britain they took away all these British soldiers as well as their own. So the poor country was left with very few men who were able to fight. There were no great generals either like Cassivelaunus, Caractacus or Boadicea to lead them. And in those days, when people were almost always fighting and quarrelling, it was very necessary not only to have brave soldiers, but wise generals.
You will remember that the Romans built two walls across Britain, in order to keep back the wild people who lived in the north—that is, in the part of the island which we now call Scotland.
As long as the Romans remained in Britain they rebuilt and repaired these walls whenever it was necessary. Soldiers, too, lived in the forts, which were placed at short distances along the walls. These soldiers kept watch so that the Picts and Scots had not much chance of getting into the south part of the island.
But when the Romans went away, there was no one to guard and repair these walls. The Picts and Scots soon found this out. They broke down the walls and overran the whole south country, reaching even as far as London. Fierce and brave as the Britons were, they were no match for the Picts and Scots. Besides, they had very few soldiers left, and no great leader. So in despair they sent a letter to the Roman Emperor, asking for help. This letter was so sad, that it was called "The groans of the Britons."
"Come and help us," it said, "for the barbarians drive us into the sea, and the sea drives us back again to the barbarians. So those of us who are not killed in battle are drowned, and soon there will be none of us left at all."
The Romans, you remember, called the Britons barbarians, and now the Britons in their turn called the Picts and Scots barbarians.
But by this time the Romans had as much as they could do to fight their own battles. They could spare no soldiers to send to Britain, so the Britons had to help themselves as best they could.
It was a very sad and miserable time for Britain, till at last a wise king called Constantine began to reign, and he succeeded in driving the Picts and Scots back into their own country.
But one day a wicked Pict killed this wise king, and things became as bad as ever, if not worse. For the people, besides fighting with their enemies, began to quarrel among themselves as to who should be king next.
King Constantine had three sons. The eldest, Constans, was a monk. A monk is a man who takes a vow that he will not marry and have a home of his own. He lives in a big house with other monks, and spends his time in praying, in reading good books, and in helping people who are poor or ill.
Constantine's eldest son was a man like this; his two younger sons, who were called Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon, were little boys.
Now some people said, "We cannot have a monk for our king." Others said, "We cannot have little boys." So they quarrelled.
Among the nobles of Britain was a prince called Vortigern. He was very wise, but not very good. He now went to Constans and said to him, "Your father is dead. Your brothers are only little boys. You ought to be king. Be a monk no longer, but trust yourself to me and I will make you king. Only you must promise to take me for your chief adviser."
It is considered a very wicked thing for a man to break his vows and cease to be a monk, after he has promised to be one for all his life. But perhaps Constans was rather tired of that way of living, for he promised to do everything that Vortigern asked.
Vortigern took Constans away from the monastery, as the house in which monks live is called. They went to London together and Vortigern marched into the king's palace, took the crown, and put it on Constans's head. Then he told the people that Constans was their new king.
The people were not very pleased at having a king chosen for them in this way, but, as Vortigern was such a powerful prince, they were afraid to fight with him. So they let Constans be king.
Now Vortigern really wanted to get the whole of the power for himself. He knew that Constans, having lived all his life in a monastery, could not know much about ruling people. So, although Constans was called king, it was really Vortigern who ruled. First, Vortigern took charge of the king's money. Next, he got all the strong castles into his hands, and filled them with his own soldiers. Then he said to the King, "I hear that the Picts and Scots are coming to fight against us again. We ought to have more soldiers."
King Constans replied, "I leave everything to you. Get more soldiers if you think we need them."
Then Vortigern said, "I think the Picts would be the very best soldiers to get. They will come and fight for us, if we pay them well." In those days people did not always fight for their own country. There were many soldiers who would fight for any country and any cause, if only they were paid well.
So Vortigern sent to Scotland for a hundred Picts. When they came he treated them very kindly. He gave them more money and better food and clothes than any of the other soldiers. The Picts thought Vortigern was a very kind master. They soon saw that he really had all the power, and that Constans was only a pretence king.
Now Vortigern wanted these Picts to murder Constans. But he was too cunning to tell them this plainly, so one day he appeared with a sad face and told the Picts that Constans gave him so little money that he could not afford to live in Britain any more, and must go somewhere else.
This made the Picts very angry with Constans. They were so afraid of losing their kind master, that they resolved to kill Constans and make Vortigern king.
That night, while Constans was asleep, they rushed into his room, cut off his head, and carried it to Vortigern.
Vortigern was really delighted that his plan had succeeded so well. But he pretended to be very sad at the death of Constans, and very angry with those who had killed him. He ordered all the Picts to be put into prison, and then had their heads cut off. He did this because he was afraid they might say afterwards that he had told them to murder Constans.
When the two little boys, Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon, heard what had happened to their brother, King Constans, they were afraid that Vortigern might kill them too. For although Vortigern tried hard to make believe that he had had nothing to do with the murder of Constans, the people felt quite sure that he was really to blame for it. So Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon fled away to that part of France called Brittany, where they remained in safety for many years. | 1,628 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Were the Irish who started arriving in the 1840s America’s first immigrants?
Many others had made the journey before them, including prehistoric migrants across the Bering Strait and the Ulstermen who had been settling the American backcountry since the mid-18th century. But the Catholic, Gaelic “native” Irish of the Great Famine era were the first arrivals consistently labeled “immigrants” rather than “settlers,” “indentured servants” or “slaves.”
In “The Irish Way,” his acute and judicious account of the imprint of the Irish experience on American history, James R. Barrett suggests that these Irish were also the creators of an urban identity that became a model for millions of families and multitudes of ethnic groups working through difficult transitions. Barrett’s point is that the Irish became Irish-American faster than anyone had expected, and once established in cities, Irish-American policemen, teachers, priests, saloonkeepers and politicians shaped and directed the process of Americanization for subsequent waves of immigrants. When neighborhoods such as Lower Manhattan, the South Side of Chicago and Boston’s North End became factories manufacturing Americans, it was the Irish-Americans, Barrett suggests, who were the foremen and production engineers of the process.
From the Colonial point of view, the “Scotch-Irish” Ulstermen — whose ancestors had emigrated from the Scottish-English borderlands to northeast Ireland — had been strange enough, with their clannishness, religious zeal and disruptive ferocity. But at least their religion was exuberantly Protestant, and their land-hunger and ferocity toward Indians had seemed, to most, downright American. These Scotch-Irish were quickly ranked as “settlers,” Americans through and through, but the native Gaelic Irish immigrants coming ashore in 19th-century Boston, New York, Philadelphia and New Orleans had to fight their way past vicious prejudice and stereotyping.
The eastern cities, after all, were well-established, with social and racial hierarchies firmly set, when the mostly Catholic Irish arrived. The only urban space open to new arrivals — especially papists — was at the bottom. Feeling threatened by the number of Irish arriving, citizens proud to consider themselves Old Americans and Know Nothings began rigorously applying a “Paddy Irishman” stereotype to the newest arrivals. The cartoon character of that name drawn by Thomas Nast was awesomely poor and profoundly unsuited to American civilization. His jaw was apelike, his food was repulsive, his religion bizarre. Straight out of the bogs, P.I. was unaccustomed to shoes and modern life.
The message was clear: The native Irish were an indigestible mass of raw weirdness, possibly the ruin of the republic. Their foreignness would change the United States in horrible ways, and Americans would never be able penetrate their miasma of Irish backwardness.
But the Irish were quick to figure out how things worked in America, electoral democracy and machine politics especially. Most Irish immigrants could speak English, a huge advantage. Starting in the 1840s, Barrett argues, “lace curtain” Irish, as well as those of the working class, had a remarkable influence on American cities.
Later arrivals found the Irish established as the visible face of authority, especially in immigrant neighborhoods. They were policemen, schoolteachers and priests. Soon enough they were also bishops, bosses, mayors, state representatives and congressmen.
Ethnic hyphenation was a new phenomenon in the 1880s and ’90s. The Irish-American identity was the prototype of what became a wildly popular product, with dozens of imitations. As other groups — Italians, Slavs, East European Jews — arrived in the last decades of the 19th century, they encountered the same rancor the Irish had experienced. Ethnic variations of the nasty Paddy Irishman were applied — often by Irish-Americans, who might have known better, although no one ever does. Nonetheless, Barrett convincingly argues that the Irish-Americans “built and maintained relations with other ethnic and racial groups in the face of massive migration of other peoples to American cities.”
The seventh volume in the Penguin Press History of American Life series, “The Irish Way” is a penetrating, refreshingly unsentimental look at the role of the Irish in shaping and creating an urban culture. The Catholic Irish were not a founding people in America, but they were founders of a new way to be as American as the local Irish cop or Jimmy Cagney or JFK. From the perspective of later arrivals, Irish-Americans were definitive citizens, the only Americans the greenhorns knew — the Americans they aimed to become.
Behrens is the author, most recently, of “The O’Briens.”
the irish way
Becoming American in the Multiethnic City
By James R. Barrett
Penguin Press. 384 pp. $29.95 | <urn:uuid:3538b852-aba7-4a21-ba64-e41b7f9ea1b5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-irish-way-becoming-american-in-the-multiethnic-city-by-james-r-barrett/2012/02/10/gIQAHYsa9R_story.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778272.69/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128122813-20200128152813-00409.warc.gz | en | 0.981068 | 1,043 | 3.859375 | 4 | [
-0.027862075716257095,
0.026274297386407852,
0.08997493237257004,
-0.017655516043305397,
-0.23891794681549072,
0.05447596311569214,
0.003147166222333908,
-0.4976442754268646,
-0.1562381535768509,
-0.6048409938812256,
0.05559844523668289,
0.012300356291234493,
-0.3082544207572937,
0.0332242... | 1 | Were the Irish who started arriving in the 1840s America’s first immigrants?
Many others had made the journey before them, including prehistoric migrants across the Bering Strait and the Ulstermen who had been settling the American backcountry since the mid-18th century. But the Catholic, Gaelic “native” Irish of the Great Famine era were the first arrivals consistently labeled “immigrants” rather than “settlers,” “indentured servants” or “slaves.”
In “The Irish Way,” his acute and judicious account of the imprint of the Irish experience on American history, James R. Barrett suggests that these Irish were also the creators of an urban identity that became a model for millions of families and multitudes of ethnic groups working through difficult transitions. Barrett’s point is that the Irish became Irish-American faster than anyone had expected, and once established in cities, Irish-American policemen, teachers, priests, saloonkeepers and politicians shaped and directed the process of Americanization for subsequent waves of immigrants. When neighborhoods such as Lower Manhattan, the South Side of Chicago and Boston’s North End became factories manufacturing Americans, it was the Irish-Americans, Barrett suggests, who were the foremen and production engineers of the process.
From the Colonial point of view, the “Scotch-Irish” Ulstermen — whose ancestors had emigrated from the Scottish-English borderlands to northeast Ireland — had been strange enough, with their clannishness, religious zeal and disruptive ferocity. But at least their religion was exuberantly Protestant, and their land-hunger and ferocity toward Indians had seemed, to most, downright American. These Scotch-Irish were quickly ranked as “settlers,” Americans through and through, but the native Gaelic Irish immigrants coming ashore in 19th-century Boston, New York, Philadelphia and New Orleans had to fight their way past vicious prejudice and stereotyping.
The eastern cities, after all, were well-established, with social and racial hierarchies firmly set, when the mostly Catholic Irish arrived. The only urban space open to new arrivals — especially papists — was at the bottom. Feeling threatened by the number of Irish arriving, citizens proud to consider themselves Old Americans and Know Nothings began rigorously applying a “Paddy Irishman” stereotype to the newest arrivals. The cartoon character of that name drawn by Thomas Nast was awesomely poor and profoundly unsuited to American civilization. His jaw was apelike, his food was repulsive, his religion bizarre. Straight out of the bogs, P.I. was unaccustomed to shoes and modern life.
The message was clear: The native Irish were an indigestible mass of raw weirdness, possibly the ruin of the republic. Their foreignness would change the United States in horrible ways, and Americans would never be able penetrate their miasma of Irish backwardness.
But the Irish were quick to figure out how things worked in America, electoral democracy and machine politics especially. Most Irish immigrants could speak English, a huge advantage. Starting in the 1840s, Barrett argues, “lace curtain” Irish, as well as those of the working class, had a remarkable influence on American cities.
Later arrivals found the Irish established as the visible face of authority, especially in immigrant neighborhoods. They were policemen, schoolteachers and priests. Soon enough they were also bishops, bosses, mayors, state representatives and congressmen.
Ethnic hyphenation was a new phenomenon in the 1880s and ’90s. The Irish-American identity was the prototype of what became a wildly popular product, with dozens of imitations. As other groups — Italians, Slavs, East European Jews — arrived in the last decades of the 19th century, they encountered the same rancor the Irish had experienced. Ethnic variations of the nasty Paddy Irishman were applied — often by Irish-Americans, who might have known better, although no one ever does. Nonetheless, Barrett convincingly argues that the Irish-Americans “built and maintained relations with other ethnic and racial groups in the face of massive migration of other peoples to American cities.”
The seventh volume in the Penguin Press History of American Life series, “The Irish Way” is a penetrating, refreshingly unsentimental look at the role of the Irish in shaping and creating an urban culture. The Catholic Irish were not a founding people in America, but they were founders of a new way to be as American as the local Irish cop or Jimmy Cagney or JFK. From the perspective of later arrivals, Irish-Americans were definitive citizens, the only Americans the greenhorns knew — the Americans they aimed to become.
Behrens is the author, most recently, of “The O’Briens.”
the irish way
Becoming American in the Multiethnic City
By James R. Barrett
Penguin Press. 384 pp. $29.95 | 1,008 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Old age is when a person is near or beyond the usual life expectancy, usually from the age of 65 onwards. Old people are usually retired from work and spend their time in other ways like helping take care of small children who are kin to them in some way. Often people of old age have wrinkly skin. They will move slower, and become constantly cold.
Old people have more health problems than young adults, and many of them take medicine. The reason for this is that their bodies are slowly deteriorating, so they have more problems, especially with moving. Osteoporosis weakens the bones, and is one of the problems that become more common with age. Gerontology is the part of medicine that deals with these things.
Old people are also called "senior citizens" or "elders". Elders are considered to be wise because they have had much experience in their long lives. Many cultures view elders with respect and kindness, and depend upon them to pass down knowledge to the younger generations of people.
Related pages[change | change source] | <urn:uuid:b3197099-42c7-4a93-9b7b-178c739f7a8d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_age | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00150.warc.gz | en | 0.984242 | 218 | 3.75 | 4 | [
-0.20256073772907257,
0.24962256848812103,
0.45265069603919983,
-0.1591140180826187,
0.19744455814361572,
0.00429552560672164,
0.19374491274356842,
-0.1428145319223404,
-0.5264089703559875,
-0.12459147721529007,
0.15909674763679504,
0.2036125808954239,
-0.034188296645879745,
0.357287794351... | 1 | Old age is when a person is near or beyond the usual life expectancy, usually from the age of 65 onwards. Old people are usually retired from work and spend their time in other ways like helping take care of small children who are kin to them in some way. Often people of old age have wrinkly skin. They will move slower, and become constantly cold.
Old people have more health problems than young adults, and many of them take medicine. The reason for this is that their bodies are slowly deteriorating, so they have more problems, especially with moving. Osteoporosis weakens the bones, and is one of the problems that become more common with age. Gerontology is the part of medicine that deals with these things.
Old people are also called "senior citizens" or "elders". Elders are considered to be wise because they have had much experience in their long lives. Many cultures view elders with respect and kindness, and depend upon them to pass down knowledge to the younger generations of people.
Related pages[change | change source] | 215 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Q: What is Boxing Day?
A: Boxing Day is also known as St Stephen’s Day – Stephen was the first Christian martyr, stoned to death in c34 AD.
Being a saint’s day, it has charitable associations. Charitable boxes – collections of money – would have been given out at the church door to the needy.
While the wider significance of St Stephen’s Day collapsed in Europe, it held on in Protestant England. It is an Anglo-Saxon thing. As England made more and more of a thing about Christmas, it began to concentrate its rituals onto just a few days. This was happening by the 18th century.
The English came to believe that they owned Christmas – perhaps in partnership with other ‘Teutonic/Nordic’ peoples. This was a bit of an over-exaggeration as, of course, there are plenty of southern European Christmas traditions.
The Church of England had gotten rid of so many days. The charitable efforts that, under the Catholic calendar, would have been scattered, became tied to the one day.
By the late 18th century or early 19th century, Boxing Day became a day of outdoor activity.
While Christmas Day was about being at home with your family, Boxing Day was a time to get outside, to get away from the home. People can only be cooped up for so long! There’s a need to exorcise – and exercise – all of that.
In the 18th century, Boxing Day became a day for aristocratic sports – hunting, horseracing, shooting. By the 19th century, as a result of urbanisation, it was about professional football.
As British society, particularly English society, became marked by large industrial cities, distinctive working class leisure pursuits evolved. With Boxing Day already associated with pleasurable, outdoor activities, it was soon adopted as a key date in the professional soccer calendar.
Q: When did the charitable side of Boxing Day end?
A: By the early 19th century, charitable aims became more focused around Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, but it was a very slow petering out. There was a debate about whether inmates should get beer and beef on Christmas Day, for example.
Whether they got this depended upon the attitude of local guardians.
And by this point, there were enough poor people to be thought of as an entity. Provision for the poor turned into a local government issue, as opposed to something individuals organised.
A queue in Covent Garden for Boxing Day bookings for the ballet, 12 December 1949. (Photo by REX/Herbert Mason/Associated Newspapers)
Q: So when did Boxing Day originate?
A: Boxing Day emerged quite quickly after the establishment of Christmas. The very early church took no notice of Christmas – it wasn’t until the turn of the first millennia that the church started to push Christmas.
It was a way to make sure converts stayed on board – the early church knew it could not stamp out all the winter festivals, so it decided to ‘Christianise’ them. So a whole series of pre-existing European mid-winter ceremonies were white-washed with Christianity.
Boxing Day came quickly after.
Christmas feast days were chipped away at – largely because of Protestantism and the development of the British economy. A more urbanised, factory-oriented economy meant that the machines and methods of production just had to be kept going.
It was completely unlike the rhythms of the rural world which had dominated, and which allowed for more punctuation marks in the course of the year – so you ended up having to peg festivities on fewer days.
Q: Historically, has Boxing Day been celebrated differently in other parts of the world?
A: England, Wales, Australia and New Zealand are distinctive in making quite a thing of Boxing Day, with outdoor events such as picnics, horse shows, rides and walks.
Q: How did Boxing Day become a bank holiday?
A: The 26th of December became additional bank holiday in 1974, but in fact it had been a de facto day off for many years. This is partly because football made such a big thing of Boxing Day that many took time off anyway, and gradually during the course of the 20th century more and more employers realised that business was generally slow during this period and so, in effect, turned a blind eye to people taking the time off, which then became a custom in its own right.
Q: Boxing Day today tends to be associated with shopping. When did this trend emerge?
A: It began in the late 1990s, when the John Major government amended Sunday trading laws.
When you open the door to trading on a Sunday, changing the spirit of when it is morally ‘right’ to shop, you open up trading on festival days.
This article was first published on History Extra in December 2013 | <urn:uuid:1f4f7e10-8216-4cb5-a9f1-3c3174922f6d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historyextra.com/period/prehistoric/brief-history-boxing-day-christmas-traditions/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607118.51/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122131612-20200122160612-00100.warc.gz | en | 0.984054 | 1,014 | 3.5 | 4 | [
0.03889962285757065,
0.13449901342391968,
0.1503298282623291,
-0.04638812690973282,
-0.07104869931936264,
-0.23116132616996765,
0.12464430183172226,
0.05167403817176819,
-0.048118941485881805,
0.5307848453521729,
-0.20236489176750183,
-0.15790081024169922,
0.0789027139544487,
0.68409454822... | 2 | Q: What is Boxing Day?
A: Boxing Day is also known as St Stephen’s Day – Stephen was the first Christian martyr, stoned to death in c34 AD.
Being a saint’s day, it has charitable associations. Charitable boxes – collections of money – would have been given out at the church door to the needy.
While the wider significance of St Stephen’s Day collapsed in Europe, it held on in Protestant England. It is an Anglo-Saxon thing. As England made more and more of a thing about Christmas, it began to concentrate its rituals onto just a few days. This was happening by the 18th century.
The English came to believe that they owned Christmas – perhaps in partnership with other ‘Teutonic/Nordic’ peoples. This was a bit of an over-exaggeration as, of course, there are plenty of southern European Christmas traditions.
The Church of England had gotten rid of so many days. The charitable efforts that, under the Catholic calendar, would have been scattered, became tied to the one day.
By the late 18th century or early 19th century, Boxing Day became a day of outdoor activity.
While Christmas Day was about being at home with your family, Boxing Day was a time to get outside, to get away from the home. People can only be cooped up for so long! There’s a need to exorcise – and exercise – all of that.
In the 18th century, Boxing Day became a day for aristocratic sports – hunting, horseracing, shooting. By the 19th century, as a result of urbanisation, it was about professional football.
As British society, particularly English society, became marked by large industrial cities, distinctive working class leisure pursuits evolved. With Boxing Day already associated with pleasurable, outdoor activities, it was soon adopted as a key date in the professional soccer calendar.
Q: When did the charitable side of Boxing Day end?
A: By the early 19th century, charitable aims became more focused around Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, but it was a very slow petering out. There was a debate about whether inmates should get beer and beef on Christmas Day, for example.
Whether they got this depended upon the attitude of local guardians.
And by this point, there were enough poor people to be thought of as an entity. Provision for the poor turned into a local government issue, as opposed to something individuals organised.
A queue in Covent Garden for Boxing Day bookings for the ballet, 12 December 1949. (Photo by REX/Herbert Mason/Associated Newspapers)
Q: So when did Boxing Day originate?
A: Boxing Day emerged quite quickly after the establishment of Christmas. The very early church took no notice of Christmas – it wasn’t until the turn of the first millennia that the church started to push Christmas.
It was a way to make sure converts stayed on board – the early church knew it could not stamp out all the winter festivals, so it decided to ‘Christianise’ them. So a whole series of pre-existing European mid-winter ceremonies were white-washed with Christianity.
Boxing Day came quickly after.
Christmas feast days were chipped away at – largely because of Protestantism and the development of the British economy. A more urbanised, factory-oriented economy meant that the machines and methods of production just had to be kept going.
It was completely unlike the rhythms of the rural world which had dominated, and which allowed for more punctuation marks in the course of the year – so you ended up having to peg festivities on fewer days.
Q: Historically, has Boxing Day been celebrated differently in other parts of the world?
A: England, Wales, Australia and New Zealand are distinctive in making quite a thing of Boxing Day, with outdoor events such as picnics, horse shows, rides and walks.
Q: How did Boxing Day become a bank holiday?
A: The 26th of December became additional bank holiday in 1974, but in fact it had been a de facto day off for many years. This is partly because football made such a big thing of Boxing Day that many took time off anyway, and gradually during the course of the 20th century more and more employers realised that business was generally slow during this period and so, in effect, turned a blind eye to people taking the time off, which then became a custom in its own right.
Q: Boxing Day today tends to be associated with shopping. When did this trend emerge?
A: It began in the late 1990s, when the John Major government amended Sunday trading laws.
When you open the door to trading on a Sunday, changing the spirit of when it is morally ‘right’ to shop, you open up trading on festival days.
This article was first published on History Extra in December 2013 | 999 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Submitted by George Callaghan…
One New Year’s Day 1801 Ireland and Great Britain merged to form a single realm. The United Kingdom was created because two parliaments had voted to amalgamate the two islands into a single state. Not everyone in Ireland approved of the Act of Union. However, for decades there was no violence in relation to this.
In 1858 the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) was founded in New York. The IRB was dedicated to starting an uprising in Ireland and sundering the Union with Great Britain. Their goal was that Ireland would become a republic. It was part of a general movement towards separatism by many ultra nationalist European groups. The United States grants free of expression under the 1st Amendment to the constitution. What the IRB were proposing was sedition in the United Kingdom. But it was legal in the United States. The UK and the United States had cordial relations at the time. They had fought the Opium War together. You might think that they fought in a filthy cause. But it still proves the point that the two countries got along well. It was an unfriendly act of the US to permit an organisation to exist that was proposing to start an armed conflict in another sovereign state. The UK had made concessions to the United States on the Canadian border. The British were doing everything to be friendly. You might be inclined towards Irish nationalism or republicanism. It is a respectable position. Its goals were achievable by peaceful and lawful means. Nationalist organisations were legal in Ireland. They contested elections and from the 1870s onwards they won many elections. The United Kingdom was one of the freest countries on earth in terms of freedom of expression and the right to vote.
There was much rancor in Ireland over the famine of the 1840s. The Great Hunger was a natural disaster that caused the most unspeakable suffering. The government provided relief but it was not enough. Some Americans sent aid and this saved lives.
What was the American Civil War fought over? It was fought to maintain the Union. President Lincoln was crystal clear about that. The Confederate States of America also rammed home that point. The issue in contention was whether states were entitled to secede or not. The United States successfully preserved the Union. It is true that the southern states wished to break away for a particularly wicked reason – to hold African-Americans in bondage. But as we know the border states – Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri etc… had slavery in 1861 yet remained in the Union when the civil war erupted.
If the US is allowed to maintain its unity so it the United Kingdom. America insists on this principle for itself. Yet many Americans would abrogate that self same principle in relation to the United Kingdom. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. A sovereign state such as the US or the United Kingdom is absolutely entitled to quell an insurrection.
After the American Civil War the United State was awash in guns. It was also full of demobilized war veterans. These battled hardened men were looking for a new fight. Some of these Irish-Americans intended to use their new found military skills to attack the United Kingdom. In Ireland so far as we know most people were pro-Union. Every MP elected in Ireland was either a Conservative or a Liberal. Both parties were committed to maintaining a full union with Great Britain. There were no opinion polls. Not every man was allowed to vote at the time due to property qualifications. That was also true in much of the United States well into the 1960s. At the time Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. No government doubted that. The US recognized the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
During the American Civil War some representatives of the Confederate States of America (CSA) came to London. The CSA was made up of eleven southern states that broke away form the United States. The UK Government did not recognize or help the CSA. However, some British companies sold arms to the CSA. The United State was angry about this. This is bizarre. The US has a second amendment right to bear arms. This did not preclude the CSA. No one was ever charged with carrying guns as part of the Confederate Army. Nor was the importation of arms subject to licence. The UK was simply allowing Americans to exercise their right to carry arms. But if the United Kingdom was abetting a revolt against the US who started it? The United States had harboured a group intent on causing a blood conflict in the UK.
You may know the schoolboy doggerel ‘Though with the North we sympathized it must not be forgotten/ With the South lay stronger ties and they were made of cotton.’
In the late 1860s the IRB in the United States attacked Canada. They were repelled. Canadians celebrate this as the start of their nationhood. Some of the invaders called themselves the Irish Republican Army (IRA).
Members of the IRB returned from the US to Ireland for the 1867 rebellion. The US authorities were aware of this and did nothing to stop it. It was a crime. The IRB had no right to start a war. They were not a government. Ireland was not a sovereign state. The US permitted this organisation to attack an empire with which the US had normal diplomatic relations. The UK did not have a law saying anyone could have a gun. The IRB openly stated their intent. The revolt was a complete flop. This was because the majority of the populace was opposed.
Through the late 19th century many IRB men went to the US. The IRB carried out acts of terrorism in Ireland and Great Britain. This was despite the UK and the United States co-operating on many issues and jointly running some Chinese ports.
In the First World War the IRB planned a revolt in Ireland. They were in league with Germany which was the UK’s enemy. Even after the sinking of the Lusitania and the killing of many Irish civilians the IRB was still pro-German. If Germany had won it is likely that it would have been annexed.
In 1916 there was the Easter Rising in Dublin. The IRB was at the centre of it. The IRB was increasingly superseded by the Irish Volunteers who came to be known as the IRA. It had minimal public support and was swiftly defeated. The Crown showed the most unexampled mercy. Of the 1000 or so men who had committed high treason in time of war a mere 16 were executed. No other country would have been so gracious during a life and death struggle. This was an era when the United States used the death penalty promiscuously for crimes less than murder. In this era black men were routinely lynched in the United States. Yet IRB propagandists said that the UK was ‘brutal’.
In 1917 the United States declared war on Germany. This was due to Germany repeatedly sinking American merchant ships and encouraging Mexico to launch an unprovoked attack on the US. IRB groups in the United States had been in cahoots with Germany despite Germany deliberately killing American civilians. Even after the US went to war against Germany the IRB and IRA did all they could to undermine the Allied war effort. They discouraged men from enlisting in the British Army.
The President of the United States at that time was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson’s grandparents came from Ireland and Wilson rejected Irish nationalism. Should Ireland be part of the UK or not? The president said this was an internal British matter for the UK to decide.
As soon as an armistice was signed between the Allies and Germany ended the IRA began to kill members of the Crown Forces. Remember the war was strictly speaking still on. Hostilities had been suspended and not ended. The police and the British Army arrested thousands of IRA men. They were interned. It was not until almost two years into the conflict that any IRA men were executed. By this time hundreds of police officers, soldiers and civilians had been killed by the IRA. Once again the Crown Forces had been very clement and restrained. The Crown Forces fought the IRA and in engagements IRA men were killed. Any sovereign state has the right to quell an insurrection.
Many Irish-Americans sent money to the IRA. These same people had overwhelmingly backed the Union side in the American Civil War. The American Civil War was specifically about a unit within a sovereign state not being allowed to secede. It was about secession. The IRA also called for secession. The United States and the UK were trying to preserve the Union in both cases. It was staggeringly hypocritical of so many Irish-Americans to betray the very principle which they had upheld in the United States. The American Civil War was not about slavery in the beginning. Abraham Lincoln and his government said that a hundred times. There were slave states in the North during the Civil War. It was only after the Civil War that the US Government abolished slavery.
The IRA did not observe the Geneva Convention. They did not wear uniforms or carry weapons openly. They unleashed a reign of terror. Anyone suspected of supporting the Crown could expect to be beaten up and have his house burnt down. Hundreds of people were shot dead by the IRA and said to be spies. Most of the victims of the IRA were Irish. The IRA engaged in a vile campaign of internecine sectarian slaughter. The IRA’s Protestant analogue was the Ulster Protestant Association (UPA). The UPA shot dead blameless Catholics in the Wee North. In Cork the IRA turned Tory Top Lane into a charnel house. The IRA burnt down many buildings and did its damndest to wreck the economy.
The conduct of the Crown Forces was not inculpable. In irregular conflicts counterinsurgent forces are usually bad. In relation to the usual ethical standards in such situations the Crown Forces behaved well. Nevertheless, even if you think that the Crown Forces committed serious wrongs there is no doubt that the UK was doing what every sovereign state is entitled to do: quell a revolt. In putting down a rebellion one cannot do so in a Salvation Army manner. It requires real force. The trick is to hit the right people and it is incredibly difficult to get this right. The security forces aimed to be the bane of the IRA. The IRA had a measure of popular certain especially in particular counties. It did not approach the near universal level that republican mythmaking would have you believe.
Yet there can be no comparison between the Crown Forces and the IRA. The former was fighting legally and the latter were not. It was inevitable that mistakes were made. There was some malfeasance by a small number of members of the security forces. The authorities tried to discipline the RIC (Royal Irish Constabulary) and the British Army but did not succeed in every case. Acts of indiscipline by members of the Crown Forces were seized upon by irresponsible elements in the American yellow press and hugely inflated. Their objective was to demonise the Crown Forced and be of assistance to the IRA. In that regard they achieved a very considerable measure of success.
A loyalist organisation existed in the North called the Ulster Protestant Association (UPA). The UPA killed hundreds of Catholic civilians and a few IRA men. The IRA also engaged in sectarian warfare. The IRA was almost exclusively Catholic. It killed hundreds of Protestant civilians. So much for the IRA being anti-sectarian. Was this Irish unity? But many people in the US donated money to the IRA despite it being a violently anti-Protestant and Anglophobic organisation.
In 1921 there was a treaty between the UK and the Irish republican movement. The major portion of Ireland left the UK and became a dominion within the British Empire. The South of Ireland was given the constitutional title ‘the Irish Free State’. It was analogous to the position of Canada. Sinn Fein (the Irish republican party) agreed to the partition of Ireland. The Irish Parliament was entirely made up of Sinn Feiners. It ratified the treaty agreeing to partition.
Michael Collins was Sinn Fein’s chief negotiator. He treacherously broke the agreement. He sent more guns to the IRA in Northern Ireland to continue the IRA’s bestial attacks against civilians. Collins’ duplicity and mercilessness horrified even his comrades in arms.
The South of Ireland devolved into civil war in 1922. The republican movement split. 75% of people voted to accept the treaty. 25% of them rejected it. The IRA fought against democracy. Shockingly some Irish-Americans backed the IRA which was fighting against the settled will of the Irish people. The Irish Free State fought against the IRA. The Free State was far tougher on the IRA than the Crown had been. The Free State executed at least 77 IRA men in ten months. The Crown had executed 24 in two and a half years. Most of these IRA men were executed without any trial whatsoever. The Crown always granted a man a fair trial. Even the IRA did not dispute that the UK authorities had given people fair trials.
The Irish Government regularly carried out extra judicial killings as well and used torture on a grand scale. But we hardly hear anything about this. Why? It is anglophobia. The aim is to paint the English as sadists and to whitewash wrongdoing by the Irish Government.
The IRA had caused several years of conflict in Ireland. It took decades to recover. The IRA remained a banned organisation in the South of Ireland as well as the North. The Irish Free State (the South) was more or less independent. The IRA continued to kill Irish policemen and assassinate politicians well after the civil war was over.
The IRA actively supported the Third Reich in the Second World War. It also sought assistance from the Soviet Union. Despite the IRA backing the Nazis some Irish-Americans still looked kindly on the IRA.
In 1949 the Irish Government broke the 1921 treaty and declared a republic. The UK generously accepted this. As Dublin had reneged on the treaty then London would have been entirely entitled to hold itself absolved of its undertakings according to the same. Irish nationalists often resort to the racist trope ‘perfidious Albion’ yet it is nationalist perfidy which pervades the chronicles of Irish history.
Through the 1950s the IRA carried on a terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland. It was easily defeated by the police (the Royal Ulster Constabulary). The IRA received very little support from the Catholic community. Irishmen from the north and the south volunteered for the British Army in large numbers. The UK was America’s Cold War ally. It was an outraged that a few Americans should have abetted these attacks on America’s NATO stalwart. The UK was one of very few democratic countries in the world. But certain Irish-American groups still raised funds for the IRA and calumniated the UK.
In the 1960s the United Kingdom was one of the most desirable places to live in the world. This is why there was an influx of people from other Commonwealth lands and the Republic of Ireland. There was publicly funded healthcare, publicly funded higher education and a generous welfare system. None of this was true I the United States. The UK had very low unemployment. All adults over the age of 21 were permitted to vote regardless or race, religion or ethnicity. Citizens of the Republic of Ireland and Commonwealth countries were granted the right to vote in the UK. This was much more democratic than the United States. At that time African-Americans were lynched for attempting to exercise the rights ‘guaranteed’ to them under the US Constitution.
Despite the United Kingdom assuring the blessings of liberty to the people of Northern Ireland there were ill-intentioned people there and in the United States who vituperated the UK. They disseminated stinking lies claiming that it was not democratic.
The drawing of constituency boundaries is usually contentious. Nationalists in Northern Ireland and claimed it was due to the way in which such boundaries were drawn. At local elections only householders and spouses thereof were permitted to vote. As the Catholic community tended to have more children and not to be so affluent this meant that some Catholic adults could not vote in local elections. But they could vote in Westminster elections.
The Unionist Party was the most popular party in Northern Ireland. Its backers were mostly Protestant. American sociologist found that in 1969 5% of the Catholic community voted unionist. Some Catholics voted for the Northern Ireland Labour Party. Only about 60% of Catholics voted for some nationalist or other. Only around 0.5% of Protestants voted nationalist. The Unionist Party tended to reward its supporters. That’s politics! It is seldom edifying. Tell me the same does not take place in the US!
Racial and religious discrimination is a worldwide problem. It existed in the UK too. But as even the IRA’s court historian Tim Pat Coogan said the situation was worse in the Republic of Ireland. Jobbery, pork barrel politics and nepotism were the mainstays of Irish politics. Likewise, the Irish-American politicians who calumniated the UK were usually Tammany Hall Tepee types.
In 1969 a conflict erupted in Northern Ireland. Again, the IRA turned to people in the US for funds and arms. They received them. The IRA espoused a far left ideology. This was anathema to most Americans. But the IRA still got what it wanted from its bigoted supporters in the United States. Many of these people in the US were completely ignorant. In the 1970s of them told the Irish historian Ruth Dudley Edwards ‘there are British tanks in Dublin.’ Miss Dudley Edwards said ‘You mean Belfast and it is armoured cars.’ The American woman insisted ‘no in Dublin and it is tanks.’ There had been no British tanks in Dublin for 50 years!
The UK was very helpful to her American ally. The US military was and is granted bases in the United Kingdom. The US Navy has a base at Derry in Northern Ireland. The Crown Forces learnt that certain American sailors were actively assisting the IRA. A most celebrated young Irish historian Dr Edward Burke has proven as much. Let us be fair. It was only a tiny number of US military personnel who engaged in terrorism against their British allies. Nevertheless, the UK soon asked the Americans to leave Derry. They did.
The republican terrorist organisations were the IRA and the INLA. They were both far left. These were the sort of organisations that the US would never tolerate at home. They were Marxist and funded and armed by the USSR.
There were romantic notions of the resplendence of the revolutionary struggle. The very unlovely reality of the conflict was seldom brought home to these armchair heroes. The complexity and the sectarian aspect of the conflict were not widely understood in the US. Few people in the United States realized that the Irish Government had agreed to partition. Indeed in 1925 when offered some of Northern Ireland the Irish Government had turned it down. In 1941 Churchill has offered to give Northern Ireland to the Irish Taoiseach in return for joining the Allied cause. He declined.
It was staggering to see the nerve that some Americans had to say the Northern Ireland was not lawfully part and parcel of the UK. The United States accredited an ambassador to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There was a US consul in Belfast – accredited to the British Government. It was asinine and dishonest to pretend that Northern Ireland was not legitimately and legally an integral portion of the British State.
The UK was a faithful ally of the US. The UK joined NATO at its inception. British soldiers fought alongside their American comrades in Korea, Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia, the Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. The Republic of Ireland did not lift a finger to help the United States. But your average American would not know that.
The Crown Forces had rules of engagement. After 1972 the hooding of suspects was forbidden. The US still hoods suspects. The British Army had a very good record of ethical conduct in Northern Ireland. Irishmen volunteered for the British Army all through the Troubles. Republican civilians berated the Crown Forces because they knew that the soldiers and police officers were so disciplined and gentle that they would do nothing.
The British Army was not above criticism. One disgraceful episode in Derry took place in January 1972. In the US people made a meal of this. The UK apologized for the incident after the most exhaustive investigation of all time and paid huge compensation. The US military has carried out numerous large scale massacres in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet no such contrition is forthcoming from Uncle Sam.
The Irish Government was against the IRA. Dublin strove to maintain a decent relationship with London. It was very difficult. The IRA was a huge problem for the Republic of Ireland (the South). The IRA killed over 100 people in the Republic, robbed banks, kidnapped people, burnt down buildings and dealt drugs. The Garda Siochana (Irish Police) had a severe headache trying to contain the IRA. In the 1970s the Republic of Ireland seemed to be in a pre-revolutionary stage. Some people thought the state was close to collapse. American money for the IRA exacerbated all these problems.
The gallantry and the humanitarianism of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was marvelous. Northern Ireland was the most dangerous place in the world to be a police officer. The RUC were occasionally obliged to use force.
The Ulster Defence Regiment also served the public in providing security. Their valour and professionalism were also splendid. They suffered hundreds of dead. They very, very seldom killed even IRA men such was their restraint.
The UK last used the death penalty in 1964. The US still has states that execute people. America is alone in the Western world in doing so. The United Kingdom has a far, far better human rights record than the US.
The United States has mass incarceration. Its trial are often unfair. Racism is prevalent in the policing and the judiciary. US police shoot dead hundreds of people a year. It is nauseatingly hypocritical of Americans to traduce the UK whilst such huge scale systemic injustices play out in the United States.
The British were so ruth and treated even murderers so well. In the US innocent black men were fried in the electric chair.
The UK upheld liberty. People had freedom of speech and of association. Such liberties were guaranteed in the UK. Northern Ireland was not one bit oppressed by the UK. It was oppressed by the IRA, the INLA and their loyalists mirror images – the UVF and UFF.
The UK was lenient to a fault. Sentences handed down to terrorists were very mild. The death penalty was never used. Internment was phased out in 1975. The courage and the humanity of the courts and the Crown Forces are second to none. The British Army and the RUC are names resplendent in eternal glory.
It is true that a handful of members of the UDR and RUC moonlighted as loyalists terrorists. They were given short shrift. They were soon apprehended and awarded lengthy gaol terms. The record of the security forces is not absolutely faultless.
By contrast the brutality and injustice of American courts, prisons and the police is notorious. The US also kidnapped even children from Afghanistan and locked them up without trial nor charge in Guantanamo Bay. Some people have been held incommunicado there. Men have been kept confined there for upwards of 17 years without trial. It is a shrieking outrage. How then can any American have the temerity to calumniate the United Kingdom. The UK is know for its fairness and mercy.
In the 1980s the IRA was an ally of Gaddafi. Gaddafi was an avowed enemy of the United States. He orchestrated attacks on American civilians. Despite this the IRA’ backers in the US did not desist from funding their darlings.
There are tens of millions of Irish-Americans. Many of them are wonderful people. Ronald Reagan is one of my least favourite US presidents. Yet he must be given his due. He was an Irish-American who recognized that the IRA was the worst of Ireland and not the best. He used a St Patrick’s Day speech to denounce the criminal and anti-democratic violence of these sectarian bigots. He also railed against the IRA’s loyalist equivalents. There were Irish-Americans who supported the constitutional nationalist cause. It is an honourable one that I happen not to share. There was a quarter of eminent Irish-American politicians who opposed the IRA. They threw their weight behind the SDLP which was a nationalist party which peacefully campaigned for a united Irish Republic. Nevertheless, this was still transgressing into the domestic politics of the United Kingdom. Foreigners are not allowed to donate to American politicians. But Americans donate to foreign politicians. It is flagrantly illogical. In the UK parties are not allowed to accept donations from outside the EU. Americans are not allowed to join UK political parties. But there is an exemption for Northern Irish parties. This is a grossly illogical and unjust exception there designed onto to help the SDLP and Sinn Fein. In the US no politician is permitted to accept anything of value from a foreigner. Yet Americans will donate to foreign political parties. Once again the unfairness, stupidity, hypocrisy and arrogance of it is beyond belief.
Finally, in the 1990s the conflict came to an end. The Crown Forces had emerged victorious. Some Americans opposed the ending of the conflict and still sent money and guns to splinter groups of the IRA which planned to continue the conflict. It is obloquial that certain members of the Irish-American community did not acquaint themselves with the facts and assisted these terrorists who were outlawed by the Irish Government. This attempt to be uber Irish was unparalleled in the harm it did. This was sentimental self-indulgence turned to malice. It was also backstabbing America’s ally. Historical illiteracy, arrogance and malevolence characterize the discourse of IRA supporters.
The tragic Irish conflict would have been much smaller and ended much sooner were it not for certain Irish-Americans maintaining it. They fueled the flames. There were many wise and moral Irish-Americans who oppose this pyromaniac attitude. The US Government did not do this but it did not do enough to stop funding and arming terrorists.
The United States has proved herself time and again to be an unfaithful ally. She has let the UK down on multiple occasions. So many others have cause to feel betrayed by the United States. Ngo Dinh Diem, the Cuban anti-communists, Van Muong, the Laotians, the Cambodians, the Taiwanese, the Samozas in Nicaragua, the Shah of Iran, the Lebanese Christians, the mujahideen, Saddam Hussein, the anti-Saddam rebels in southern Iraq, the Kurds, the anti-Taleban Afghans, the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Egyptian democrats – they have all been thrown to the wolves by America. You might think many of these were rotten causes. If so why was the United States backing them? Nonetheless these people put their trust in the United States. But they were left to their fate when they became inconvenient for Washington.
The US has laws against foreign terrorism. Many organisations are proscribed. It is American to outlaw terrorist organisations and to forbid incitement to crime. It would be entirely in keeping with the US Constitution to have banned these organisations. In fairness the US Government latterly outlawed the IRA and its other guises. Yet somehow arms and money managed to get through.
There are many amiable and honest Americans. The United States has praiseworthy aspects to its constitution, its culture and its contribution to world politics. The US Government made efforts to stem the flow of arms and weapons to terrorist. In the early days these were largely pro forma. Unfortunately, the influence of certain members of the Irish-American community on Ireland and Great Britain was decidedly baleful.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran. | <urn:uuid:1d0cccf6-11c8-4c43-90e9-a806095a3425> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://theduran.com/the-united-states-and-the-irish-conflict/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00343.warc.gz | en | 0.983766 | 5,777 | 3.71875 | 4 | [
-0.30010801553726196,
-0.024320002645254135,
0.46761539578437805,
-0.04393371567130089,
-0.22093911468982697,
-0.03676008805632591,
-0.0999428853392601,
-0.19630025327205658,
-0.04350447654724121,
0.07183147966861725,
-0.03124234452843666,
-0.2571718096733093,
0.2052423655986786,
0.3265217... | 5 | Submitted by George Callaghan…
One New Year’s Day 1801 Ireland and Great Britain merged to form a single realm. The United Kingdom was created because two parliaments had voted to amalgamate the two islands into a single state. Not everyone in Ireland approved of the Act of Union. However, for decades there was no violence in relation to this.
In 1858 the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) was founded in New York. The IRB was dedicated to starting an uprising in Ireland and sundering the Union with Great Britain. Their goal was that Ireland would become a republic. It was part of a general movement towards separatism by many ultra nationalist European groups. The United States grants free of expression under the 1st Amendment to the constitution. What the IRB were proposing was sedition in the United Kingdom. But it was legal in the United States. The UK and the United States had cordial relations at the time. They had fought the Opium War together. You might think that they fought in a filthy cause. But it still proves the point that the two countries got along well. It was an unfriendly act of the US to permit an organisation to exist that was proposing to start an armed conflict in another sovereign state. The UK had made concessions to the United States on the Canadian border. The British were doing everything to be friendly. You might be inclined towards Irish nationalism or republicanism. It is a respectable position. Its goals were achievable by peaceful and lawful means. Nationalist organisations were legal in Ireland. They contested elections and from the 1870s onwards they won many elections. The United Kingdom was one of the freest countries on earth in terms of freedom of expression and the right to vote.
There was much rancor in Ireland over the famine of the 1840s. The Great Hunger was a natural disaster that caused the most unspeakable suffering. The government provided relief but it was not enough. Some Americans sent aid and this saved lives.
What was the American Civil War fought over? It was fought to maintain the Union. President Lincoln was crystal clear about that. The Confederate States of America also rammed home that point. The issue in contention was whether states were entitled to secede or not. The United States successfully preserved the Union. It is true that the southern states wished to break away for a particularly wicked reason – to hold African-Americans in bondage. But as we know the border states – Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri etc… had slavery in 1861 yet remained in the Union when the civil war erupted.
If the US is allowed to maintain its unity so it the United Kingdom. America insists on this principle for itself. Yet many Americans would abrogate that self same principle in relation to the United Kingdom. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. A sovereign state such as the US or the United Kingdom is absolutely entitled to quell an insurrection.
After the American Civil War the United State was awash in guns. It was also full of demobilized war veterans. These battled hardened men were looking for a new fight. Some of these Irish-Americans intended to use their new found military skills to attack the United Kingdom. In Ireland so far as we know most people were pro-Union. Every MP elected in Ireland was either a Conservative or a Liberal. Both parties were committed to maintaining a full union with Great Britain. There were no opinion polls. Not every man was allowed to vote at the time due to property qualifications. That was also true in much of the United States well into the 1960s. At the time Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. No government doubted that. The US recognized the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
During the American Civil War some representatives of the Confederate States of America (CSA) came to London. The CSA was made up of eleven southern states that broke away form the United States. The UK Government did not recognize or help the CSA. However, some British companies sold arms to the CSA. The United State was angry about this. This is bizarre. The US has a second amendment right to bear arms. This did not preclude the CSA. No one was ever charged with carrying guns as part of the Confederate Army. Nor was the importation of arms subject to licence. The UK was simply allowing Americans to exercise their right to carry arms. But if the United Kingdom was abetting a revolt against the US who started it? The United States had harboured a group intent on causing a blood conflict in the UK.
You may know the schoolboy doggerel ‘Though with the North we sympathized it must not be forgotten/ With the South lay stronger ties and they were made of cotton.’
In the late 1860s the IRB in the United States attacked Canada. They were repelled. Canadians celebrate this as the start of their nationhood. Some of the invaders called themselves the Irish Republican Army (IRA).
Members of the IRB returned from the US to Ireland for the 1867 rebellion. The US authorities were aware of this and did nothing to stop it. It was a crime. The IRB had no right to start a war. They were not a government. Ireland was not a sovereign state. The US permitted this organisation to attack an empire with which the US had normal diplomatic relations. The UK did not have a law saying anyone could have a gun. The IRB openly stated their intent. The revolt was a complete flop. This was because the majority of the populace was opposed.
Through the late 19th century many IRB men went to the US. The IRB carried out acts of terrorism in Ireland and Great Britain. This was despite the UK and the United States co-operating on many issues and jointly running some Chinese ports.
In the First World War the IRB planned a revolt in Ireland. They were in league with Germany which was the UK’s enemy. Even after the sinking of the Lusitania and the killing of many Irish civilians the IRB was still pro-German. If Germany had won it is likely that it would have been annexed.
In 1916 there was the Easter Rising in Dublin. The IRB was at the centre of it. The IRB was increasingly superseded by the Irish Volunteers who came to be known as the IRA. It had minimal public support and was swiftly defeated. The Crown showed the most unexampled mercy. Of the 1000 or so men who had committed high treason in time of war a mere 16 were executed. No other country would have been so gracious during a life and death struggle. This was an era when the United States used the death penalty promiscuously for crimes less than murder. In this era black men were routinely lynched in the United States. Yet IRB propagandists said that the UK was ‘brutal’.
In 1917 the United States declared war on Germany. This was due to Germany repeatedly sinking American merchant ships and encouraging Mexico to launch an unprovoked attack on the US. IRB groups in the United States had been in cahoots with Germany despite Germany deliberately killing American civilians. Even after the US went to war against Germany the IRB and IRA did all they could to undermine the Allied war effort. They discouraged men from enlisting in the British Army.
The President of the United States at that time was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson’s grandparents came from Ireland and Wilson rejected Irish nationalism. Should Ireland be part of the UK or not? The president said this was an internal British matter for the UK to decide.
As soon as an armistice was signed between the Allies and Germany ended the IRA began to kill members of the Crown Forces. Remember the war was strictly speaking still on. Hostilities had been suspended and not ended. The police and the British Army arrested thousands of IRA men. They were interned. It was not until almost two years into the conflict that any IRA men were executed. By this time hundreds of police officers, soldiers and civilians had been killed by the IRA. Once again the Crown Forces had been very clement and restrained. The Crown Forces fought the IRA and in engagements IRA men were killed. Any sovereign state has the right to quell an insurrection.
Many Irish-Americans sent money to the IRA. These same people had overwhelmingly backed the Union side in the American Civil War. The American Civil War was specifically about a unit within a sovereign state not being allowed to secede. It was about secession. The IRA also called for secession. The United States and the UK were trying to preserve the Union in both cases. It was staggeringly hypocritical of so many Irish-Americans to betray the very principle which they had upheld in the United States. The American Civil War was not about slavery in the beginning. Abraham Lincoln and his government said that a hundred times. There were slave states in the North during the Civil War. It was only after the Civil War that the US Government abolished slavery.
The IRA did not observe the Geneva Convention. They did not wear uniforms or carry weapons openly. They unleashed a reign of terror. Anyone suspected of supporting the Crown could expect to be beaten up and have his house burnt down. Hundreds of people were shot dead by the IRA and said to be spies. Most of the victims of the IRA were Irish. The IRA engaged in a vile campaign of internecine sectarian slaughter. The IRA’s Protestant analogue was the Ulster Protestant Association (UPA). The UPA shot dead blameless Catholics in the Wee North. In Cork the IRA turned Tory Top Lane into a charnel house. The IRA burnt down many buildings and did its damndest to wreck the economy.
The conduct of the Crown Forces was not inculpable. In irregular conflicts counterinsurgent forces are usually bad. In relation to the usual ethical standards in such situations the Crown Forces behaved well. Nevertheless, even if you think that the Crown Forces committed serious wrongs there is no doubt that the UK was doing what every sovereign state is entitled to do: quell a revolt. In putting down a rebellion one cannot do so in a Salvation Army manner. It requires real force. The trick is to hit the right people and it is incredibly difficult to get this right. The security forces aimed to be the bane of the IRA. The IRA had a measure of popular certain especially in particular counties. It did not approach the near universal level that republican mythmaking would have you believe.
Yet there can be no comparison between the Crown Forces and the IRA. The former was fighting legally and the latter were not. It was inevitable that mistakes were made. There was some malfeasance by a small number of members of the security forces. The authorities tried to discipline the RIC (Royal Irish Constabulary) and the British Army but did not succeed in every case. Acts of indiscipline by members of the Crown Forces were seized upon by irresponsible elements in the American yellow press and hugely inflated. Their objective was to demonise the Crown Forced and be of assistance to the IRA. In that regard they achieved a very considerable measure of success.
A loyalist organisation existed in the North called the Ulster Protestant Association (UPA). The UPA killed hundreds of Catholic civilians and a few IRA men. The IRA also engaged in sectarian warfare. The IRA was almost exclusively Catholic. It killed hundreds of Protestant civilians. So much for the IRA being anti-sectarian. Was this Irish unity? But many people in the US donated money to the IRA despite it being a violently anti-Protestant and Anglophobic organisation.
In 1921 there was a treaty between the UK and the Irish republican movement. The major portion of Ireland left the UK and became a dominion within the British Empire. The South of Ireland was given the constitutional title ‘the Irish Free State’. It was analogous to the position of Canada. Sinn Fein (the Irish republican party) agreed to the partition of Ireland. The Irish Parliament was entirely made up of Sinn Feiners. It ratified the treaty agreeing to partition.
Michael Collins was Sinn Fein’s chief negotiator. He treacherously broke the agreement. He sent more guns to the IRA in Northern Ireland to continue the IRA’s bestial attacks against civilians. Collins’ duplicity and mercilessness horrified even his comrades in arms.
The South of Ireland devolved into civil war in 1922. The republican movement split. 75% of people voted to accept the treaty. 25% of them rejected it. The IRA fought against democracy. Shockingly some Irish-Americans backed the IRA which was fighting against the settled will of the Irish people. The Irish Free State fought against the IRA. The Free State was far tougher on the IRA than the Crown had been. The Free State executed at least 77 IRA men in ten months. The Crown had executed 24 in two and a half years. Most of these IRA men were executed without any trial whatsoever. The Crown always granted a man a fair trial. Even the IRA did not dispute that the UK authorities had given people fair trials.
The Irish Government regularly carried out extra judicial killings as well and used torture on a grand scale. But we hardly hear anything about this. Why? It is anglophobia. The aim is to paint the English as sadists and to whitewash wrongdoing by the Irish Government.
The IRA had caused several years of conflict in Ireland. It took decades to recover. The IRA remained a banned organisation in the South of Ireland as well as the North. The Irish Free State (the South) was more or less independent. The IRA continued to kill Irish policemen and assassinate politicians well after the civil war was over.
The IRA actively supported the Third Reich in the Second World War. It also sought assistance from the Soviet Union. Despite the IRA backing the Nazis some Irish-Americans still looked kindly on the IRA.
In 1949 the Irish Government broke the 1921 treaty and declared a republic. The UK generously accepted this. As Dublin had reneged on the treaty then London would have been entirely entitled to hold itself absolved of its undertakings according to the same. Irish nationalists often resort to the racist trope ‘perfidious Albion’ yet it is nationalist perfidy which pervades the chronicles of Irish history.
Through the 1950s the IRA carried on a terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland. It was easily defeated by the police (the Royal Ulster Constabulary). The IRA received very little support from the Catholic community. Irishmen from the north and the south volunteered for the British Army in large numbers. The UK was America’s Cold War ally. It was an outraged that a few Americans should have abetted these attacks on America’s NATO stalwart. The UK was one of very few democratic countries in the world. But certain Irish-American groups still raised funds for the IRA and calumniated the UK.
In the 1960s the United Kingdom was one of the most desirable places to live in the world. This is why there was an influx of people from other Commonwealth lands and the Republic of Ireland. There was publicly funded healthcare, publicly funded higher education and a generous welfare system. None of this was true I the United States. The UK had very low unemployment. All adults over the age of 21 were permitted to vote regardless or race, religion or ethnicity. Citizens of the Republic of Ireland and Commonwealth countries were granted the right to vote in the UK. This was much more democratic than the United States. At that time African-Americans were lynched for attempting to exercise the rights ‘guaranteed’ to them under the US Constitution.
Despite the United Kingdom assuring the blessings of liberty to the people of Northern Ireland there were ill-intentioned people there and in the United States who vituperated the UK. They disseminated stinking lies claiming that it was not democratic.
The drawing of constituency boundaries is usually contentious. Nationalists in Northern Ireland and claimed it was due to the way in which such boundaries were drawn. At local elections only householders and spouses thereof were permitted to vote. As the Catholic community tended to have more children and not to be so affluent this meant that some Catholic adults could not vote in local elections. But they could vote in Westminster elections.
The Unionist Party was the most popular party in Northern Ireland. Its backers were mostly Protestant. American sociologist found that in 1969 5% of the Catholic community voted unionist. Some Catholics voted for the Northern Ireland Labour Party. Only about 60% of Catholics voted for some nationalist or other. Only around 0.5% of Protestants voted nationalist. The Unionist Party tended to reward its supporters. That’s politics! It is seldom edifying. Tell me the same does not take place in the US!
Racial and religious discrimination is a worldwide problem. It existed in the UK too. But as even the IRA’s court historian Tim Pat Coogan said the situation was worse in the Republic of Ireland. Jobbery, pork barrel politics and nepotism were the mainstays of Irish politics. Likewise, the Irish-American politicians who calumniated the UK were usually Tammany Hall Tepee types.
In 1969 a conflict erupted in Northern Ireland. Again, the IRA turned to people in the US for funds and arms. They received them. The IRA espoused a far left ideology. This was anathema to most Americans. But the IRA still got what it wanted from its bigoted supporters in the United States. Many of these people in the US were completely ignorant. In the 1970s of them told the Irish historian Ruth Dudley Edwards ‘there are British tanks in Dublin.’ Miss Dudley Edwards said ‘You mean Belfast and it is armoured cars.’ The American woman insisted ‘no in Dublin and it is tanks.’ There had been no British tanks in Dublin for 50 years!
The UK was very helpful to her American ally. The US military was and is granted bases in the United Kingdom. The US Navy has a base at Derry in Northern Ireland. The Crown Forces learnt that certain American sailors were actively assisting the IRA. A most celebrated young Irish historian Dr Edward Burke has proven as much. Let us be fair. It was only a tiny number of US military personnel who engaged in terrorism against their British allies. Nevertheless, the UK soon asked the Americans to leave Derry. They did.
The republican terrorist organisations were the IRA and the INLA. They were both far left. These were the sort of organisations that the US would never tolerate at home. They were Marxist and funded and armed by the USSR.
There were romantic notions of the resplendence of the revolutionary struggle. The very unlovely reality of the conflict was seldom brought home to these armchair heroes. The complexity and the sectarian aspect of the conflict were not widely understood in the US. Few people in the United States realized that the Irish Government had agreed to partition. Indeed in 1925 when offered some of Northern Ireland the Irish Government had turned it down. In 1941 Churchill has offered to give Northern Ireland to the Irish Taoiseach in return for joining the Allied cause. He declined.
It was staggering to see the nerve that some Americans had to say the Northern Ireland was not lawfully part and parcel of the UK. The United States accredited an ambassador to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There was a US consul in Belfast – accredited to the British Government. It was asinine and dishonest to pretend that Northern Ireland was not legitimately and legally an integral portion of the British State.
The UK was a faithful ally of the US. The UK joined NATO at its inception. British soldiers fought alongside their American comrades in Korea, Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia, the Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. The Republic of Ireland did not lift a finger to help the United States. But your average American would not know that.
The Crown Forces had rules of engagement. After 1972 the hooding of suspects was forbidden. The US still hoods suspects. The British Army had a very good record of ethical conduct in Northern Ireland. Irishmen volunteered for the British Army all through the Troubles. Republican civilians berated the Crown Forces because they knew that the soldiers and police officers were so disciplined and gentle that they would do nothing.
The British Army was not above criticism. One disgraceful episode in Derry took place in January 1972. In the US people made a meal of this. The UK apologized for the incident after the most exhaustive investigation of all time and paid huge compensation. The US military has carried out numerous large scale massacres in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet no such contrition is forthcoming from Uncle Sam.
The Irish Government was against the IRA. Dublin strove to maintain a decent relationship with London. It was very difficult. The IRA was a huge problem for the Republic of Ireland (the South). The IRA killed over 100 people in the Republic, robbed banks, kidnapped people, burnt down buildings and dealt drugs. The Garda Siochana (Irish Police) had a severe headache trying to contain the IRA. In the 1970s the Republic of Ireland seemed to be in a pre-revolutionary stage. Some people thought the state was close to collapse. American money for the IRA exacerbated all these problems.
The gallantry and the humanitarianism of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was marvelous. Northern Ireland was the most dangerous place in the world to be a police officer. The RUC were occasionally obliged to use force.
The Ulster Defence Regiment also served the public in providing security. Their valour and professionalism were also splendid. They suffered hundreds of dead. They very, very seldom killed even IRA men such was their restraint.
The UK last used the death penalty in 1964. The US still has states that execute people. America is alone in the Western world in doing so. The United Kingdom has a far, far better human rights record than the US.
The United States has mass incarceration. Its trial are often unfair. Racism is prevalent in the policing and the judiciary. US police shoot dead hundreds of people a year. It is nauseatingly hypocritical of Americans to traduce the UK whilst such huge scale systemic injustices play out in the United States.
The British were so ruth and treated even murderers so well. In the US innocent black men were fried in the electric chair.
The UK upheld liberty. People had freedom of speech and of association. Such liberties were guaranteed in the UK. Northern Ireland was not one bit oppressed by the UK. It was oppressed by the IRA, the INLA and their loyalists mirror images – the UVF and UFF.
The UK was lenient to a fault. Sentences handed down to terrorists were very mild. The death penalty was never used. Internment was phased out in 1975. The courage and the humanity of the courts and the Crown Forces are second to none. The British Army and the RUC are names resplendent in eternal glory.
It is true that a handful of members of the UDR and RUC moonlighted as loyalists terrorists. They were given short shrift. They were soon apprehended and awarded lengthy gaol terms. The record of the security forces is not absolutely faultless.
By contrast the brutality and injustice of American courts, prisons and the police is notorious. The US also kidnapped even children from Afghanistan and locked them up without trial nor charge in Guantanamo Bay. Some people have been held incommunicado there. Men have been kept confined there for upwards of 17 years without trial. It is a shrieking outrage. How then can any American have the temerity to calumniate the United Kingdom. The UK is know for its fairness and mercy.
In the 1980s the IRA was an ally of Gaddafi. Gaddafi was an avowed enemy of the United States. He orchestrated attacks on American civilians. Despite this the IRA’ backers in the US did not desist from funding their darlings.
There are tens of millions of Irish-Americans. Many of them are wonderful people. Ronald Reagan is one of my least favourite US presidents. Yet he must be given his due. He was an Irish-American who recognized that the IRA was the worst of Ireland and not the best. He used a St Patrick’s Day speech to denounce the criminal and anti-democratic violence of these sectarian bigots. He also railed against the IRA’s loyalist equivalents. There were Irish-Americans who supported the constitutional nationalist cause. It is an honourable one that I happen not to share. There was a quarter of eminent Irish-American politicians who opposed the IRA. They threw their weight behind the SDLP which was a nationalist party which peacefully campaigned for a united Irish Republic. Nevertheless, this was still transgressing into the domestic politics of the United Kingdom. Foreigners are not allowed to donate to American politicians. But Americans donate to foreign politicians. It is flagrantly illogical. In the UK parties are not allowed to accept donations from outside the EU. Americans are not allowed to join UK political parties. But there is an exemption for Northern Irish parties. This is a grossly illogical and unjust exception there designed onto to help the SDLP and Sinn Fein. In the US no politician is permitted to accept anything of value from a foreigner. Yet Americans will donate to foreign political parties. Once again the unfairness, stupidity, hypocrisy and arrogance of it is beyond belief.
Finally, in the 1990s the conflict came to an end. The Crown Forces had emerged victorious. Some Americans opposed the ending of the conflict and still sent money and guns to splinter groups of the IRA which planned to continue the conflict. It is obloquial that certain members of the Irish-American community did not acquaint themselves with the facts and assisted these terrorists who were outlawed by the Irish Government. This attempt to be uber Irish was unparalleled in the harm it did. This was sentimental self-indulgence turned to malice. It was also backstabbing America’s ally. Historical illiteracy, arrogance and malevolence characterize the discourse of IRA supporters.
The tragic Irish conflict would have been much smaller and ended much sooner were it not for certain Irish-Americans maintaining it. They fueled the flames. There were many wise and moral Irish-Americans who oppose this pyromaniac attitude. The US Government did not do this but it did not do enough to stop funding and arming terrorists.
The United States has proved herself time and again to be an unfaithful ally. She has let the UK down on multiple occasions. So many others have cause to feel betrayed by the United States. Ngo Dinh Diem, the Cuban anti-communists, Van Muong, the Laotians, the Cambodians, the Taiwanese, the Samozas in Nicaragua, the Shah of Iran, the Lebanese Christians, the mujahideen, Saddam Hussein, the anti-Saddam rebels in southern Iraq, the Kurds, the anti-Taleban Afghans, the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Egyptian democrats – they have all been thrown to the wolves by America. You might think many of these were rotten causes. If so why was the United States backing them? Nonetheless these people put their trust in the United States. But they were left to their fate when they became inconvenient for Washington.
The US has laws against foreign terrorism. Many organisations are proscribed. It is American to outlaw terrorist organisations and to forbid incitement to crime. It would be entirely in keeping with the US Constitution to have banned these organisations. In fairness the US Government latterly outlawed the IRA and its other guises. Yet somehow arms and money managed to get through.
There are many amiable and honest Americans. The United States has praiseworthy aspects to its constitution, its culture and its contribution to world politics. The US Government made efforts to stem the flow of arms and weapons to terrorist. In the early days these were largely pro forma. Unfortunately, the influence of certain members of the Irish-American community on Ireland and Great Britain was decidedly baleful.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran. | 5,822 | ENGLISH | 1 |
"anyone lived in a pretty how town" tells the story, in nine stanzas, of a couple, "anyone" and "noone," who seem to live in a small town very much like other small towns. The names they are given support this idea: anyone and noone could be anyone and everyone. They are two ordinary people living an ordinary life.
At the beginning of the story, anyone is in the "spring" of his life; he "danced" and "sang" and generally behaves like a happy young man. Around him, both women and men simply carry on with their own business, with little care for anyone else, whatever the weather—"their same" is always there for them to be looking to, "sun moon stars rain."
anyone becomes attached to "noone," who "loved him more by more" as time goes on. Children occasionally guess this, but their attention is soon diverted from it by other things, their own concerns. As "up they grew," they seem to have less and less time for other people.
Meanwhile, anyone is everything to noone. She "laughed his joy she cried his grief," and everything about him is "all to her." The two people go unremarked by those around them, but they are of fundamental importance to each other.
Around the pair, others are doing the same thing and having the same experience—"someones married their everyones," in occasions marked by dancing and joy. Their lives are monotonous, but to many, this is "their dream," quite enough for them.
Eventually, anyone dies, and while nobody else around them is bothered much, noone certainly is, stooping to "kiss his face" and, by implication, dying too, unable to live without him. Those around them are "busy," burying the pair side by side with little apparent ceremony.
Meanwhile, the world goes on with the regularity of a bell ringing, "dong and ding," with others living lives which are very important to them but unremarkable to everyone else.
“Anyone lived in a pretty how town” is a poem in which Cummings’s wordplay is especially effective. The poem contrasts “anyone” and “noone” with “someones and everyones,” the first pair being the hero and heroine who love each other, the second pair being the anonymous mass of nonbeings who live lives of quiet desperation, as another New Englander, Henry David Thoreau, once lamented. Eventually “anyone” and “noone” die, but their lives have been meaningful and enriching; the rest of the townspeople—the “someones and everyones”—continue to live, though their existences, like those of the Cambridge ladies, are characterized not by life but by living death.
In the first stanza, Cummings reveals a number of technical innovations. In addition to his inventive use of the pronoun “anyone,” he plays with the phrase “a pretty how town,” suggesting that the saying—“how pretty a town”—conceals something not so pretty after all. The second line is a syntactical jolt: “(with up so floating many bells down).”...
(The entire section is 738 words.) | <urn:uuid:97df810f-4304-4aae-a756-a3062a7c94c3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.enotes.com/topics/anyone-lived-pretty-how-town | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00256.warc.gz | en | 0.983512 | 706 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.21815133094787598,
-0.1921650767326355,
0.09984593093395233,
0.23201701045036316,
-0.10469632595777512,
0.039039794355630875,
0.62556391954422,
-0.16656969487667084,
0.047809895128011703,
-0.26442232728004456,
0.09581559896469116,
0.19067583978176117,
0.3259708881378174,
-0.113729164004... | 1 | "anyone lived in a pretty how town" tells the story, in nine stanzas, of a couple, "anyone" and "noone," who seem to live in a small town very much like other small towns. The names they are given support this idea: anyone and noone could be anyone and everyone. They are two ordinary people living an ordinary life.
At the beginning of the story, anyone is in the "spring" of his life; he "danced" and "sang" and generally behaves like a happy young man. Around him, both women and men simply carry on with their own business, with little care for anyone else, whatever the weather—"their same" is always there for them to be looking to, "sun moon stars rain."
anyone becomes attached to "noone," who "loved him more by more" as time goes on. Children occasionally guess this, but their attention is soon diverted from it by other things, their own concerns. As "up they grew," they seem to have less and less time for other people.
Meanwhile, anyone is everything to noone. She "laughed his joy she cried his grief," and everything about him is "all to her." The two people go unremarked by those around them, but they are of fundamental importance to each other.
Around the pair, others are doing the same thing and having the same experience—"someones married their everyones," in occasions marked by dancing and joy. Their lives are monotonous, but to many, this is "their dream," quite enough for them.
Eventually, anyone dies, and while nobody else around them is bothered much, noone certainly is, stooping to "kiss his face" and, by implication, dying too, unable to live without him. Those around them are "busy," burying the pair side by side with little apparent ceremony.
Meanwhile, the world goes on with the regularity of a bell ringing, "dong and ding," with others living lives which are very important to them but unremarkable to everyone else.
“Anyone lived in a pretty how town” is a poem in which Cummings’s wordplay is especially effective. The poem contrasts “anyone” and “noone” with “someones and everyones,” the first pair being the hero and heroine who love each other, the second pair being the anonymous mass of nonbeings who live lives of quiet desperation, as another New Englander, Henry David Thoreau, once lamented. Eventually “anyone” and “noone” die, but their lives have been meaningful and enriching; the rest of the townspeople—the “someones and everyones”—continue to live, though their existences, like those of the Cambridge ladies, are characterized not by life but by living death.
In the first stanza, Cummings reveals a number of technical innovations. In addition to his inventive use of the pronoun “anyone,” he plays with the phrase “a pretty how town,” suggesting that the saying—“how pretty a town”—conceals something not so pretty after all. The second line is a syntactical jolt: “(with up so floating many bells down).”...
(The entire section is 738 words.) | 669 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Yellowstone National Park, the majority of which is in Wyoming in the USA, was established on the 1st of March in 1872. In the late 1800's wolves were a common sight in what was to become the National Park, however, as settlers travelled further North the wolves presented the issue of predation of livestock and threats to human lives. This lead to an anthropogenically caused decline in wolf populations. This was further supported by US Congress which presented funding for the removal of large predators from federal land in 1914. Wolves were then trapped, shot or poisoned until the last packs were removed in the 1920's. After these events, Yellowstone's ecosystem saw some dramatic changes to the landscape and the wildlife. The Elk saw rapid increases in their populations into 20,000 in the 1990's; nearly double of what they once were.
After grey wolves (Canis lupus) made it onto the endangered species list the proposal to reintroduce them was brought forward and finalised in 1987. Three main groups were strongly against this decision. First of all tourists and locals were concerned about the risk that the wolves might injure or kill someone. Hunters were also worried that the wolves would drop the elk and deer populations causing there to be a lack of game over the following seasons of hunting. The main group that was strongly adverse to the reintroduction were the ranchers in the area. They feared that the wolves would cause large losses to their livestock, damaging their incomes. Despite the number of opponents, the wolf reintroduction went forward.
The wolves to be reintroduced were taken from the Canadian provinces as researchers thought this would yield the highest number of surviving wolves, as in Canada their main food source would be elk, similar to the National Park, the wolves in Montana primarily hunt deer. Fourteen wolves from several different packs were captured and transported. Following several weeks in acclimatisation pens, the wolves were finally released in the winter of 1995. Wolf numbers continued to grow as there were ten pups from that year and seventeen more wolves shipped in. On top of this, the mortality rate was less than half the expected value, however, some were killed illegally, and others died of natural causes. The damage to livestock and game expected by the wolves was largely unfounded. A non-profit organization was set up to reimburse ranchers for livestock lost to wolves.
The reintroduction of wolves had indirect consequences on the populations of the other organisms living in the ecosystem, also known as a trophic cascade. This phenomenon occurs when the predators of a food chain are able to alter the number or behaviour of the animals further down the chain. The wolves presented a rare opportunity to study the effects that a top predator can have on the lower trophic levels.
The main effect the wolves had on the deer population was not the amount they reduced it by but how they altered their behaviour, who quickly learned to avoid certain areas of the park such as gorges and valley bottoms. These areas made them vulnerable to being trapped. Changes to the grazing patterns allowed rejuvenation in the areas where the deer avoided. Within six years of the reintroduction, some of the trees had quintupled in height. Woodlands were able to grow on the once bare valley sides. This lead to an increase in the number of songbirds in the area. The impact the wolves created on the surrounding woodland allowed beavers to move back into the rivers, where they had recently been extinct. The Beavers' dams created niches for other animals such as muskrats, otters, and ducks allowing their populations to grow and thrive. The wolves also killed the coyote in the area, which led to more rabbits and mice, allowing their predatory species, such as the hawk, fox, and weasels, to grow. Ravens and bald eagle numbers grew in the area as they fed on the carcasses left behind by the wolves, as did the bears living in the area. The increased number of bears reinforced the work done by the wolves as they would kill deer calves.
The most extraordinary impact the wolves had on Yellowstone National Park was their actions were able to change the course of the rivers. The deer stopped feeding in areas around the rivers and so vegetation was able to grow. This increased the stability of the riverbanks and reduced the amount of erosion and collapse. This caused the rivers to meander less and pools were able to form, which in turn formed habitats for different species. This combined with the other species that are living in the rivers increased the diversity of the area further and gave rise to additions to the food chains allowing predators and prey to prosper. | <urn:uuid:99a10f8d-b6e1-4ae0-93f9-86283cfa9d4f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://nouse.co.uk/2018/02/15/the-wolves-of-yellowstone/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592636.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118135205-20200118163205-00092.warc.gz | en | 0.985031 | 937 | 4.21875 | 4 | [
-0.08605967462062836,
-0.1669570356607437,
0.2168968915939331,
0.243546724319458,
0.19037771224975586,
0.247386634349823,
-0.44397541880607605,
0.18281516432762146,
-0.12044139206409454,
0.08955814689397812,
0.17472529411315918,
-0.2755012810230255,
0.28566497564315796,
0.2566819190979004,... | 1 | Yellowstone National Park, the majority of which is in Wyoming in the USA, was established on the 1st of March in 1872. In the late 1800's wolves were a common sight in what was to become the National Park, however, as settlers travelled further North the wolves presented the issue of predation of livestock and threats to human lives. This lead to an anthropogenically caused decline in wolf populations. This was further supported by US Congress which presented funding for the removal of large predators from federal land in 1914. Wolves were then trapped, shot or poisoned until the last packs were removed in the 1920's. After these events, Yellowstone's ecosystem saw some dramatic changes to the landscape and the wildlife. The Elk saw rapid increases in their populations into 20,000 in the 1990's; nearly double of what they once were.
After grey wolves (Canis lupus) made it onto the endangered species list the proposal to reintroduce them was brought forward and finalised in 1987. Three main groups were strongly against this decision. First of all tourists and locals were concerned about the risk that the wolves might injure or kill someone. Hunters were also worried that the wolves would drop the elk and deer populations causing there to be a lack of game over the following seasons of hunting. The main group that was strongly adverse to the reintroduction were the ranchers in the area. They feared that the wolves would cause large losses to their livestock, damaging their incomes. Despite the number of opponents, the wolf reintroduction went forward.
The wolves to be reintroduced were taken from the Canadian provinces as researchers thought this would yield the highest number of surviving wolves, as in Canada their main food source would be elk, similar to the National Park, the wolves in Montana primarily hunt deer. Fourteen wolves from several different packs were captured and transported. Following several weeks in acclimatisation pens, the wolves were finally released in the winter of 1995. Wolf numbers continued to grow as there were ten pups from that year and seventeen more wolves shipped in. On top of this, the mortality rate was less than half the expected value, however, some were killed illegally, and others died of natural causes. The damage to livestock and game expected by the wolves was largely unfounded. A non-profit organization was set up to reimburse ranchers for livestock lost to wolves.
The reintroduction of wolves had indirect consequences on the populations of the other organisms living in the ecosystem, also known as a trophic cascade. This phenomenon occurs when the predators of a food chain are able to alter the number or behaviour of the animals further down the chain. The wolves presented a rare opportunity to study the effects that a top predator can have on the lower trophic levels.
The main effect the wolves had on the deer population was not the amount they reduced it by but how they altered their behaviour, who quickly learned to avoid certain areas of the park such as gorges and valley bottoms. These areas made them vulnerable to being trapped. Changes to the grazing patterns allowed rejuvenation in the areas where the deer avoided. Within six years of the reintroduction, some of the trees had quintupled in height. Woodlands were able to grow on the once bare valley sides. This lead to an increase in the number of songbirds in the area. The impact the wolves created on the surrounding woodland allowed beavers to move back into the rivers, where they had recently been extinct. The Beavers' dams created niches for other animals such as muskrats, otters, and ducks allowing their populations to grow and thrive. The wolves also killed the coyote in the area, which led to more rabbits and mice, allowing their predatory species, such as the hawk, fox, and weasels, to grow. Ravens and bald eagle numbers grew in the area as they fed on the carcasses left behind by the wolves, as did the bears living in the area. The increased number of bears reinforced the work done by the wolves as they would kill deer calves.
The most extraordinary impact the wolves had on Yellowstone National Park was their actions were able to change the course of the rivers. The deer stopped feeding in areas around the rivers and so vegetation was able to grow. This increased the stability of the riverbanks and reduced the amount of erosion and collapse. This caused the rivers to meander less and pools were able to form, which in turn formed habitats for different species. This combined with the other species that are living in the rivers increased the diversity of the area further and gave rise to additions to the food chains allowing predators and prey to prosper. | 959 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Franco, set up a government which was similar in many ways the one of Hitler in Germany. Despite the veneer of affability within the party no other dominant personality was allowed, for example he broke up the trade unions reducing the potential threat from Edmondo Rossini.
The Special Tribune for the Defence of the State only issued 9 death sentences before World War 2; this was hardly a totalitarian imposition of terror by comparison to the other dictators.
Mussolini made no attempt to rid the world of any particular race. Throughout his time as dictator, he also served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Armed Forces, known to supply local Fascist groups with revolvers and grenades, in an attempt to have them violently intimidate the Socialists.
Both Germany and Italy were headed by a single party, parties that demanded loyalty from the people and punished opposition. As long as these institutions existed they remained a threat to Mussolini and as such his regime could never be considered truly totalitarian.
History Totalitarian Regimes of Hitler and… Totalitarianism is merely a word, but behind this word are eras marked with terror and death. This may have been related to the reaction to the Matteotti crisis, probably the most famous Fascist attempt at violent coercion that shook the regime in its early stages.
King Victor was king of Italy throughout the era of the Fascist regime, meaning that perhaps Mussolini was not a true dictator, for he still had to answer to the monarchy during his time as ruler.
Central direction and control of the economy through state planning. Despite the veneer of affability within the party no other dominant personality was allowed, for example he broke up the trade unions reducing the potential threat from Edmondo Rossini. Seven fundamental laws decreed during his rule provided the regime with an appearance of constitutionalism, but they were developed after the fact, usually to legitimize an existing situation or spread of power.
As was the case later with Hitler, it was perhaps the failure of any attempt to block him on his way to dictatorship that emboldened Mussolini. The Twenty-Five Point Program, combined with the Four Year Plan ofensured that the economy and the armed forced would be prepared for a war in the coming years.
These reforms were mainly started by the anti-democratic movement; however the reasons differed in each country. The Government had total control of the media.
In the end all news, rumours and opinions within the state were produced or at least influenced by the government; a classic sign of a totalitarian leader exerting his control. Though there are a great deal of similarities and differences when comparing these dictators, there is no doubt that both men, through their radical ideologies, single-party states, terroristic police forces, centrally directed economies, weapon monopolies, and methods of effective mass communication, had a profound impact on the people of the world, gaining infamy in such a short amount of time.
Furthermore, any group suspected of planning a coup against the government, as seen in the case of numerous Sturmabteilung leaders, were immediately shot by SS officers. As with many aspects of the Fascist state, there was a gradual and incomplete acceptance of the need for a state police, Geoffrey Warner stated: Unlike Hitler, who is said to have had perhaps some success with his policies, Mussolini was unable to climb out of the economic grave that Italy had seemingly dug for itself.
Though the methods of propaganda in Nazi Germany are strikingly similar to those used in Fascist Italy, the message they were trying to get across was not always the same. Throughout the whole continent a trend of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, with political features the world had never seen before, was developing.
In the grand scheme of things, the few decades that Europe was ruled by these dictators is a mere blip in the course of history, but it is without question that no matter how short-lived their reigns of terror may have been, their notoriety is sure to live on for centuries to come.
As mentioned previously, an elaborate ideology is essential to a totalitarian regime, and it is of no question that both of these men had extreme ideologies that any rational human being would deem unreasonable.
However this regime was not completely fascist in supporting the church for example, which kept the control over education. Even by comparison to contemporary Europe which had not long grown out of the traditional autocratic, absolute monarchical rule it must have seemed a continuation of that outlook rather than a clean break as it was very much rule with the consent of a variety of institutions.
Culturally Mussolini drew heavily from the Roman Empire to try to show the Italians he was a true heir to the greatness of Rome. Totalitarian Regimes of Hitler and Mussolini You are here: In fact, one of his main goals was to revert back to the ways of the old Roman Empire, which he did through expansionism, dictatorship, and tight control over the military, as well as simpler things such as incorporating long abolished Roman symbols into society.
It also meant a regime which is more centered on the acuteness of the society and stability in political ideas.Totalitarian Regime: Hitler-Franco Essay Sample “Hitler had more success in establishing a totalitarian government than Franco” The twentieth century brought a radical reform in.
Francisco Franco was the totalitarian leader in Spain. Before having absolute power he was the General of the Spanish Army.
What made him be so powerful were several actions he carried out. Francisco Franco was the totalitarian leader in Spain. Before having absolute power he was the General of the Spanish Army. What made him be so powerful were several actions he carried out. Totalitarian Regime “Hitler had more success in establishing a totalitarian government than Franco” The twentieth century brought a radical reform in the political system for Europe.
Throughout the whole continent a trend of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, with political features the world had never seen before, was developing.
Francisco Franco who controlled the Spanish government until was a dictator. In SeptemberWorld War II broke out in Europe, and Hitler met Franco one time in Hendaye, France to discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis.
Franco also had a secret police following his orders but it was relatively tame compared to Hitler’s system of terroristic police control.
However the regime’s strong degree of control, Franco did not managed totalitarian domination of all social, cultural, and religious institutions, or of the whole economy.Download | <urn:uuid:bae06ddb-a18b-4136-b2e9-932a57fb063d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://wiqonuq.bistroriviere.com/totalitarian-regime-hitler-franco-56361rg.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00424.warc.gz | en | 0.98353 | 1,330 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.5160220861434937,
0.550320029258728,
0.007429411634802818,
-0.09682527184486389,
-0.32401400804519653,
0.49460434913635254,
0.47055792808532715,
0.11449335515499115,
-0.058808229863643646,
-0.13035595417022705,
-0.06562188267707825,
0.19503313302993774,
0.41458675265312195,
0.4030174016... | 1 | Franco, set up a government which was similar in many ways the one of Hitler in Germany. Despite the veneer of affability within the party no other dominant personality was allowed, for example he broke up the trade unions reducing the potential threat from Edmondo Rossini.
The Special Tribune for the Defence of the State only issued 9 death sentences before World War 2; this was hardly a totalitarian imposition of terror by comparison to the other dictators.
Mussolini made no attempt to rid the world of any particular race. Throughout his time as dictator, he also served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Armed Forces, known to supply local Fascist groups with revolvers and grenades, in an attempt to have them violently intimidate the Socialists.
Both Germany and Italy were headed by a single party, parties that demanded loyalty from the people and punished opposition. As long as these institutions existed they remained a threat to Mussolini and as such his regime could never be considered truly totalitarian.
History Totalitarian Regimes of Hitler and… Totalitarianism is merely a word, but behind this word are eras marked with terror and death. This may have been related to the reaction to the Matteotti crisis, probably the most famous Fascist attempt at violent coercion that shook the regime in its early stages.
King Victor was king of Italy throughout the era of the Fascist regime, meaning that perhaps Mussolini was not a true dictator, for he still had to answer to the monarchy during his time as ruler.
Central direction and control of the economy through state planning. Despite the veneer of affability within the party no other dominant personality was allowed, for example he broke up the trade unions reducing the potential threat from Edmondo Rossini. Seven fundamental laws decreed during his rule provided the regime with an appearance of constitutionalism, but they were developed after the fact, usually to legitimize an existing situation or spread of power.
As was the case later with Hitler, it was perhaps the failure of any attempt to block him on his way to dictatorship that emboldened Mussolini. The Twenty-Five Point Program, combined with the Four Year Plan ofensured that the economy and the armed forced would be prepared for a war in the coming years.
These reforms were mainly started by the anti-democratic movement; however the reasons differed in each country. The Government had total control of the media.
In the end all news, rumours and opinions within the state were produced or at least influenced by the government; a classic sign of a totalitarian leader exerting his control. Though there are a great deal of similarities and differences when comparing these dictators, there is no doubt that both men, through their radical ideologies, single-party states, terroristic police forces, centrally directed economies, weapon monopolies, and methods of effective mass communication, had a profound impact on the people of the world, gaining infamy in such a short amount of time.
Furthermore, any group suspected of planning a coup against the government, as seen in the case of numerous Sturmabteilung leaders, were immediately shot by SS officers. As with many aspects of the Fascist state, there was a gradual and incomplete acceptance of the need for a state police, Geoffrey Warner stated: Unlike Hitler, who is said to have had perhaps some success with his policies, Mussolini was unable to climb out of the economic grave that Italy had seemingly dug for itself.
Though the methods of propaganda in Nazi Germany are strikingly similar to those used in Fascist Italy, the message they were trying to get across was not always the same. Throughout the whole continent a trend of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, with political features the world had never seen before, was developing.
In the grand scheme of things, the few decades that Europe was ruled by these dictators is a mere blip in the course of history, but it is without question that no matter how short-lived their reigns of terror may have been, their notoriety is sure to live on for centuries to come.
As mentioned previously, an elaborate ideology is essential to a totalitarian regime, and it is of no question that both of these men had extreme ideologies that any rational human being would deem unreasonable.
However this regime was not completely fascist in supporting the church for example, which kept the control over education. Even by comparison to contemporary Europe which had not long grown out of the traditional autocratic, absolute monarchical rule it must have seemed a continuation of that outlook rather than a clean break as it was very much rule with the consent of a variety of institutions.
Culturally Mussolini drew heavily from the Roman Empire to try to show the Italians he was a true heir to the greatness of Rome. Totalitarian Regimes of Hitler and Mussolini You are here: In fact, one of his main goals was to revert back to the ways of the old Roman Empire, which he did through expansionism, dictatorship, and tight control over the military, as well as simpler things such as incorporating long abolished Roman symbols into society.
It also meant a regime which is more centered on the acuteness of the society and stability in political ideas.Totalitarian Regime: Hitler-Franco Essay Sample “Hitler had more success in establishing a totalitarian government than Franco” The twentieth century brought a radical reform in.
Francisco Franco was the totalitarian leader in Spain. Before having absolute power he was the General of the Spanish Army.
What made him be so powerful were several actions he carried out. Francisco Franco was the totalitarian leader in Spain. Before having absolute power he was the General of the Spanish Army. What made him be so powerful were several actions he carried out. Totalitarian Regime “Hitler had more success in establishing a totalitarian government than Franco” The twentieth century brought a radical reform in the political system for Europe.
Throughout the whole continent a trend of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, with political features the world had never seen before, was developing.
Francisco Franco who controlled the Spanish government until was a dictator. In SeptemberWorld War II broke out in Europe, and Hitler met Franco one time in Hendaye, France to discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis.
Franco also had a secret police following his orders but it was relatively tame compared to Hitler’s system of terroristic police control.
However the regime’s strong degree of control, Franco did not managed totalitarian domination of all social, cultural, and religious institutions, or of the whole economy.Download | 1,301 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Soft power and subterfuge
The Nine Years War (1593-1603), also known as Tyrone’s Rebellion, brought death and devastation to every province in Ireland. Yet only recently have scholars focused on this pivotal event in Irish history. Therefore it is unsurprising to find that the role of women in the conflict has received scant attention.
Women were intrinsic indeed indispensable for the operation of military camps, but they also played a major part in both side’s communication and intelligence gathering networks. As in the rest of Europe, women provided domestic, commercial and medical support to both English and Irish armies. So they were exposed to the perils of war.
They lived and died in siege camps, beleaguered garrisons and in combat, however the impact of women on the conduct of the war was much broader than previously thought. They were indispensable elements in intelligence and communication networks, providing information and carrying letters between both allies and belligerents. More than simple couriers, many women acted as official envoys, providing communications between enemies where direct contact could lead to accusations of disloyalty.
The power of women to influence their husbands or male relatives, either for or against the crown was well recognised and utilised by crown and confederate leaders alike, causing defections in both English and Irish camps. Women were not just hapless victims or passive observers during the Nine Years War, but intrinsic to the Irish and English war efforts. | <urn:uuid:77d245b7-b2f6-4aea-a3f9-7361547b8c86> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/women-tyrones-rebellion-1593-1603 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00254.warc.gz | en | 0.98041 | 297 | 3.953125 | 4 | [
-0.30742156505584717,
0.5901815891265869,
0.1950831413269043,
0.010809062980115414,
-0.029128147289156914,
0.29176250100135803,
0.1915208399295807,
-0.1706412136554718,
-0.027224376797676086,
-0.503643810749054,
-0.0704866498708725,
-0.43561315536499023,
0.14725029468536377,
0.122053131461... | 3 | Soft power and subterfuge
The Nine Years War (1593-1603), also known as Tyrone’s Rebellion, brought death and devastation to every province in Ireland. Yet only recently have scholars focused on this pivotal event in Irish history. Therefore it is unsurprising to find that the role of women in the conflict has received scant attention.
Women were intrinsic indeed indispensable for the operation of military camps, but they also played a major part in both side’s communication and intelligence gathering networks. As in the rest of Europe, women provided domestic, commercial and medical support to both English and Irish armies. So they were exposed to the perils of war.
They lived and died in siege camps, beleaguered garrisons and in combat, however the impact of women on the conduct of the war was much broader than previously thought. They were indispensable elements in intelligence and communication networks, providing information and carrying letters between both allies and belligerents. More than simple couriers, many women acted as official envoys, providing communications between enemies where direct contact could lead to accusations of disloyalty.
The power of women to influence their husbands or male relatives, either for or against the crown was well recognised and utilised by crown and confederate leaders alike, causing defections in both English and Irish camps. Women were not just hapless victims or passive observers during the Nine Years War, but intrinsic to the Irish and English war efforts. | 298 | ENGLISH | 1 |
SALT LAKE CITY — It was a warm August evening in 2018 when Jack Longino spotted something unusual in his backyard.
“I noticed right there these four tiny little ants that I knew just did not belong here,” Longino said.
As a biology professor at the University of Utah and an entomologist, Longino is trained to spot new species. He said just by looking at these ants he knew they were the first of their kind in the state.
“The head has a very triangular look to it, where it has a very elongated front and then the jaws kind of continue to be elongated,” he said.
Longino collected nearly 70 of the ants, brought them back to the lab, studied them and gave them a name.
“I named this new species Strumigenys ananeotes,” Longino said. “Ananeotes which means newly emerged.”
The ants are relatives of one found in more moist climates but Longino credited trees planted in the valley with helping these species survive Utah’s desert climate.
“Perhaps this is a case were native species, instead of being harmed by human intervention, is actually benefitting from creating more of its habitat,” he said.
His work was just published in the Western North American Naturalist, making it official.
He hopes his story excites others to get out there and explore.
“Get a flashlight and go look closely and they might find some of these too,” he said. | <urn:uuid:f50f9d15-b68c-4e70-8793-517ddc028c7d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.ksl.com/article/46673060/ant-expert-discovers-new-utah-species-in-backyard | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672537.90/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125131641-20200125160641-00113.warc.gz | en | 0.98192 | 321 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.24103224277496338,
-0.2137930542230606,
0.1228422224521637,
0.13248319923877716,
0.3733803927898407,
0.2675274908542633,
0.1974320262670517,
0.050627559423446655,
0.033215612173080444,
-0.29900050163269043,
0.4340425431728363,
-0.08633291721343994,
0.08876484632492065,
0.058624833822250... | 3 | SALT LAKE CITY — It was a warm August evening in 2018 when Jack Longino spotted something unusual in his backyard.
“I noticed right there these four tiny little ants that I knew just did not belong here,” Longino said.
As a biology professor at the University of Utah and an entomologist, Longino is trained to spot new species. He said just by looking at these ants he knew they were the first of their kind in the state.
“The head has a very triangular look to it, where it has a very elongated front and then the jaws kind of continue to be elongated,” he said.
Longino collected nearly 70 of the ants, brought them back to the lab, studied them and gave them a name.
“I named this new species Strumigenys ananeotes,” Longino said. “Ananeotes which means newly emerged.”
The ants are relatives of one found in more moist climates but Longino credited trees planted in the valley with helping these species survive Utah’s desert climate.
“Perhaps this is a case were native species, instead of being harmed by human intervention, is actually benefitting from creating more of its habitat,” he said.
His work was just published in the Western North American Naturalist, making it official.
He hopes his story excites others to get out there and explore.
“Get a flashlight and go look closely and they might find some of these too,” he said. | 294 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Saying that World War I was really bad for Russia is like saying Hitler was a somewhat unstable veteran of the Great War. While the Tsar fielded the largest army in the world at the time and should have been able to trounce the Germans, years (maybe decades) of neglecting modernization hampered the Russians. Roads were impossible and railways were inadequate. Casualties were heavy and the conditions were deplorable. Even drafting men for the war was difficult. Life in the Russian Empire was so bad, the Tsar would be toppled and replaced by the Soviet Union.
Before the Tsar was forced to abdicate, the Russian Empire tried a last-ditch effort to fill its ranks: hiring women.
When the Great War first began, Russians were only too happy to serve in their country's military. It was (on paper, at least) one of the most vaunted fighting forces on Earth at the time. But Tsarist Russia's poor infrastructure, the indecision of the Russian high command, and the lack of adequate food, supplies, and other war resources soon made life miserable. When word got out about the deteriorating conditions on the front, good men suddenly became hard to find. Women, on the other hand, had been trying to join the regular army since day one. These women soon demanded the government form all-women's military units.
The Tsarist government, facing an increasing manpower shortage, finally gave in. It formed 15 all-women's battalions in an effort to replace its missing manpower with womanpower. They included communications battalions, a naval unit, and the aptly-named Women's Battalion of Death. Of the 5,000 women who served in these units, 300 of them would join the Battalion of Death and march to the front in 1914.
Led by the peasant fighter-turned military leader Maria Bochkareva, the women were highly-trained and tightly-controlled by Bochkareva. While her harsh (sometimes brutal) leadership kept a majority of potential volunteers from joining, the 300 or so who did stay became some of the most hardcore Russian troops of the First World War. They first saw action in the Kerensky Offensive of 1917. It was a terrible loss for the Russians, who lost 60,000 troops in the fighting. But it was a stunning victory for the Women's Battalion of Death.
When ordered to go over the top and storm the enemy trenches, the women never hesitated, even when the men at their side did. In one instance, the Russian women made it through three trench systems before the lack of reinforcements necessitated their retreat. Bochkareva, though wounded twice, earned three medals for bravery in combat. With the effectiveness of the women in combat proven on the front, other women were deployed back home.
Back in St. Petersburg, things weren't going so well for the Tsar and his government. Another women's battalion had to be deployed to the Winter Palace to defend government ministries and the people who were running them. This is where history could have been made or turned back. When the Bolshevik fighters attempted to take the city, the women weren't at the Winter Palace, they abandoned the government ministers to their fate and went to guard the supplies. Eventually, they were overcome by the Bolsheviks and forced to surrender. When the Bolsheviks officially took power, these women's units were disbanded, with varying success.
Women who wanted to fight the Bolsheviks stayed in their units, joining the White Russian forces in the Russian Civil War. Others went home and became Soviet citizens. Many would live long enough to see women conscripted once more when Russia was again threatened from the outside, taking up arms against the Nazis and forming an essential element to the resistance of the Soviet Union – many of whom would go on to earn the title Hero of the Soviet Union.
More from We Are The Mighty
- New book uncovers records that show Hitler was usually very high
- Top 10 most intense battles in US history
- 'The Attack of the Dead Men' was a horrifying WWI infantry charge
- The 6 most terrifying weapons of World War I - Americas Military
- As the US entered World War I, American soldiers depended on
Featured photo: Wikimedia Commons | <urn:uuid:6da82456-7999-4b1f-800f-30a2e265433b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://explorethearchive.com/russian-womens-battalions-of-death-world-war-i | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00428.warc.gz | en | 0.981917 | 867 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.18882396817207336,
0.06375735998153687,
0.14211563766002655,
0.29413729906082153,
-0.006038340739905834,
-0.1858350783586502,
-0.044978540390729904,
0.44562265276908875,
0.10315223038196564,
-0.07770433276891708,
0.2206067144870758,
-0.08111795037984848,
0.1858856976032257,
0.5279884934... | 6 | Saying that World War I was really bad for Russia is like saying Hitler was a somewhat unstable veteran of the Great War. While the Tsar fielded the largest army in the world at the time and should have been able to trounce the Germans, years (maybe decades) of neglecting modernization hampered the Russians. Roads were impossible and railways were inadequate. Casualties were heavy and the conditions were deplorable. Even drafting men for the war was difficult. Life in the Russian Empire was so bad, the Tsar would be toppled and replaced by the Soviet Union.
Before the Tsar was forced to abdicate, the Russian Empire tried a last-ditch effort to fill its ranks: hiring women.
When the Great War first began, Russians were only too happy to serve in their country's military. It was (on paper, at least) one of the most vaunted fighting forces on Earth at the time. But Tsarist Russia's poor infrastructure, the indecision of the Russian high command, and the lack of adequate food, supplies, and other war resources soon made life miserable. When word got out about the deteriorating conditions on the front, good men suddenly became hard to find. Women, on the other hand, had been trying to join the regular army since day one. These women soon demanded the government form all-women's military units.
The Tsarist government, facing an increasing manpower shortage, finally gave in. It formed 15 all-women's battalions in an effort to replace its missing manpower with womanpower. They included communications battalions, a naval unit, and the aptly-named Women's Battalion of Death. Of the 5,000 women who served in these units, 300 of them would join the Battalion of Death and march to the front in 1914.
Led by the peasant fighter-turned military leader Maria Bochkareva, the women were highly-trained and tightly-controlled by Bochkareva. While her harsh (sometimes brutal) leadership kept a majority of potential volunteers from joining, the 300 or so who did stay became some of the most hardcore Russian troops of the First World War. They first saw action in the Kerensky Offensive of 1917. It was a terrible loss for the Russians, who lost 60,000 troops in the fighting. But it was a stunning victory for the Women's Battalion of Death.
When ordered to go over the top and storm the enemy trenches, the women never hesitated, even when the men at their side did. In one instance, the Russian women made it through three trench systems before the lack of reinforcements necessitated their retreat. Bochkareva, though wounded twice, earned three medals for bravery in combat. With the effectiveness of the women in combat proven on the front, other women were deployed back home.
Back in St. Petersburg, things weren't going so well for the Tsar and his government. Another women's battalion had to be deployed to the Winter Palace to defend government ministries and the people who were running them. This is where history could have been made or turned back. When the Bolshevik fighters attempted to take the city, the women weren't at the Winter Palace, they abandoned the government ministers to their fate and went to guard the supplies. Eventually, they were overcome by the Bolsheviks and forced to surrender. When the Bolsheviks officially took power, these women's units were disbanded, with varying success.
Women who wanted to fight the Bolsheviks stayed in their units, joining the White Russian forces in the Russian Civil War. Others went home and became Soviet citizens. Many would live long enough to see women conscripted once more when Russia was again threatened from the outside, taking up arms against the Nazis and forming an essential element to the resistance of the Soviet Union – many of whom would go on to earn the title Hero of the Soviet Union.
More from We Are The Mighty
- New book uncovers records that show Hitler was usually very high
- Top 10 most intense battles in US history
- 'The Attack of the Dead Men' was a horrifying WWI infantry charge
- The 6 most terrifying weapons of World War I - Americas Military
- As the US entered World War I, American soldiers depended on
Featured photo: Wikimedia Commons | 889 | ENGLISH | 1 |
19th century depiction of Pope Leo II
|Papacy began||17 August 682|
|Papacy ended||July 683|
|Created cardinal||5 December 680|
|Birth name||Leo Maneius|
|Born||Sicily, Byzantine Empire|
|Died||July 683 (aged 72)|
Rome, Byzantine Empire
Pope Leo II (611 – 28 June 683) was Bishop of Rome from 17 August 682 to 28 June 683.He is one of the popes of the Byzantine Papacy.
The Byzantine Papacy was a period of Byzantine domination of the Roman papacy from 537 to 752, when popes required the approval of the Byzantine Emperor for episcopal consecration, and many popes were chosen from the apocrisiarii or the inhabitants of Byzantine-ruled Greece, Syria, or Sicily. Justinian I conquered the Italian peninsula in the Gothic War (535–554) and appointed the next three popes, a practice that would be continued by his successors and later be delegated to the Exarchate of Ravenna.
He was a Sicilian by birth (the son of a man named Paulus). He may have ended up being among the many Sicilian clergy in Rome, at that time, due to the Islamic Caliphate battles against Sicily in the mid-7th century.Though elected pope a few days after the death of Pope St. Agatho on January 10, 681, he was not consecrated till after the lapse of a year and seven months (17 August 682). Leo was known as an eloquent preacher who was interested in music, and noted for his charity to the poor.
Sicily is the largest island in the Mediterranean Sea and one of the 20 regions of Italy. It is one of the five Italian autonomous regions, in Southern Italy along with surrounding minor islands, officially referred to as Regione Siciliana.
A caliphate is an Islamic state under the leadership of an Islamic steward with the title of caliph, a person considered a political-religious successor to the Islamic prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire ummah. Historically, the caliphates were polities based in Islam which developed into multi-ethnic trans-national empires. During the medieval period, three major caliphates succeeded each other: the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) and the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258). In the fourth major caliphate, the Ottoman Caliphate, the rulers of the Ottoman Empire claimed caliphal authority from 1517. During the history of Islam, a few other Muslim states, almost all hereditary monarchies, have claimed to be caliphates.
Pope Agatho served as the Bishop of Rome from 27 June 678 until his death in 681. He heard the appeal of Wilfrid of York, who had been displaced from his See by the division of the Archdiocese ordered by Theodore of Canterbury. During Agatho's tenure, the Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened which dealt with the monothelitism controversy. He is venerated as a saint by both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Elected shortly after the death of Agatho, Leo was not consecrated for over a year and a half. The reason may have been due to negotiations regarding imperial control of papal elections.
These negotiations were undertaken by Leo's predecessor Agatho between the Holy See and Emperor Constantine IV. They concerned the relations of the Byzantine Court to papal elections. Constantine IV had already promised Agatho to abolish or reduce the tax that the popes had been paying to the imperial treasury at the time of their consecration, an imperial policy that had been in force for about a century.
The Holy See, also called the See of Rome, refers to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope, which includes the apostolic episcopal see of the Diocese of Rome with universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the worldwide Catholic Church, as well as a sovereign entity of international law.
Constantine IV, sometimes incorrectly called Pogonatos (Πωγωνάτος), "the Bearded", out of confusion with his father, was Byzantine Emperor from 668 to 685. His reign saw the first serious check to nearly 50 years of uninterrupted Islamic expansion, while his calling of the Sixth Ecumenical Council saw the end of the monothelitism controversy in the Byzantine Empire.
Consecration is the solemn dedication to a special purpose or service, usually religious. The word consecration literally means "association with the sacred". Persons, places, or things can be consecrated, and the term is used in various ways by different groups. The origin of the word comes from the Latin stem consecrat, which means dedicated, devoted, and sacred. A synonym for to consecrate is to sanctify; a distinct antonym is to desecrate.
Leo's short-lived pontificate did not allow him to accomplish much, but there was one achievement of major importance: he confirmed the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680–681). This council had been held in Constantinople against the Monothelite controversy, and had been presided over by the legates of Pope Agatho. After Leo had notified the Emperor that the decrees of the council had been confirmed, he made them known to the nations of the West. In letters written to the king, the bishops, and the nobles of Spain, he explained what the council had effected, and he called upon the bishops to subscribe to its decrees.
Monothelitism or monotheletism is a particular teaching about how the divine and human relate in the person of Jesus. The Christological doctrine formally emerged in Armenia and Syria in 629. Specifically, monothelitism is the view that Jesus Christ has two natures but only one will. That is contrary to the Christology that Jesus Christ has two wills that correspond to his two natures (dyothelitism). Monothelitism is a development of the Neo-Chalcedonian position in the Christological debates. Formulated in 638, it enjoyed considerable popularity, even garnering patriarchal support, before being rejected and denounced as heretical in 681, at the Third Council of Constantinople.
During this council, Pope Honorius I was anathematized for tolerating Monothelism. Leo took great pains to make it clear that in condemning Honorius, he did so not because Honorius taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it.In accordance with the papal mandate, a synod was held at Toledo (684) in which the Third Council of Constantinople was accepted.
Pope Honorius I was Bishop of Rome from 27 October 625 to his death in 638.
Anathema, in common usage, is something or someone that is detested or shunned. In its other main usage, it is a formal excommunication. The latter meaning, its ecclesiastical sense, is based on New Testament usage. In the Old Testament, anathema referred either to something that was consecrated or to something denounced as evil or accursed and set aside for sacrificial offering.
The Third Council of Constantinople, counted as the Sixth Ecumenical Council by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, as well by certain other Western Churches, met in 680/681 and condemned monoenergism and monothelitism as heretical and defined Jesus Christ as having two energies and two wills.
Regarding the decision of the council, Leo wrote once and again in approbation of the decision of the council and in condemnation of Honorius, whom he regarded as one who profana proditione immaculatem fidem subvertare conatus est (roughly, "one who by betrayal has tried to overthrow the immaculate faith"). In the Greek text of the letter to the Emperor in which the phrase occurs, the milder expression subverti permisit ("allowed to be overthrown...") is used for subvertare conatus est.
At this time, Leo put an end to the attempts of the Ravenna archbishops to get away from the control of the Bishop of Rome, but also abolished the tax it had been customary for them to pay when they received the pallium.
Also, in apparent response to Lombard raids, Leo transferred the relics of a number of martyrs from the catacombs to churches inside the walls of the city. He dedicated two churches, St. Paul's and Sts. Sebastian and George.Leo also reformed the Gregorian chant and composed several sacred hymns for the divine office.
Leo was originally buried in his own monument; however, some years after his death, his remains were put into a tomb that contained the first four of his papal namesakes.
Pope Benedict II was Bishop of Rome from 26 June 684 to his death in 685. Pope Benedict II's feast day is May 7.
Pope Sergius I was Bishop of Rome from December 15, 687, to his death in 701. He was elected at a time when two rivals, the Archdeacon Paschal and the Archpriest Theodore, were locked in dispute about which of them should become pope.
Saint Hormisdas was Pope from 20 July 514 to his death in 523. His papacy was dominated by the Acacian schism, started in 484 by Acacius of Constantinople's efforts to placate the Monophysites. His efforts to resolve this schism were successful, and on 28 March 519, the reunion between Constantinople and Rome was ratified in the cathedral of Constantinople before a large crowd.
Pope Severinus was Bishop of Rome two months, from 28 May until his death on 2 August. He became caught up in a power struggle with the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius over the ongoing Monothelite controversy.
Pope Constantine was Bishop of Rome from 25 March 708 to his death in 715. With the exception of Antipope Constantine, he was the only pope to bear such a "quintessentially" Eastern name of an emperor. During this period, the regnal name was also used by emperors and patriarchs.
Pope Vitalian reigned from 30 July 657 to his death in 672. He was born in Segni, Lazio, the son of Anastasius.
Pope John IV was head of the Catholic Church from 24 December 640 to his death in 642. His election followed a four-month vacancy.
Pope John V was Bishop of Rome from 23 July 685 to his death in 686. He was the first pope of the Byzantine Papacy permitted to be consecrated without the prior consent of the Byzantine emperor, and the first in a line of ten consecutive popes of Eastern origin. His papacy was marked by reconciliation between the city of Rome and the Empire.
Pope Conon was Bishop of Rome from 21 October 686 to his death in 687. He had been put forward as a compromise candidate, there being a conflict between the two factions resident in Rome— the military and the clerical. On his death, Conon was buried in the Patriarchal Basilica of St. Peter. He consecrated the Irish missionary Kilian a bishop and commissioned him to preach in Franconia.
The history of the papacy, the office held by the pope as head of the Catholic Church, according to Catholic doctrine, spans from the time of Peter to the present day.
Macarius I of Antioch was Patriarch of Antioch in the 7th century, deposed in 681 for professing monothelitism.
Papal supremacy is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that the Pope, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and as the visible foundation and source of unity, and as pastor of the entire Christian Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered: that, in brief, "the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls."
Papal appointment was a medieval method of selecting a pope. Popes have always been selected by a council of Church fathers, however, Papal selection before 1059 was often characterized by confirmation or "nomination" by secular European rulers or by their predecessors. The later procedures of the papal conclave are in large part designed to constrain the interference of secular rulers which characterized the first millennium of the Roman Catholic Church, and persisted in practices such as the creation of crown-cardinals and the jus exclusivae. Appointment might have taken several forms, with a variety of roles for the laity and civic leaders, Byzantine and Germanic emperors, and noble Roman families. The role of the election vis-a-vis the general population and the clergy was prone to vary considerably, with a nomination carrying weight that ranged from near total to a mere suggestion or ratification of a prior election.
There was no uniform procedure for papal selection before AD 1059. The Bishops of Rome and Supreme Pontiffs (Popes) of the Catholic Church were often appointed by their predecessors or by political rulers. While some kind of election often characterized the procedure, an election that included meaningful participation of the laity was rare, especially as the Popes' claims to temporal power solidified into the Papal States. The practice of papal appointment during this period would later result in the jus exclusivae, i. e., a right to veto the selection that Catholic monarchs exercised into the twentieth century.
From 756 to 857, the papacy shifted from the orbit of the Byzantine Empire to that of the kings of the Franks. Pepin the Short, Charlemagne, and Louis the Pious had considerable influence in the selection and administration of popes. The "Donation of Pepin" (756) ratified a new period of papal rule in central Italy, which became known as the Papal States.
Papal travel outside Rome has been historically rare, and voluntary travel was non-existent for the first 500 years. Pope John Paul II (1978–2005) undertook more pastoral trips than all his predecessors combined. Pope Francis (2013-), Pope Paul VI (1963–1978) and Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013) also travelled globally, the latter to a lesser extent due to his advanced age.
|Catholic Church titles|
| Pope | | <urn:uuid:50862191-5e48-437d-a577-fe2ba1c7d41c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://wikimili.com/en/Pope_Leo_II | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00433.warc.gz | en | 0.980563 | 3,020 | 3.78125 | 4 | [
-0.18189546465873718,
0.3852175176143646,
0.11294643580913544,
-0.034734658896923065,
-0.6363128423690796,
-0.04225895553827286,
-0.5083115100860596,
0.2889760732650757,
0.05316784977912903,
-0.23791605234146118,
-0.09811831265687943,
-0.47958263754844666,
0.0899646133184433,
0.39617139101... | 1 | 19th century depiction of Pope Leo II
|Papacy began||17 August 682|
|Papacy ended||July 683|
|Created cardinal||5 December 680|
|Birth name||Leo Maneius|
|Born||Sicily, Byzantine Empire|
|Died||July 683 (aged 72)|
Rome, Byzantine Empire
Pope Leo II (611 – 28 June 683) was Bishop of Rome from 17 August 682 to 28 June 683.He is one of the popes of the Byzantine Papacy.
The Byzantine Papacy was a period of Byzantine domination of the Roman papacy from 537 to 752, when popes required the approval of the Byzantine Emperor for episcopal consecration, and many popes were chosen from the apocrisiarii or the inhabitants of Byzantine-ruled Greece, Syria, or Sicily. Justinian I conquered the Italian peninsula in the Gothic War (535–554) and appointed the next three popes, a practice that would be continued by his successors and later be delegated to the Exarchate of Ravenna.
He was a Sicilian by birth (the son of a man named Paulus). He may have ended up being among the many Sicilian clergy in Rome, at that time, due to the Islamic Caliphate battles against Sicily in the mid-7th century.Though elected pope a few days after the death of Pope St. Agatho on January 10, 681, he was not consecrated till after the lapse of a year and seven months (17 August 682). Leo was known as an eloquent preacher who was interested in music, and noted for his charity to the poor.
Sicily is the largest island in the Mediterranean Sea and one of the 20 regions of Italy. It is one of the five Italian autonomous regions, in Southern Italy along with surrounding minor islands, officially referred to as Regione Siciliana.
A caliphate is an Islamic state under the leadership of an Islamic steward with the title of caliph, a person considered a political-religious successor to the Islamic prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire ummah. Historically, the caliphates were polities based in Islam which developed into multi-ethnic trans-national empires. During the medieval period, three major caliphates succeeded each other: the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) and the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258). In the fourth major caliphate, the Ottoman Caliphate, the rulers of the Ottoman Empire claimed caliphal authority from 1517. During the history of Islam, a few other Muslim states, almost all hereditary monarchies, have claimed to be caliphates.
Pope Agatho served as the Bishop of Rome from 27 June 678 until his death in 681. He heard the appeal of Wilfrid of York, who had been displaced from his See by the division of the Archdiocese ordered by Theodore of Canterbury. During Agatho's tenure, the Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened which dealt with the monothelitism controversy. He is venerated as a saint by both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Elected shortly after the death of Agatho, Leo was not consecrated for over a year and a half. The reason may have been due to negotiations regarding imperial control of papal elections.
These negotiations were undertaken by Leo's predecessor Agatho between the Holy See and Emperor Constantine IV. They concerned the relations of the Byzantine Court to papal elections. Constantine IV had already promised Agatho to abolish or reduce the tax that the popes had been paying to the imperial treasury at the time of their consecration, an imperial policy that had been in force for about a century.
The Holy See, also called the See of Rome, refers to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope, which includes the apostolic episcopal see of the Diocese of Rome with universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the worldwide Catholic Church, as well as a sovereign entity of international law.
Constantine IV, sometimes incorrectly called Pogonatos (Πωγωνάτος), "the Bearded", out of confusion with his father, was Byzantine Emperor from 668 to 685. His reign saw the first serious check to nearly 50 years of uninterrupted Islamic expansion, while his calling of the Sixth Ecumenical Council saw the end of the monothelitism controversy in the Byzantine Empire.
Consecration is the solemn dedication to a special purpose or service, usually religious. The word consecration literally means "association with the sacred". Persons, places, or things can be consecrated, and the term is used in various ways by different groups. The origin of the word comes from the Latin stem consecrat, which means dedicated, devoted, and sacred. A synonym for to consecrate is to sanctify; a distinct antonym is to desecrate.
Leo's short-lived pontificate did not allow him to accomplish much, but there was one achievement of major importance: he confirmed the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680–681). This council had been held in Constantinople against the Monothelite controversy, and had been presided over by the legates of Pope Agatho. After Leo had notified the Emperor that the decrees of the council had been confirmed, he made them known to the nations of the West. In letters written to the king, the bishops, and the nobles of Spain, he explained what the council had effected, and he called upon the bishops to subscribe to its decrees.
Monothelitism or monotheletism is a particular teaching about how the divine and human relate in the person of Jesus. The Christological doctrine formally emerged in Armenia and Syria in 629. Specifically, monothelitism is the view that Jesus Christ has two natures but only one will. That is contrary to the Christology that Jesus Christ has two wills that correspond to his two natures (dyothelitism). Monothelitism is a development of the Neo-Chalcedonian position in the Christological debates. Formulated in 638, it enjoyed considerable popularity, even garnering patriarchal support, before being rejected and denounced as heretical in 681, at the Third Council of Constantinople.
During this council, Pope Honorius I was anathematized for tolerating Monothelism. Leo took great pains to make it clear that in condemning Honorius, he did so not because Honorius taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it.In accordance with the papal mandate, a synod was held at Toledo (684) in which the Third Council of Constantinople was accepted.
Pope Honorius I was Bishop of Rome from 27 October 625 to his death in 638.
Anathema, in common usage, is something or someone that is detested or shunned. In its other main usage, it is a formal excommunication. The latter meaning, its ecclesiastical sense, is based on New Testament usage. In the Old Testament, anathema referred either to something that was consecrated or to something denounced as evil or accursed and set aside for sacrificial offering.
The Third Council of Constantinople, counted as the Sixth Ecumenical Council by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, as well by certain other Western Churches, met in 680/681 and condemned monoenergism and monothelitism as heretical and defined Jesus Christ as having two energies and two wills.
Regarding the decision of the council, Leo wrote once and again in approbation of the decision of the council and in condemnation of Honorius, whom he regarded as one who profana proditione immaculatem fidem subvertare conatus est (roughly, "one who by betrayal has tried to overthrow the immaculate faith"). In the Greek text of the letter to the Emperor in which the phrase occurs, the milder expression subverti permisit ("allowed to be overthrown...") is used for subvertare conatus est.
At this time, Leo put an end to the attempts of the Ravenna archbishops to get away from the control of the Bishop of Rome, but also abolished the tax it had been customary for them to pay when they received the pallium.
Also, in apparent response to Lombard raids, Leo transferred the relics of a number of martyrs from the catacombs to churches inside the walls of the city. He dedicated two churches, St. Paul's and Sts. Sebastian and George.Leo also reformed the Gregorian chant and composed several sacred hymns for the divine office.
Leo was originally buried in his own monument; however, some years after his death, his remains were put into a tomb that contained the first four of his papal namesakes.
Pope Benedict II was Bishop of Rome from 26 June 684 to his death in 685. Pope Benedict II's feast day is May 7.
Pope Sergius I was Bishop of Rome from December 15, 687, to his death in 701. He was elected at a time when two rivals, the Archdeacon Paschal and the Archpriest Theodore, were locked in dispute about which of them should become pope.
Saint Hormisdas was Pope from 20 July 514 to his death in 523. His papacy was dominated by the Acacian schism, started in 484 by Acacius of Constantinople's efforts to placate the Monophysites. His efforts to resolve this schism were successful, and on 28 March 519, the reunion between Constantinople and Rome was ratified in the cathedral of Constantinople before a large crowd.
Pope Severinus was Bishop of Rome two months, from 28 May until his death on 2 August. He became caught up in a power struggle with the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius over the ongoing Monothelite controversy.
Pope Constantine was Bishop of Rome from 25 March 708 to his death in 715. With the exception of Antipope Constantine, he was the only pope to bear such a "quintessentially" Eastern name of an emperor. During this period, the regnal name was also used by emperors and patriarchs.
Pope Vitalian reigned from 30 July 657 to his death in 672. He was born in Segni, Lazio, the son of Anastasius.
Pope John IV was head of the Catholic Church from 24 December 640 to his death in 642. His election followed a four-month vacancy.
Pope John V was Bishop of Rome from 23 July 685 to his death in 686. He was the first pope of the Byzantine Papacy permitted to be consecrated without the prior consent of the Byzantine emperor, and the first in a line of ten consecutive popes of Eastern origin. His papacy was marked by reconciliation between the city of Rome and the Empire.
Pope Conon was Bishop of Rome from 21 October 686 to his death in 687. He had been put forward as a compromise candidate, there being a conflict between the two factions resident in Rome— the military and the clerical. On his death, Conon was buried in the Patriarchal Basilica of St. Peter. He consecrated the Irish missionary Kilian a bishop and commissioned him to preach in Franconia.
The history of the papacy, the office held by the pope as head of the Catholic Church, according to Catholic doctrine, spans from the time of Peter to the present day.
Macarius I of Antioch was Patriarch of Antioch in the 7th century, deposed in 681 for professing monothelitism.
Papal supremacy is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that the Pope, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and as the visible foundation and source of unity, and as pastor of the entire Christian Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered: that, in brief, "the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls."
Papal appointment was a medieval method of selecting a pope. Popes have always been selected by a council of Church fathers, however, Papal selection before 1059 was often characterized by confirmation or "nomination" by secular European rulers or by their predecessors. The later procedures of the papal conclave are in large part designed to constrain the interference of secular rulers which characterized the first millennium of the Roman Catholic Church, and persisted in practices such as the creation of crown-cardinals and the jus exclusivae. Appointment might have taken several forms, with a variety of roles for the laity and civic leaders, Byzantine and Germanic emperors, and noble Roman families. The role of the election vis-a-vis the general population and the clergy was prone to vary considerably, with a nomination carrying weight that ranged from near total to a mere suggestion or ratification of a prior election.
There was no uniform procedure for papal selection before AD 1059. The Bishops of Rome and Supreme Pontiffs (Popes) of the Catholic Church were often appointed by their predecessors or by political rulers. While some kind of election often characterized the procedure, an election that included meaningful participation of the laity was rare, especially as the Popes' claims to temporal power solidified into the Papal States. The practice of papal appointment during this period would later result in the jus exclusivae, i. e., a right to veto the selection that Catholic monarchs exercised into the twentieth century.
From 756 to 857, the papacy shifted from the orbit of the Byzantine Empire to that of the kings of the Franks. Pepin the Short, Charlemagne, and Louis the Pious had considerable influence in the selection and administration of popes. The "Donation of Pepin" (756) ratified a new period of papal rule in central Italy, which became known as the Papal States.
Papal travel outside Rome has been historically rare, and voluntary travel was non-existent for the first 500 years. Pope John Paul II (1978–2005) undertook more pastoral trips than all his predecessors combined. Pope Francis (2013-), Pope Paul VI (1963–1978) and Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013) also travelled globally, the latter to a lesser extent due to his advanced age.
|Catholic Church titles|
| Pope | | 3,216 | ENGLISH | 1 |
About this image
A large mound, known as Castle Hill, is all that remains of Duffield Castle, once a huge building with keep walls 16 feet thick.
Built by Henry de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, it was destroyed and razed by Royalist forces in about 1266 as final revenge for the actions of Robert de Ferrers in joining the rebellion of Simon de Montfort.
Excavations at the end of the 19th century revealed the foundations of a Norman keep. The site of the Norman keep was given to the National Trust in 1897 and was one of its first acquisitions in Derbyshire. Relics excavated here between 1886 and 1957 can be seen in Derby Museum.
At this time J C Cox excavated within the keep. His excavation uncovered Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval material including, 'in the north-west angle of the keep a few human bones were unearthed; they were the only human remains discovered during the excavations. They were pronounced by two doctors to whom they were submitted to be parts of the skeleton of a young woman. In confirmation of this a good sized amber bead was found close at hand (later destroyed) and also the lower portion of a large bronze Anglo-Saxon brooch.' Cox also reports the discovery of a spindle whorl of 'one and a half inches in diameter, and of red ware', smithing waste, including a horse-shoe and 'some coarse, almost black, pieces of pot, slightly flecked with red' which he also attributed to the late Anglo-Saxon Period.
See also DRBY001489. | <urn:uuid:bce8a49f-730c-4898-915a-70f101027acd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://picturethepast.org.uk/image-library/image-details/poster/dcav002906/posterid/dcav002906.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251678287.60/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125161753-20200125190753-00472.warc.gz | en | 0.980533 | 332 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.4932607114315033,
0.0888843983411789,
0.382472425699234,
0.29578450322151184,
0.04051071032881737,
-0.3383660316467285,
-0.007910441607236862,
-0.4315798878669739,
-0.350056529045105,
-0.26052021980285645,
0.027590088546276093,
-0.5818985104560852,
0.19715885818004608,
0.297359108924865... | 5 | About this image
A large mound, known as Castle Hill, is all that remains of Duffield Castle, once a huge building with keep walls 16 feet thick.
Built by Henry de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, it was destroyed and razed by Royalist forces in about 1266 as final revenge for the actions of Robert de Ferrers in joining the rebellion of Simon de Montfort.
Excavations at the end of the 19th century revealed the foundations of a Norman keep. The site of the Norman keep was given to the National Trust in 1897 and was one of its first acquisitions in Derbyshire. Relics excavated here between 1886 and 1957 can be seen in Derby Museum.
At this time J C Cox excavated within the keep. His excavation uncovered Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval material including, 'in the north-west angle of the keep a few human bones were unearthed; they were the only human remains discovered during the excavations. They were pronounced by two doctors to whom they were submitted to be parts of the skeleton of a young woman. In confirmation of this a good sized amber bead was found close at hand (later destroyed) and also the lower portion of a large bronze Anglo-Saxon brooch.' Cox also reports the discovery of a spindle whorl of 'one and a half inches in diameter, and of red ware', smithing waste, including a horse-shoe and 'some coarse, almost black, pieces of pot, slightly flecked with red' which he also attributed to the late Anglo-Saxon Period.
See also DRBY001489. | 345 | ENGLISH | 1 |
As part of our work on Jack and the Beanstalk, we have been learning about plants. We have investigated the parts of a plant and discussed their functions.
Children in the Foundation Phase enjoyed a range of activities linked to the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. Here are some of the measuring activities undertaken.
We were challenged to build three houses for the Three Little Pigs using editable building materials.
After discussing the properties of each material, we predicted which house would stay standing if the wolf blew it down.
We discussed things that we would keep the same during our experiment.
We built our houses in small groups and thought about how we were going to construct each house to ensure it stayed standing.
As part of our topic on ‘Fantasy and Fairy tales’, we were pleased that Jack (Jack and the Beanstalk) visited us last week to inspire us with our ‘Mantle of the Expert’ planning for the next half term.
He needs our help as he is fed up of living so close to the giant and he want to move house to a nicer area. We have suggested that he and his mother move to Knighton. Over the next few weeks we will be finding out information about the local area and reporting back to him. | <urn:uuid:95989827-cc96-4ef1-b740-cff98fc3a598> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.knighton.powys.sch.uk/?paged=2&cat=68&lang=en_GB | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250615407.46/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124040939-20200124065939-00193.warc.gz | en | 0.980735 | 263 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.21891534328460693,
-0.15517254173755646,
0.6489288806915283,
0.1723618507385254,
0.38730499148368835,
0.05118849501013756,
-0.3330238163471222,
-0.014752225019037724,
-0.46998441219329834,
0.2797953486442566,
0.008201305754482746,
-0.4494165778160095,
0.44100871682167053,
0.104827240109... | 1 | As part of our work on Jack and the Beanstalk, we have been learning about plants. We have investigated the parts of a plant and discussed their functions.
Children in the Foundation Phase enjoyed a range of activities linked to the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. Here are some of the measuring activities undertaken.
We were challenged to build three houses for the Three Little Pigs using editable building materials.
After discussing the properties of each material, we predicted which house would stay standing if the wolf blew it down.
We discussed things that we would keep the same during our experiment.
We built our houses in small groups and thought about how we were going to construct each house to ensure it stayed standing.
As part of our topic on ‘Fantasy and Fairy tales’, we were pleased that Jack (Jack and the Beanstalk) visited us last week to inspire us with our ‘Mantle of the Expert’ planning for the next half term.
He needs our help as he is fed up of living so close to the giant and he want to move house to a nicer area. We have suggested that he and his mother move to Knighton. Over the next few weeks we will be finding out information about the local area and reporting back to him. | 249 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The phrase 'stolen generations' is the name given to the many thousands of children from Indigenous families who were forcibly removed by the state, churches and other welfare bodies for the better part of the 20th century.
This practice, which continued until the 1970s, was intended to try and integrate the Indigenous population into a white culture, with the assumption that these children would grow up equal to white children, and over time change the nature of society.
Effects Of Removal
Whilst it is always difficult to generalise about this type of abuse, it is fair to say that the effects of this type of policy on both the families and the children involved are likely to have been catastrophic. The issues facing these families and their relatives today are twofold. Firstly is an honest acknowledgement of the past and why it happened, with the various parties involved taking ownership of what they did and the damage that it caused.
The second thing is in some ways a more practical issue—how families and those involved come to terms with the sense of loss and devastation that these policies brought to their lives, and how they rebuild their lives with some degree of stability and security in today's world.
Bringing Them Home
'Bringing them Home' is the name of a report published in April 1997 which acknowledged the history and some of the effects of forced separation. The report went into some detail, tracing the background both at a national level and at a state level. It also spelt out the effects and the consequences of removal, including the trauma of adoption and sexual abuse.
The report was generally welcomed, and it made a list of recommendations to allow families and relatives to move on. However, the degree to which these recommendations have been accepted and acted upon is widely debated and is still the cause of much controversy in Australia today.
For families and their relatives trying to move forward, an acknowledgement of the past is a key consideration. This is due to the same principle of many abuse cases: when the abuse is not acknowledged or is actively denied, it tends to reinforce the original abuse in a much more devastating way. Once there has been any type of acknowledgement of the past, it lays the ground for individuals to own the hurt and damage they have been caused, and try to begin to heal themselves in any way they can. Many children of the stolen generation want and need help at two specific levels.
Firstly, they need practical help from government agencies and other bodies to trace their families, or any family members who are still alive, and try and arrange some type of reunion. Failing this, they need information about their families that they were separated from and what happened to them.
They also need help at a more therapeutic or spiritual level. This will normally relate to the effects of forced separation that led to many children having an overwhelming sense of abandonment and loss that affects them to this day.
Many children were placed into families or institutions where they were abused in a number of ways, including being sexually abused, and they need to not only be listened to but also be given practical help in whatever way possible. | <urn:uuid:83b52f9a-277e-4e4b-94da-e447b148b448> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://expedicionmadidi.com/2019/08/16/how-do-the-stolen-generations-move-on/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00332.warc.gz | en | 0.982108 | 626 | 3.953125 | 4 | [
0.07637901604175568,
0.3366190791130066,
0.1181677058339119,
-0.22569739818572998,
0.03587497025728226,
0.13689443469047546,
0.0975012481212616,
-0.02724618837237358,
-0.0757722333073616,
0.3375672698020935,
0.4021447002887726,
0.08745396137237549,
0.1898423433303833,
0.24457742273807526,
... | 1 | The phrase 'stolen generations' is the name given to the many thousands of children from Indigenous families who were forcibly removed by the state, churches and other welfare bodies for the better part of the 20th century.
This practice, which continued until the 1970s, was intended to try and integrate the Indigenous population into a white culture, with the assumption that these children would grow up equal to white children, and over time change the nature of society.
Effects Of Removal
Whilst it is always difficult to generalise about this type of abuse, it is fair to say that the effects of this type of policy on both the families and the children involved are likely to have been catastrophic. The issues facing these families and their relatives today are twofold. Firstly is an honest acknowledgement of the past and why it happened, with the various parties involved taking ownership of what they did and the damage that it caused.
The second thing is in some ways a more practical issue—how families and those involved come to terms with the sense of loss and devastation that these policies brought to their lives, and how they rebuild their lives with some degree of stability and security in today's world.
Bringing Them Home
'Bringing them Home' is the name of a report published in April 1997 which acknowledged the history and some of the effects of forced separation. The report went into some detail, tracing the background both at a national level and at a state level. It also spelt out the effects and the consequences of removal, including the trauma of adoption and sexual abuse.
The report was generally welcomed, and it made a list of recommendations to allow families and relatives to move on. However, the degree to which these recommendations have been accepted and acted upon is widely debated and is still the cause of much controversy in Australia today.
For families and their relatives trying to move forward, an acknowledgement of the past is a key consideration. This is due to the same principle of many abuse cases: when the abuse is not acknowledged or is actively denied, it tends to reinforce the original abuse in a much more devastating way. Once there has been any type of acknowledgement of the past, it lays the ground for individuals to own the hurt and damage they have been caused, and try to begin to heal themselves in any way they can. Many children of the stolen generation want and need help at two specific levels.
Firstly, they need practical help from government agencies and other bodies to trace their families, or any family members who are still alive, and try and arrange some type of reunion. Failing this, they need information about their families that they were separated from and what happened to them.
They also need help at a more therapeutic or spiritual level. This will normally relate to the effects of forced separation that led to many children having an overwhelming sense of abandonment and loss that affects them to this day.
Many children were placed into families or institutions where they were abused in a number of ways, including being sexually abused, and they need to not only be listened to but also be given practical help in whatever way possible. | 628 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The world of Jewish women in the Islamic middle ages is revealed to us through a treasure trove of primary source material found in Cairo at the end of the nineteenth century. A genizah is a storage room for discarded books and written materials. Jews do not destroy anything with God’s name written on it; such pieces of parchment and paper are usually buried. In medieval Cairo, this custom was extended to anything written in Hebrew, but instead of being buried, such items were stored in a genizah in the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Fostat (Old Cairo), where most of the Jews lived; the arid conditions preserved them.
The rediscovery of the Cairo Genizah, as it came to be called, by Solomon Schechter (1847–1915), in 1896 opened to scholars the possibility to piece together not only the life of the intellectuals, the rabbis, and the rich, but also the everyday life of common people.
Since the Islamic Empire was conceived to be a religious community, there was officially no place in it for non-believers. However, by special arrangement, those peoples who possessed a holy scripture were given the rights of domicile, personal safety, and religious practice in exchange for special taxes and second class citizenship. Their religious activities and institutions were their own concern, and as long as they paid their taxes and behaved properly, the Muslim government left them alone. This internal autonomy enabled the Jews under Islamic rule to continue a Jewish way of life, which was, however, ultimately very much influenced by the dominant civilization.
The world of women as reflected in the documents of the Genizah is pieced together from religious documents relating to the life cycle, family and community activities, and Jewish court records.
Marriage was a given, and it was a religious duty to have children. But in an economically-minded society, women entered marriage with as much economic clout as their biological family could provide. From the ketubbot (marriage contracts) we learn that each married woman was expected to engage in some kind of work in addition to running her household. The Marriage document (in Aramaic) dictating husband's personal and financial obligations to his wife.ketubbah also listed the items that a woman brought into the marriage; these items remained hers. The economic classes of society are revealed here. There were upper classes, business people and professionals, urban craftspeople, laborers, and peasants. The marriage list could included houses, jewelry (carefully itemized and described), clothing, books, bedding, and even cash. These items were collected years in advance and the jewelry in particular was often handed down through the generations. This safeguarded the woman’s economic independence and provided for her old age, if she were to be widowed(for she did not inherit from her husband), or divorced.
A particularly interesting item that could be found in a ketubbah was slaves, who kept a milder form of Judaism. The Genizah society used slaves for personal service, with female slaves used for domestic help to do the work shunned by free women. Slaves also enabled the Jewish women to engage in income-earning work. Women made contracts for slaves as well as for other business transactions. A particular act of piety was the manumission of slaves, and women left wills freeing their female slaves, who then usually completed their conversion to Judaism. There did not seem to be any stigma attached to these freed slaves who married easily into the Jewish community.
No two ketubbot are identical, reflecting the realities of life. They were the economic foundations of the marriages. They also contained traditional clauses such as one stipulating that no second wife could be taken without the permission of the first wife, nor a female slave without the wife’s approval; and giving the wife the right to choose the place of residence or at least to be consulted on this very important topic. Nothing is mentioned about conjugal relations since these were regulated by Jewish law and custom. Court records attest to the fact that there existed marital strife over all kinds of issues, with women defending their rights and knowledgeable about them. Lists of fines imposed on husbands who stepped out of line were also recorded.
Jewish court records are another source of information on women. This is where manumissions of slaves were filed, as were claims of husbands illegally taking a wife’s earnings. Contracts of sales attest to the kind of work women did. The fields of activity were often within the world of women, but not exclusively so. Some women were listed as ‘bridecombers’ (the hairdressers of the time) but on closer reading it seems that they were more like caterers of weddings. There were midwives and medical practitioners, teachers of women’s crafts as well as teachers of reading, writing and Torah she-bi-khetav: Lit. "the written Torah." The Bible; the Pentateuch; Tanakh (the Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographia)Torah. Most popular for women was the field of textiles. Women wove and spun at home, and women brokers came to buy the finished products. This was a convenient arrangement in the segregated society of medieval Cairo. The female brokers then sold their collected goods, some becoming quite wealthy and important in the community as they made loans, bought property, and gave charity.
Community records contain lists of both recipients of charity and contributors. Women headed charity drives, especially for the upkeep of synagogues. Women bought honors for the men in their lives such as sons, brothers, and husbands. The honors could include reciting a section of the Torah or leading part of the liturgy. Women also donated Torah scrolls, oil for the lamps, prayer books and books of scholarship. They even donated houses and apartments for synagogue use which could then be used for their rental value or as part of the synagogue complex, which might include a hospital, an inn, or a school..
The Genizah contains letters written by husbands to rabbis complaining that their wives donated too much money to charity, claiming that the money belonged to the family. The rabbis inevitably replied that as long as the basic elements that the wife was responsible for were covered—such as child care, house cleaning, laundry, and food preparation—the money earned by the woman belonged to her and she could therefore spend it as she wished.
Most charity, however, was private and personal. Women gave bread and clothing, and visited the sick bringing nourishing soups. Everyone knew who was needy, and rather than have women, in particular, beg, charity was given in as honorable a way as possible. Thus there were women, especially widows, who served as synagogue caretakers and Ritual bathmikveh caretakers. The two main synagogues of Fostat, the Palestinian (Ben Ezra) and the Iraqi, both had a khadima, the female equivalent of khadim, or beadle.
Women went to the synagogue, each of which had a women’s gallery known as bayt al-nisa, ‘house of women’. This gallery was reached by a staircase that led up from a special women’s entrance which faced a side street, and not from the main entrance which was for the men. Perhaps it was hoped that this type of construction would preclude the habit of talking and socializing that has been a problem in the synagogue since its inception. Socializing took place both before and after prayers in the synagogue courtyard, which was a central feature of the medieval synagogue all over the Middle East. Women prayed and their social class determined the quality of their education, which in turn determined whether they could read the prayer books and the Torah reading and follow the services. There is no evidence of spiritual material created by or for women, comparable to that written in European communities. There is no vernacular ‘women’s version’ of the Torah reading in Judeo-Arabic, similar to the Judeo-German vernacular of Europe in the Ze’enah U-re’enah (Tsenerene). Nor was there a woman prayer leader.
Scholars surmise that Jewish women could read at least the basics of Hebrew, since there is evidence of hiring instructors to teach orphan girls. If such care was taken with orphans, it is to be presumed that the higher social classes did as much for their own daughters, who were probably tutored at home, although there is evidence of classes composed entirely of girls and of teachers who were women.
Although Jews tend to acculturate to the larger community in which they find themselves, Judaism’s treatment of women was markedly different from that which prevailed in Islam. Women lived in their own world and socialized with other women, but segregation did not mean seclusion. Middle and upper class Jewish women were never confined in a harem as were Muslim women of similar economic and social status. Although polygyny was allowed in Jewish law, and practiced by most middle and upper class Muslims, the majority of the Jewish marriages were monogamous. The exceptions seemed to be mainly for reasons of procreation (the couple was childless but the husband did not want to divorce the wife). Although segregated in the synagogue, women still attended, unlike Muslim women, who no longer prayed in mosques at this period of time.
Not only did women come to the synagogue to pray and socialize, but they could appeal to the synagogue community as a court of appeal. Therefore those who had not received satisfaction for their claims by regular legal procedure could interrupt public prayer and even stop the service until their complaint was heard by the whole community. Both men and women could do this. The interruption would take place on the Sabbath, when the Torah was taken out of the ark. Women could either have a man representing them read the complaint in the men’s section or they could speak out themselves from the gallery. In response to such an appeal, the heads of the congregation would promise that the case would be heard by the Jewish court and set a date for the hearing on the spot. Only when the complainant was satisfied could the synagogue service continue.
Another item related to the court and synagogue involved oath taking, a necessity decreed by the court in certain circumstances. Taking an oath was regarded with awe and fear, and the ceremony was held in the synagogue. The Torah scroll was removed from the ark and draped in black; a bier and a Ram's horn blown during the month before and the two days of Rosh Ha-Shanah, and at the conclusion of Yom Kippur. shofar were brought in as reminders of judgment and death. If a woman was to take an oath, she did so in the men’s section, while holding the Torah scroll.
The Cairo Genizah reveals a vibrant Jewish society within a vibrant Muslim world. The shattering of that world by the invading Mongols in the thirteenth century and again a century later marked the beginning of the major decline of Arab civilization. As the Muslim world changed, so did the smaller Jewish world within it. The Jews were shattered internally too, by the dual tragedies of the Spanish Expulsion (1492) and the false messiah Shabbetai Zevi (1626–1676) in the seventeenth century.
The world of women, within the circumference of the Jewish world, declined spiritually to such an extent that many went to the synagogue only on The Day of Atonement, which falls on the 10th day of the Hebrew month of Tishrei and is devoted to prayer and fasting.Yom Kippur. It also declined economically to the extent that most women dropped out of sight in this sphere of life, their focus becoming exclusively the family and the life cycle. This was to remain the case until the modernization of the Jews of the Middle East and North Africa in the early nineteenth century.
Goitein, S.D., A
Mediterranean Society: the Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed
in the Documents of the Cairo Genizah. Berkeley and Los Angeles; Volume
Foundations, 1967; Volume II. The
Community, 1971; Volume III. The
Family, 1978; Volume IV. Daily
Life, 1983; Volume V. The
Individual, 1988; Volume VI. Cumulative
This is the most outstanding in-depth study of the Cairo Genizah by the leading scholar in the field.
Reguer, Sara, “The World of Women,” In The
Jewish of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times, edited
by R. Simon, M. Laskier, S. Reguer. New York: 2003.
General view of pre-modern Middle Eastern women and their move into modernity.
How to cite this page
Reguer, Sara. "Genizah." Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. 27 February 2009. Jewish Women's Archive. (Viewed on January 20, 2020) <https://qa.jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/genizah>. | <urn:uuid:288a86bc-9d47-4a95-8a27-00ce07e8c062> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://qa.jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/genizah | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599789.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120195035-20200120224035-00051.warc.gz | en | 0.981307 | 2,704 | 4.25 | 4 | [
0.12841947376728058,
0.7882202863693237,
0.024630140513181686,
0.09442345798015594,
-0.17213357985019684,
0.16264452040195465,
0.013313362374901772,
0.26624035835266113,
-0.18387484550476074,
0.14365071058273315,
-0.0001321663148701191,
0.15696799755096436,
-0.046017736196517944,
0.3082959... | 1 | The world of Jewish women in the Islamic middle ages is revealed to us through a treasure trove of primary source material found in Cairo at the end of the nineteenth century. A genizah is a storage room for discarded books and written materials. Jews do not destroy anything with God’s name written on it; such pieces of parchment and paper are usually buried. In medieval Cairo, this custom was extended to anything written in Hebrew, but instead of being buried, such items were stored in a genizah in the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Fostat (Old Cairo), where most of the Jews lived; the arid conditions preserved them.
The rediscovery of the Cairo Genizah, as it came to be called, by Solomon Schechter (1847–1915), in 1896 opened to scholars the possibility to piece together not only the life of the intellectuals, the rabbis, and the rich, but also the everyday life of common people.
Since the Islamic Empire was conceived to be a religious community, there was officially no place in it for non-believers. However, by special arrangement, those peoples who possessed a holy scripture were given the rights of domicile, personal safety, and religious practice in exchange for special taxes and second class citizenship. Their religious activities and institutions were their own concern, and as long as they paid their taxes and behaved properly, the Muslim government left them alone. This internal autonomy enabled the Jews under Islamic rule to continue a Jewish way of life, which was, however, ultimately very much influenced by the dominant civilization.
The world of women as reflected in the documents of the Genizah is pieced together from religious documents relating to the life cycle, family and community activities, and Jewish court records.
Marriage was a given, and it was a religious duty to have children. But in an economically-minded society, women entered marriage with as much economic clout as their biological family could provide. From the ketubbot (marriage contracts) we learn that each married woman was expected to engage in some kind of work in addition to running her household. The Marriage document (in Aramaic) dictating husband's personal and financial obligations to his wife.ketubbah also listed the items that a woman brought into the marriage; these items remained hers. The economic classes of society are revealed here. There were upper classes, business people and professionals, urban craftspeople, laborers, and peasants. The marriage list could included houses, jewelry (carefully itemized and described), clothing, books, bedding, and even cash. These items were collected years in advance and the jewelry in particular was often handed down through the generations. This safeguarded the woman’s economic independence and provided for her old age, if she were to be widowed(for she did not inherit from her husband), or divorced.
A particularly interesting item that could be found in a ketubbah was slaves, who kept a milder form of Judaism. The Genizah society used slaves for personal service, with female slaves used for domestic help to do the work shunned by free women. Slaves also enabled the Jewish women to engage in income-earning work. Women made contracts for slaves as well as for other business transactions. A particular act of piety was the manumission of slaves, and women left wills freeing their female slaves, who then usually completed their conversion to Judaism. There did not seem to be any stigma attached to these freed slaves who married easily into the Jewish community.
No two ketubbot are identical, reflecting the realities of life. They were the economic foundations of the marriages. They also contained traditional clauses such as one stipulating that no second wife could be taken without the permission of the first wife, nor a female slave without the wife’s approval; and giving the wife the right to choose the place of residence or at least to be consulted on this very important topic. Nothing is mentioned about conjugal relations since these were regulated by Jewish law and custom. Court records attest to the fact that there existed marital strife over all kinds of issues, with women defending their rights and knowledgeable about them. Lists of fines imposed on husbands who stepped out of line were also recorded.
Jewish court records are another source of information on women. This is where manumissions of slaves were filed, as were claims of husbands illegally taking a wife’s earnings. Contracts of sales attest to the kind of work women did. The fields of activity were often within the world of women, but not exclusively so. Some women were listed as ‘bridecombers’ (the hairdressers of the time) but on closer reading it seems that they were more like caterers of weddings. There were midwives and medical practitioners, teachers of women’s crafts as well as teachers of reading, writing and Torah she-bi-khetav: Lit. "the written Torah." The Bible; the Pentateuch; Tanakh (the Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographia)Torah. Most popular for women was the field of textiles. Women wove and spun at home, and women brokers came to buy the finished products. This was a convenient arrangement in the segregated society of medieval Cairo. The female brokers then sold their collected goods, some becoming quite wealthy and important in the community as they made loans, bought property, and gave charity.
Community records contain lists of both recipients of charity and contributors. Women headed charity drives, especially for the upkeep of synagogues. Women bought honors for the men in their lives such as sons, brothers, and husbands. The honors could include reciting a section of the Torah or leading part of the liturgy. Women also donated Torah scrolls, oil for the lamps, prayer books and books of scholarship. They even donated houses and apartments for synagogue use which could then be used for their rental value or as part of the synagogue complex, which might include a hospital, an inn, or a school..
The Genizah contains letters written by husbands to rabbis complaining that their wives donated too much money to charity, claiming that the money belonged to the family. The rabbis inevitably replied that as long as the basic elements that the wife was responsible for were covered—such as child care, house cleaning, laundry, and food preparation—the money earned by the woman belonged to her and she could therefore spend it as she wished.
Most charity, however, was private and personal. Women gave bread and clothing, and visited the sick bringing nourishing soups. Everyone knew who was needy, and rather than have women, in particular, beg, charity was given in as honorable a way as possible. Thus there were women, especially widows, who served as synagogue caretakers and Ritual bathmikveh caretakers. The two main synagogues of Fostat, the Palestinian (Ben Ezra) and the Iraqi, both had a khadima, the female equivalent of khadim, or beadle.
Women went to the synagogue, each of which had a women’s gallery known as bayt al-nisa, ‘house of women’. This gallery was reached by a staircase that led up from a special women’s entrance which faced a side street, and not from the main entrance which was for the men. Perhaps it was hoped that this type of construction would preclude the habit of talking and socializing that has been a problem in the synagogue since its inception. Socializing took place both before and after prayers in the synagogue courtyard, which was a central feature of the medieval synagogue all over the Middle East. Women prayed and their social class determined the quality of their education, which in turn determined whether they could read the prayer books and the Torah reading and follow the services. There is no evidence of spiritual material created by or for women, comparable to that written in European communities. There is no vernacular ‘women’s version’ of the Torah reading in Judeo-Arabic, similar to the Judeo-German vernacular of Europe in the Ze’enah U-re’enah (Tsenerene). Nor was there a woman prayer leader.
Scholars surmise that Jewish women could read at least the basics of Hebrew, since there is evidence of hiring instructors to teach orphan girls. If such care was taken with orphans, it is to be presumed that the higher social classes did as much for their own daughters, who were probably tutored at home, although there is evidence of classes composed entirely of girls and of teachers who were women.
Although Jews tend to acculturate to the larger community in which they find themselves, Judaism’s treatment of women was markedly different from that which prevailed in Islam. Women lived in their own world and socialized with other women, but segregation did not mean seclusion. Middle and upper class Jewish women were never confined in a harem as were Muslim women of similar economic and social status. Although polygyny was allowed in Jewish law, and practiced by most middle and upper class Muslims, the majority of the Jewish marriages were monogamous. The exceptions seemed to be mainly for reasons of procreation (the couple was childless but the husband did not want to divorce the wife). Although segregated in the synagogue, women still attended, unlike Muslim women, who no longer prayed in mosques at this period of time.
Not only did women come to the synagogue to pray and socialize, but they could appeal to the synagogue community as a court of appeal. Therefore those who had not received satisfaction for their claims by regular legal procedure could interrupt public prayer and even stop the service until their complaint was heard by the whole community. Both men and women could do this. The interruption would take place on the Sabbath, when the Torah was taken out of the ark. Women could either have a man representing them read the complaint in the men’s section or they could speak out themselves from the gallery. In response to such an appeal, the heads of the congregation would promise that the case would be heard by the Jewish court and set a date for the hearing on the spot. Only when the complainant was satisfied could the synagogue service continue.
Another item related to the court and synagogue involved oath taking, a necessity decreed by the court in certain circumstances. Taking an oath was regarded with awe and fear, and the ceremony was held in the synagogue. The Torah scroll was removed from the ark and draped in black; a bier and a Ram's horn blown during the month before and the two days of Rosh Ha-Shanah, and at the conclusion of Yom Kippur. shofar were brought in as reminders of judgment and death. If a woman was to take an oath, she did so in the men’s section, while holding the Torah scroll.
The Cairo Genizah reveals a vibrant Jewish society within a vibrant Muslim world. The shattering of that world by the invading Mongols in the thirteenth century and again a century later marked the beginning of the major decline of Arab civilization. As the Muslim world changed, so did the smaller Jewish world within it. The Jews were shattered internally too, by the dual tragedies of the Spanish Expulsion (1492) and the false messiah Shabbetai Zevi (1626–1676) in the seventeenth century.
The world of women, within the circumference of the Jewish world, declined spiritually to such an extent that many went to the synagogue only on The Day of Atonement, which falls on the 10th day of the Hebrew month of Tishrei and is devoted to prayer and fasting.Yom Kippur. It also declined economically to the extent that most women dropped out of sight in this sphere of life, their focus becoming exclusively the family and the life cycle. This was to remain the case until the modernization of the Jews of the Middle East and North Africa in the early nineteenth century.
Goitein, S.D., A
Mediterranean Society: the Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed
in the Documents of the Cairo Genizah. Berkeley and Los Angeles; Volume
Foundations, 1967; Volume II. The
Community, 1971; Volume III. The
Family, 1978; Volume IV. Daily
Life, 1983; Volume V. The
Individual, 1988; Volume VI. Cumulative
This is the most outstanding in-depth study of the Cairo Genizah by the leading scholar in the field.
Reguer, Sara, “The World of Women,” In The
Jewish of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times, edited
by R. Simon, M. Laskier, S. Reguer. New York: 2003.
General view of pre-modern Middle Eastern women and their move into modernity.
How to cite this page
Reguer, Sara. "Genizah." Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. 27 February 2009. Jewish Women's Archive. (Viewed on January 20, 2020) <https://qa.jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/genizah>. | 2,687 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Attention: For textbook, access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Most people are familiar with the use of horses and their often-heroic actions in the First World War, but what about camels, monkeys and the mighty elephant? In this wonderfully illustrated title, learn about how animals were trained and used, the role pets had to play in the war, and the plight of animals on the farm, down the mine and in the street. Although animals were used heavily on the front line and in major battles such as the Somme, they also had a role to play at home and, indeed, in almost every aspect of wartime life. From their first use to how animals were treated when the war ended, and including the involvement of the RSPCA and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, this volume contains stories that will shock, delight and move you. | <urn:uuid:9de2e319-4372-49f4-81d0-b9b913aedea2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://bookhillside.com/products/9781841656885-1841656887-animals-in-the-first-world-war | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00298.warc.gz | en | 0.980888 | 179 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.3395082652568817,
0.04341042414307594,
0.3191634714603424,
0.032188333570957184,
0.11258701980113983,
0.11576367169618607,
0.3609382212162018,
0.5109166502952576,
-0.022793680429458618,
0.20152544975280762,
0.04959823563694954,
-0.23087093234062195,
0.1257990449666977,
0.511881351470947... | 1 | Attention: For textbook, access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Most people are familiar with the use of horses and their often-heroic actions in the First World War, but what about camels, monkeys and the mighty elephant? In this wonderfully illustrated title, learn about how animals were trained and used, the role pets had to play in the war, and the plight of animals on the farm, down the mine and in the street. Although animals were used heavily on the front line and in major battles such as the Somme, they also had a role to play at home and, indeed, in almost every aspect of wartime life. From their first use to how animals were treated when the war ended, and including the involvement of the RSPCA and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, this volume contains stories that will shock, delight and move you. | 175 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Special Offer! Save up to 25% off fitted shutters - ends 31 January 2020
The history of ‘Window Tax’
Many of our historical buildings show the legacy of the “Window Tax”. You may have noticed that some of our old homes have bricked up or filled in windows. Some properties were built in such a fashion to balance the look of a building but for many their windows were filled in to avoid paying a tax that was introduced in 1696. The Parliament website has some interesting and historical facts if you fancy reading more on this subject.
In 1696 under the reign of William III a new act called “Act of Making Good the Deficiency of the Clipped Money” was introduced. The law-makers at the time thought it was only fair that those living in big houses paid more tax as they were deemed to be better off. For this reason this new act became known as the “tax on light and air” and although it is not recorded it is widely thought that the saying “Daylight robbery” originates from the introduction of this Act.
It was a banded tax, for instance, in 1747 for properties with ten to fourteen windows paid a total of 4 shillings and for over 20 windows homeowners paid 8 shillings. The tax was raised six times between 1747 and 1808. By then the lowest band started at six windows which was raised in 1825 to eight windows.
For many property owners the only way to avoid paying the tax was to brick up windows. The building of new properties during this period also reflected tax avoidance as they were built with fewer windows and historical records show that the production of glass from 1810 to 1851 remained the same despite the housing boom at the time.
The introduction of the tax had huge implications on the occupants of the buildings especially in urban areas. Without adequate lighting and ventilation, people were much more susceptible to diseases such as cholera, small pox and typhus. The window tax became more and more unpopular as the populations’ health declined. The tax started to become fiercely opposed and finally in 1852 the tax was repealed.
Thankfully we no longer have to pay this tax and so our windows are being built bigger and bolder than ever before. With the option of so many window dressings our windows can stand proud and beautiful.
If you are thinking about adding shutters to your property we have many designs, shapes and sizes available. Our Solid Shutters are beautifully made traditional and elegant shutters that compliment all types of buildings and windows. | <urn:uuid:2c1ff132-19e5-4a0d-bbac-3acbdc5a8a23> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.purelyshutters.co.uk/blog/purely-shutters/history-window-tax/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00349.warc.gz | en | 0.986052 | 529 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.4143870770931244,
0.09091915935277939,
0.4057156443595886,
0.3058249056339264,
0.19530268013477325,
0.528122067451477,
0.04625650495290756,
-0.21892330050468445,
0.2956015169620514,
0.2834732234477997,
0.07853667438030243,
0.009468099102377892,
-0.4478358328342438,
0.3773926794528961,
... | 1 | Special Offer! Save up to 25% off fitted shutters - ends 31 January 2020
The history of ‘Window Tax’
Many of our historical buildings show the legacy of the “Window Tax”. You may have noticed that some of our old homes have bricked up or filled in windows. Some properties were built in such a fashion to balance the look of a building but for many their windows were filled in to avoid paying a tax that was introduced in 1696. The Parliament website has some interesting and historical facts if you fancy reading more on this subject.
In 1696 under the reign of William III a new act called “Act of Making Good the Deficiency of the Clipped Money” was introduced. The law-makers at the time thought it was only fair that those living in big houses paid more tax as they were deemed to be better off. For this reason this new act became known as the “tax on light and air” and although it is not recorded it is widely thought that the saying “Daylight robbery” originates from the introduction of this Act.
It was a banded tax, for instance, in 1747 for properties with ten to fourteen windows paid a total of 4 shillings and for over 20 windows homeowners paid 8 shillings. The tax was raised six times between 1747 and 1808. By then the lowest band started at six windows which was raised in 1825 to eight windows.
For many property owners the only way to avoid paying the tax was to brick up windows. The building of new properties during this period also reflected tax avoidance as they were built with fewer windows and historical records show that the production of glass from 1810 to 1851 remained the same despite the housing boom at the time.
The introduction of the tax had huge implications on the occupants of the buildings especially in urban areas. Without adequate lighting and ventilation, people were much more susceptible to diseases such as cholera, small pox and typhus. The window tax became more and more unpopular as the populations’ health declined. The tax started to become fiercely opposed and finally in 1852 the tax was repealed.
Thankfully we no longer have to pay this tax and so our windows are being built bigger and bolder than ever before. With the option of so many window dressings our windows can stand proud and beautiful.
If you are thinking about adding shutters to your property we have many designs, shapes and sizes available. Our Solid Shutters are beautifully made traditional and elegant shutters that compliment all types of buildings and windows. | 549 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Assyrian culture came from Babylonia, but even here there was a difference between the two countries.
There was little in Assyrian literature that was original, and education, which was general in Babylonia, was in the northern kingdom confined for the most part to a single class. In Babylonia it was of very old standing. There were libraries in most of the towns and temples; an old Sumerian proverb averred that "he who would excel in the school of the scribes must rise with the dawn." Women as well as men learned to read and write, and in Semitic times this involved a knowledge of the extinct Sumerian as well as of a most complicated and extensive syllabary.
A considerable amount of Semitic Babylonian literature was translated from Sumerian originals, and the language of religion and law long continued to be the old agglutinative language of Chaldaea. Vocabularies, grammars and interlinear translations were compiled for the use of students as well as commentaries on the older texts and explanations of obscure words and phrases. The characters of the syllabary were all arranged and named, and elaborate lists of them were drawn up. The literature was for the most part inscribed with a metal stylus on tablets of clay, called laterculae coctiles by Pliny the Elder; the papyrus which seems to have been also employed has perished. Under the second Assyrian empire, when Nineveh had become a great centre of trade, Aramaic - the language of commerce and diplomacy - was added to the number of subjects which the educated class was required to learn. Under the Seleucids, Greek was introduced into Babylon, and fragments of tablets have been found with Sumerian and Assyrian (i.e. Semitic Babylonian) words transcribed in Greek letters.
See also: Babylonia and Assyria
Last updated: 09-12-2005 02:39:13 | <urn:uuid:159f8e62-821a-4d2c-9492-f8244ec17673> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Assyro-Babylonian_culture | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00012.warc.gz | en | 0.986761 | 404 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
0.3659442663192749,
0.3314495086669922,
0.38332730531692505,
-0.3560224175453186,
-0.2109120786190033,
-0.24008803069591522,
-0.1879274845123291,
0.26315781474113464,
-0.11371371150016785,
-0.13579052686691284,
-0.5737912058830261,
-0.24029357731342316,
0.20749668776988983,
0.0722967982292... | 5 | Assyrian culture came from Babylonia, but even here there was a difference between the two countries.
There was little in Assyrian literature that was original, and education, which was general in Babylonia, was in the northern kingdom confined for the most part to a single class. In Babylonia it was of very old standing. There were libraries in most of the towns and temples; an old Sumerian proverb averred that "he who would excel in the school of the scribes must rise with the dawn." Women as well as men learned to read and write, and in Semitic times this involved a knowledge of the extinct Sumerian as well as of a most complicated and extensive syllabary.
A considerable amount of Semitic Babylonian literature was translated from Sumerian originals, and the language of religion and law long continued to be the old agglutinative language of Chaldaea. Vocabularies, grammars and interlinear translations were compiled for the use of students as well as commentaries on the older texts and explanations of obscure words and phrases. The characters of the syllabary were all arranged and named, and elaborate lists of them were drawn up. The literature was for the most part inscribed with a metal stylus on tablets of clay, called laterculae coctiles by Pliny the Elder; the papyrus which seems to have been also employed has perished. Under the second Assyrian empire, when Nineveh had become a great centre of trade, Aramaic - the language of commerce and diplomacy - was added to the number of subjects which the educated class was required to learn. Under the Seleucids, Greek was introduced into Babylon, and fragments of tablets have been found with Sumerian and Assyrian (i.e. Semitic Babylonian) words transcribed in Greek letters.
See also: Babylonia and Assyria
Last updated: 09-12-2005 02:39:13 | 412 | ENGLISH | 1 |
As educators, we search for opportunities to inspire students towards positive character and active citizenship in our schools and local communities. At Elmdale School, digital tools have been used to support students as they develop the character and citizenship necessary to become leaders.
An authentic and age-appropriate problem was presented to Mrs. Murphy’s grade two students. The problem presented was that some of the younger students in the school were not placing their garbage into the correct bins. Discussion and inquiry emerged as students wondered why this was even a significant problem. To answer their many questions, grade two students interviewed Eldon Wallman, Sanitation Director, at the City of Steinbach . Through literature and video on the app Epic, research was done to discover information, including which specific items needed to go into the blue box, compost bin, or garbage can.
To assess the quality of their own sorting, grade two students displayed the contents of their own class blue box onto the floor of their classroom. They were surprised with what they discovered! There were pizza crusts, banana peels, straws, and plastic wrap in their blue box. With their new knowledge, they were able to self assess and determine that they had been putting the wrong items into their blue box too! For the next week, students were highly motivated and met after lunch to sort their lunch garbage. As a group, they ensured that each item was placed into the correct bin.
As their research continued, students in 2M had many additional queries related to garbage, compost, and recycling. In order to discover some of the answers to their questions, students developed another learning partnership. They composed questions and interviewed Georgia from Recycle Everywhere. Because Georgia was in Winnipeg at the time, students used Google Hangout to communicate with her. Google Hangout provided an excellent opportunity to gather information from a source who may not have otherwise been accessible.
Now that the grade two students were garbage-sorting-experts, they used the iPad app Book Creator to design books to teach grade one students the correct way to sort their garbage. Students used their class iPads to photograph items from their lunches to use as examples of typical items grade one students might have in their class. These photographs, along with informative guiding sentences, made up their digital books. The students from 2M proudly presented their books to students in grade one. This was an opportunity for grade two students to show leadership and build confidence by sharing their expertise. Grade one students were very receptive to the guidance from their peers.
According to recent class blue bin sorts, grade one and grade two students have made significant improvements in the correct sorting of their garbage. As well, students have shown initiative and application of their learning by independently picking up litter from the playground and placing it in the correct bin. To the joy of their teacher, students have been playing “Google Hangout” by taking turns being the expert while classmates ask questions. Students are practicing and consolidating their learning through play.
At Elmdale School, students discovered that they can be leaders in their school community and that they can have a positive influence on the world by being good citizens. Digital tools were used by students to research answers to questions, interact with experts, and communicate their learning in an authentic way. | <urn:uuid:50694a05-4dfd-414d-a800-dfc382df59bd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://learningmatters.hsd.ca/using-digital-tools-to-support-citizenship/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00137.warc.gz | en | 0.984917 | 664 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
-0.28447896242141724,
-0.06278172880411148,
0.5452367067337036,
-0.5892168879508972,
-0.2621881365776062,
-0.25397181510925293,
0.08795922994613647,
0.27783045172691345,
-0.3242388367652893,
0.0868457481265068,
-0.2850970923900604,
-0.008641256019473076,
0.06172572076320648,
0.200488537549... | 6 | As educators, we search for opportunities to inspire students towards positive character and active citizenship in our schools and local communities. At Elmdale School, digital tools have been used to support students as they develop the character and citizenship necessary to become leaders.
An authentic and age-appropriate problem was presented to Mrs. Murphy’s grade two students. The problem presented was that some of the younger students in the school were not placing their garbage into the correct bins. Discussion and inquiry emerged as students wondered why this was even a significant problem. To answer their many questions, grade two students interviewed Eldon Wallman, Sanitation Director, at the City of Steinbach . Through literature and video on the app Epic, research was done to discover information, including which specific items needed to go into the blue box, compost bin, or garbage can.
To assess the quality of their own sorting, grade two students displayed the contents of their own class blue box onto the floor of their classroom. They were surprised with what they discovered! There were pizza crusts, banana peels, straws, and plastic wrap in their blue box. With their new knowledge, they were able to self assess and determine that they had been putting the wrong items into their blue box too! For the next week, students were highly motivated and met after lunch to sort their lunch garbage. As a group, they ensured that each item was placed into the correct bin.
As their research continued, students in 2M had many additional queries related to garbage, compost, and recycling. In order to discover some of the answers to their questions, students developed another learning partnership. They composed questions and interviewed Georgia from Recycle Everywhere. Because Georgia was in Winnipeg at the time, students used Google Hangout to communicate with her. Google Hangout provided an excellent opportunity to gather information from a source who may not have otherwise been accessible.
Now that the grade two students were garbage-sorting-experts, they used the iPad app Book Creator to design books to teach grade one students the correct way to sort their garbage. Students used their class iPads to photograph items from their lunches to use as examples of typical items grade one students might have in their class. These photographs, along with informative guiding sentences, made up their digital books. The students from 2M proudly presented their books to students in grade one. This was an opportunity for grade two students to show leadership and build confidence by sharing their expertise. Grade one students were very receptive to the guidance from their peers.
According to recent class blue bin sorts, grade one and grade two students have made significant improvements in the correct sorting of their garbage. As well, students have shown initiative and application of their learning by independently picking up litter from the playground and placing it in the correct bin. To the joy of their teacher, students have been playing “Google Hangout” by taking turns being the expert while classmates ask questions. Students are practicing and consolidating their learning through play.
At Elmdale School, students discovered that they can be leaders in their school community and that they can have a positive influence on the world by being good citizens. Digital tools were used by students to research answers to questions, interact with experts, and communicate their learning in an authentic way. | 654 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Dunlavin Green executions refers to the summary execution of 36 suspected rebel prisoners and Theobald Wolfe Tone in County Wicklow by the British military shortly after the outbreak of the rebellion of 1798. There are several accounts of the events, recorded at differing times and differing in detail.
The British government had begun raising yeomanry forces from the local Irish population in 1796. The force, composed of both Catholics and Protestants, was raised to help defend against a possible French invasion of Ireland and to aid in the policing of the country. The United Irishmen had long threatened a rebellion in Ireland, which finally occurred in late May 1798. Major uprisings of the rebellion only occurred in Ulster, Wicklow and Wexford, a county in the province of Leinster. For several months prior to May 1798, Wicklow and many other areas of the country had been subject to martial law which had been imposed in an effort to prevent the long threatened rebellion.
The campaign extended against the military itself as some corps of yeomen and militia, especially those with Catholic members, were suspected as United Irish infiltrators who had joined to get training and arms. Several days after the outbreak of the rebellion, the yeomanry and militia at Dunlavin were called out on parade and informed by their commanding officer that he had information on the identities of those in the corps who were affiliated with the United Irishmen among them. The British did not actually have such information, but twenty-eight fell for their bluff and came forward in hopes of receiving clemency. Those who came forward were immediately arrested and imprisoned while several were subjected to flogging in an effort to extract information about the rebels plans and organization. Those who were outed as affiliates of the United Irishmen were imprisoned in the Market House of Dunlavin, while the British officers decided what to do with them.
The following day, Captain William Ryves of Rathsallagh yeoman had his horse shot from under him by rebels while on patrol. Ryves rode to Dunlavin the next day and brought eight suspected rebels imprisoned by his corps with him. There he met with Captain Saunders of the Dunlavin yeomanry. It was decided that their prisoners, a total of 36 men, should be put to death. On 26 May, Market Day, the 36 were taken to the green, lined up and shot in front of the townspeople, including, in some cases, their own families. The firing squad returned to the Market House where others were flogged or hanged. Before the bodies of the shot men were removed, soldiers' wives looted them of valuables, one wounded man protested but he was finished off by a soldier. The bodies were either removed for burial by their families or interred in a common grave ("large pit") at Tournant cemetery. One man survived, despite grievous wounds, and lived to "an advanced age". Two more men, either hanging or about to be, were saved by the intervention of a "respectable Protestant" and escaped.
One loyalist account, details the events leading up to the execution differently. According to this account, Captain Ryves, a yeomanry commander at Dunlavin received word that a large number of rebels were set to attack Dunlavin and he observed that many Protestant houses had been set on fire in the surrounding countryside. Under the circumstances, he expected that the rebels' intention was a pogrom of Protestants and loyalists in the town and its environs. A foray by the troops into the countryside failed and the garrison's officers were aware that they were outnumbered by the prisoners held in the Market House.
The executions appear to have been motivated by simple revenge and intimidation, rather than fear of the prisoners and the ongoing rebellion. Though the public exhibition may have been designed to intimidate and discourage rebels in the immediate area from taking to the field, news of the executions, as well as those at Carnew spread rapidly and played a part in the rapid mobilization of rebels in north County Wexford over the next few days.
The story of Dunlavin Green was quickly commemorated in the famous ballad "Dunlavin Green", which tells the story from the view of a sympathetic local eyewitness. In 1998, a commemorative stone was installed in St Nicholas of Myra Roman Catholic church, adjacent to the green. | <urn:uuid:92576156-fa7b-41aa-9d97-24cb944e82c7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://alchetron.com/Dunlavin-Green-executions | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00335.warc.gz | en | 0.989199 | 891 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.2660728096961975,
0.07721606642007828,
0.07349874079227448,
-0.09683205187320709,
0.1906110644340515,
0.050035953521728516,
0.25217992067337036,
-0.09671107679605484,
0.30343347787857056,
-0.14201006293296814,
-0.03662342578172684,
-0.3621862530708313,
-0.1226930245757103,
0.33179673552... | 1 | The Dunlavin Green executions refers to the summary execution of 36 suspected rebel prisoners and Theobald Wolfe Tone in County Wicklow by the British military shortly after the outbreak of the rebellion of 1798. There are several accounts of the events, recorded at differing times and differing in detail.
The British government had begun raising yeomanry forces from the local Irish population in 1796. The force, composed of both Catholics and Protestants, was raised to help defend against a possible French invasion of Ireland and to aid in the policing of the country. The United Irishmen had long threatened a rebellion in Ireland, which finally occurred in late May 1798. Major uprisings of the rebellion only occurred in Ulster, Wicklow and Wexford, a county in the province of Leinster. For several months prior to May 1798, Wicklow and many other areas of the country had been subject to martial law which had been imposed in an effort to prevent the long threatened rebellion.
The campaign extended against the military itself as some corps of yeomen and militia, especially those with Catholic members, were suspected as United Irish infiltrators who had joined to get training and arms. Several days after the outbreak of the rebellion, the yeomanry and militia at Dunlavin were called out on parade and informed by their commanding officer that he had information on the identities of those in the corps who were affiliated with the United Irishmen among them. The British did not actually have such information, but twenty-eight fell for their bluff and came forward in hopes of receiving clemency. Those who came forward were immediately arrested and imprisoned while several were subjected to flogging in an effort to extract information about the rebels plans and organization. Those who were outed as affiliates of the United Irishmen were imprisoned in the Market House of Dunlavin, while the British officers decided what to do with them.
The following day, Captain William Ryves of Rathsallagh yeoman had his horse shot from under him by rebels while on patrol. Ryves rode to Dunlavin the next day and brought eight suspected rebels imprisoned by his corps with him. There he met with Captain Saunders of the Dunlavin yeomanry. It was decided that their prisoners, a total of 36 men, should be put to death. On 26 May, Market Day, the 36 were taken to the green, lined up and shot in front of the townspeople, including, in some cases, their own families. The firing squad returned to the Market House where others were flogged or hanged. Before the bodies of the shot men were removed, soldiers' wives looted them of valuables, one wounded man protested but he was finished off by a soldier. The bodies were either removed for burial by their families or interred in a common grave ("large pit") at Tournant cemetery. One man survived, despite grievous wounds, and lived to "an advanced age". Two more men, either hanging or about to be, were saved by the intervention of a "respectable Protestant" and escaped.
One loyalist account, details the events leading up to the execution differently. According to this account, Captain Ryves, a yeomanry commander at Dunlavin received word that a large number of rebels were set to attack Dunlavin and he observed that many Protestant houses had been set on fire in the surrounding countryside. Under the circumstances, he expected that the rebels' intention was a pogrom of Protestants and loyalists in the town and its environs. A foray by the troops into the countryside failed and the garrison's officers were aware that they were outnumbered by the prisoners held in the Market House.
The executions appear to have been motivated by simple revenge and intimidation, rather than fear of the prisoners and the ongoing rebellion. Though the public exhibition may have been designed to intimidate and discourage rebels in the immediate area from taking to the field, news of the executions, as well as those at Carnew spread rapidly and played a part in the rapid mobilization of rebels in north County Wexford over the next few days.
The story of Dunlavin Green was quickly commemorated in the famous ballad "Dunlavin Green", which tells the story from the view of a sympathetic local eyewitness. In 1998, a commemorative stone was installed in St Nicholas of Myra Roman Catholic church, adjacent to the green. | 915 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The origin and spread of Buddhism has been a landmark in the history of Greater India (Maha Bharata or Brhattara Bharata) the boundaries of which covered a large part of Asia. As stated earlier, Sakyamuni, the Buddha, was the inheritor of an ancient, rich and varied cultural tradition of a very high order and he formulated and established a new culture out of it which was theoretically enlightening and practically redeeming from the labyrinth of suffering, imperfection, impermanence and other vicissitudes of life. He reconstructed an old path, as the Samyutta Nikaya puts it, a middle path which avoided all extremes. In his ideas, doctrines, and practices the proto-Vedic view of Reality and way of life blossomed forth in a fresh and invigourating form which attracted the elite and the masses alike. The rudiments of Buddha's teachings are well traceable to the Nasadiya, Visnu, Yama and several other Suktas of the Rgveda. The earlier Upanisads and philosophical systems like Samkya-Yoga, Nyaya-Vaisesika etc. had heavily influenced Buddha's thoughts. It is not unnatural that philosophical ideas and doctrines do not spring in a vacuum and grow out of old ideas. Oldenburg, a great authority on Vedic literature and Buddhism, has very pertinently and convincingly pointed this out in his works. Celebrated scholars like Mr. and Mrs. Rhys Davids have corroborated this fact. Apart from the Vedic sources, the contribution of Sramana tradition and Ajjivikas etc. in the formulation of Buddha's philosophical view point has also been substantial. The Buddha had an open and assimilative mind and accommodated all those noble and sublime ideas available in the intellectual and meditational environment of his time which were agreeable to his experiences. There are many references to this effect in the Pali canons which contain Buddha-vacana and in the biographical accounts of the Buddha. The basic teachings of the Buddha can be divided into two viz., philosophical and moral, or, theoretical and practical, and both have their ancestory in the Vedic thought. But the way the Buddha reformulated them is innovative and attractive and that is why he could impress upon and command respect and following both among the ruling elite and the masses.
During his life time itself the Buddha was recognised as 'great saviour', an enlightened seer, who visualised and realized the summum bonum of life. He founded a new monastic order known as 'Samgha' and gave a novel turn to the institution of samnyasa directing it for universal well-being and happiness. A distinction can be drawn between monastic Buddhism and Buddhism of the non-monastic populace. Both the modes received great impetus during Buddha's life time. Even his royal parents and family members became his disciples. His popularity spread far and wide and his teachings provided solace and succor to the distressed people. He wandered from one place to another along with his disciples conversing with people in the language and idiom familiar to them. He mastered the art of discussion and debate and spread the radiance of his enlightened wisdom and conduct without taking any rest out of loving mercy and compassion for the suffering humanity. Of course, he encountered some opposition but he overcame it with his wit and wisdom, selfless service and benevolence. Though he did not write anything his teachings were preserved and subsequently codified by his disciples who very intelligently and diligently collated and compiled them with mutual consultation. His teachings were prolific and stretched over a long span of time but all these were retained in memory and recollected by his immediate disciples who always accompanied him during his travels from one place to another. This apart, his teachings were not theoretical and were exemplified in his conduct and in that of his disciples. Because of their practical nature it was easy to remember them. Almost the entire Tripitaka literature is a collection of sayings, utterances, narratives, rules of the order and other teachings known as 'Buddha vacana'. | <urn:uuid:d0d68741-a5e3-4370-8f5e-cf2681f80f68> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.saujanyabooks.com/details.aspx?id=1519 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00439.warc.gz | en | 0.981462 | 837 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
0.00046915095299482346,
0.09577937424182892,
-0.1098753958940506,
-0.2567267417907715,
-0.3786722719669342,
0.1596752107143402,
0.4157550036907196,
-0.23167532682418823,
-0.07378610968589783,
0.1009989008307457,
0.059283457696437836,
-0.21145524084568024,
0.11642737686634064,
0.44660887122... | 4 | The origin and spread of Buddhism has been a landmark in the history of Greater India (Maha Bharata or Brhattara Bharata) the boundaries of which covered a large part of Asia. As stated earlier, Sakyamuni, the Buddha, was the inheritor of an ancient, rich and varied cultural tradition of a very high order and he formulated and established a new culture out of it which was theoretically enlightening and practically redeeming from the labyrinth of suffering, imperfection, impermanence and other vicissitudes of life. He reconstructed an old path, as the Samyutta Nikaya puts it, a middle path which avoided all extremes. In his ideas, doctrines, and practices the proto-Vedic view of Reality and way of life blossomed forth in a fresh and invigourating form which attracted the elite and the masses alike. The rudiments of Buddha's teachings are well traceable to the Nasadiya, Visnu, Yama and several other Suktas of the Rgveda. The earlier Upanisads and philosophical systems like Samkya-Yoga, Nyaya-Vaisesika etc. had heavily influenced Buddha's thoughts. It is not unnatural that philosophical ideas and doctrines do not spring in a vacuum and grow out of old ideas. Oldenburg, a great authority on Vedic literature and Buddhism, has very pertinently and convincingly pointed this out in his works. Celebrated scholars like Mr. and Mrs. Rhys Davids have corroborated this fact. Apart from the Vedic sources, the contribution of Sramana tradition and Ajjivikas etc. in the formulation of Buddha's philosophical view point has also been substantial. The Buddha had an open and assimilative mind and accommodated all those noble and sublime ideas available in the intellectual and meditational environment of his time which were agreeable to his experiences. There are many references to this effect in the Pali canons which contain Buddha-vacana and in the biographical accounts of the Buddha. The basic teachings of the Buddha can be divided into two viz., philosophical and moral, or, theoretical and practical, and both have their ancestory in the Vedic thought. But the way the Buddha reformulated them is innovative and attractive and that is why he could impress upon and command respect and following both among the ruling elite and the masses.
During his life time itself the Buddha was recognised as 'great saviour', an enlightened seer, who visualised and realized the summum bonum of life. He founded a new monastic order known as 'Samgha' and gave a novel turn to the institution of samnyasa directing it for universal well-being and happiness. A distinction can be drawn between monastic Buddhism and Buddhism of the non-monastic populace. Both the modes received great impetus during Buddha's life time. Even his royal parents and family members became his disciples. His popularity spread far and wide and his teachings provided solace and succor to the distressed people. He wandered from one place to another along with his disciples conversing with people in the language and idiom familiar to them. He mastered the art of discussion and debate and spread the radiance of his enlightened wisdom and conduct without taking any rest out of loving mercy and compassion for the suffering humanity. Of course, he encountered some opposition but he overcame it with his wit and wisdom, selfless service and benevolence. Though he did not write anything his teachings were preserved and subsequently codified by his disciples who very intelligently and diligently collated and compiled them with mutual consultation. His teachings were prolific and stretched over a long span of time but all these were retained in memory and recollected by his immediate disciples who always accompanied him during his travels from one place to another. This apart, his teachings were not theoretical and were exemplified in his conduct and in that of his disciples. Because of their practical nature it was easy to remember them. Almost the entire Tripitaka literature is a collection of sayings, utterances, narratives, rules of the order and other teachings known as 'Buddha vacana'. | 835 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In British English, a student is usually someone who is studying or training at a university or college.
The doctor was accompanied by a medical student.
They met when they were students at Edinburgh University.
In American English, anyone who studies at a school, college, or university can be referred to as a student. People studying at a school are also sometimes called students in British English.
She teaches math to high school students.
Not enough secondary school students are learning a foreign language.
In British English, children attending schools are often referred to generally as schoolchildren, schoolboys, or schoolgirls.
Each year the museum is visited by thousands of schoolchildren.
A group of schoolgirls were walking along the road.
In Britain, the children attending a particular school are usually referred to as its pupils.
The school has more than 1300 pupils.
Some pupils' behaviour was causing concern.
'student' also found in these entries: | <urn:uuid:79ac286a-95fb-4a24-ac03-08b61309b73c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www2.wordreference.com/EnglishUsage/student | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597458.22/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120052454-20200120080454-00443.warc.gz | en | 0.985685 | 197 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
0.41191622614860535,
-0.19005249440670013,
0.44927796721458435,
-0.2449040710926056,
-0.18082308769226074,
-0.3027038276195526,
0.44963058829307556,
0.2255118489265442,
0.13389407098293304,
-0.05264245718717575,
0.1008208617568016,
-0.7193066477775574,
-0.0871516764163971,
0.07806905359029... | 1 | In British English, a student is usually someone who is studying or training at a university or college.
The doctor was accompanied by a medical student.
They met when they were students at Edinburgh University.
In American English, anyone who studies at a school, college, or university can be referred to as a student. People studying at a school are also sometimes called students in British English.
She teaches math to high school students.
Not enough secondary school students are learning a foreign language.
In British English, children attending schools are often referred to generally as schoolchildren, schoolboys, or schoolgirls.
Each year the museum is visited by thousands of schoolchildren.
A group of schoolgirls were walking along the road.
In Britain, the children attending a particular school are usually referred to as its pupils.
The school has more than 1300 pupils.
Some pupils' behaviour was causing concern.
'student' also found in these entries: | 188 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Globally, there are 150 million children living with disabilities. They are often denied an education because they are the most vulnerable and excluded people in their communities.
Children with disabilities are 10 times less likely to attend school than those without. Even if they attend school, they are more likely to drop out early while the level of schooling they receive is frequently below that of their peers.
Children with disabilities are often unable to go to school because of unsuitable school buildings. In addition, there is a limited understanding within their communities and among teachers about their learning needs, which is often fuelled by prejudices around disability.
HOW ARE GIRLS AFFECTED?
Girls with disabilities experience greater exclusion and injustices as a result of their disability and gender.
They are less likely to go to school and are often considered a burden on the family because they are seen as a non-productive member of society.
Providing these girls with an education that meets their needs can play a fundamental role in addressing the root causes of the discrimination they face.
Tot, 18, from Cambodia was born with one arm. With support from Plan International she was able to stay in school. Now she teaches English to younger children in her community and hopes to go to university. “I love teaching English,” she says. “I’m much more confident.”
HOW IS PLAN INTERNATIONAL SUPPORTING CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES?
SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS
Girls with disabilities are kept in the dark about their sexual and reproductive health and often don’t know how to protect themselves against abuse, pregnancy and disease. Our report Let me Decide and Thrive highlights the perfect storm of discrimination faced by girls with disabilities, which leaves many of them totally unaware of their rights. | <urn:uuid:9265482d-41fa-4756-ae09-00b70be52a02> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://plan-international.org/education/inclusive-education-children-disability | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00222.warc.gz | en | 0.985241 | 377 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
0.18645811080932617,
-0.14960817992687225,
0.42775651812553406,
-0.14487716555595398,
-0.2602631747722626,
0.6764770150184631,
-0.10471564531326294,
0.4698697030544281,
0.020103756338357925,
0.043566782027482986,
0.25595831871032715,
0.027420837432146072,
0.23185166716575623,
0.28788933157... | 12 | Globally, there are 150 million children living with disabilities. They are often denied an education because they are the most vulnerable and excluded people in their communities.
Children with disabilities are 10 times less likely to attend school than those without. Even if they attend school, they are more likely to drop out early while the level of schooling they receive is frequently below that of their peers.
Children with disabilities are often unable to go to school because of unsuitable school buildings. In addition, there is a limited understanding within their communities and among teachers about their learning needs, which is often fuelled by prejudices around disability.
HOW ARE GIRLS AFFECTED?
Girls with disabilities experience greater exclusion and injustices as a result of their disability and gender.
They are less likely to go to school and are often considered a burden on the family because they are seen as a non-productive member of society.
Providing these girls with an education that meets their needs can play a fundamental role in addressing the root causes of the discrimination they face.
Tot, 18, from Cambodia was born with one arm. With support from Plan International she was able to stay in school. Now she teaches English to younger children in her community and hopes to go to university. “I love teaching English,” she says. “I’m much more confident.”
HOW IS PLAN INTERNATIONAL SUPPORTING CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES?
SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS
Girls with disabilities are kept in the dark about their sexual and reproductive health and often don’t know how to protect themselves against abuse, pregnancy and disease. Our report Let me Decide and Thrive highlights the perfect storm of discrimination faced by girls with disabilities, which leaves many of them totally unaware of their rights. | 354 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Industrial Revolution was a change in the mid-18th century from small scale, domestic production of goods to machine-based, mass production of goods. It is usually thought of as having mostly or only positive impacts on Europe. Although the revolution did have many positive impacts, it had its fair share of negative impacts as well. Some of the positive outcomes included the overall increase in production and value of goods, improved efficiency of how these goods were made, and the development of new power sources.
The Industrial Revolution also caused a great increase in population and urbanization. This increase resulted in several negative impacts. Some included unsafe working and living conditions, child labor, and lack of many public services. Clearly, the Industrial Revolution had a huge impact on European society with both positive and negative effects.
The Industrial Revolution had many positive effects. Overall, the increase in quality, quantity, and efficiency of goods were the main positive impacts of the Industrial Revolution. However, it all started in the agricultural industry. Due to numerous inventions and improvements in the agricultural methods, many of the people who worked the lands on manors had to move to the cities. This caused a growth in the number of cities as well as a growth of the population living in the cities- urbanization. This was one positive effect of the revolution. Inventions in the textile industry also were developed.
The first was the flying shuttle which greatly sped up the weaving process. This invention led to a chain of new inventions that continually increased the speed and efficiency of production and quantity. Eventually domestic production of goods evolved into larger machines run in factories, mass production, and the need for larger power sources. This change from domestic production of goods to factory-based production was another positive effect (Docs 1a and 1b). The large-scale production of goods, first in the textile industry, caused a decrease in the price of these goods. This in turn caused a better economy.
Therefore, as the goods became cheaper and the economy became better, the demand and production increased. These two impacts, the improved economy and decrease in price of goods were also positive. Because the machines mass producing goods in factories were so large, a new, stronger power source became a necessity. This resulted in the invention of the water frame, which then led to the steam engine and the internal combustion engine (used mostly in vehicles and other modes of transportation).
This development of new power sources was yet another positive impact of the revolution. Finally, as urbanization and industrialization caused unsafe living and working conditions, a series of reforms were made to improve these conditions. Reform groups such as the Labor Unions advocated for improvements in the laborers’ conditions in which they were subjected to work and live. The Factory Act of 1833 was among several laws passed prohibiting child labor (Doc 2).
The Sadler Commission, a government sponsored organization, sent inspectors to the factories to enforce the new laws that improved the laborers’ lives at work. Clearly, the Industrial Revolution had numerous positive impacts on Europe. Several negative impacts of the Industrial Revolution also developed despite its numerous positive effects. Many of the negative impacts actually came as a result of urbanization and industrialization.
According to document 3, the number of large cites just about doubled between 1801 and 1851. The primary negative impacts of the Industrial Revolution included the working and living conditions of the workers. Because of their low social status and lack of money and land, the laborers were forced to work for people of higher social status, or the bourgeoisie. As previously mentioned, the workers, or the proletariat, were forced off of their land as their manual agricultural labor was replaced by faster, more efficient machines. With almost no money, they moved to the cities and set to work right away.
Unfortunately, their poverty earned them horrible working and living conditions. They received very little pay given the number of hours they put in- they were usually overworked for up to 16 hours a day. The machines they worked around were very large and dangerous, and a worker could get fired if he or she was injured by a machine. This lack of worker’s compensation, or job security, was one negative impact of the revolution.
Another major negative effect of the revolution was the worker’s dangerous working conditions. Even the few hours the workers spent at home were pretty unsafe. Due to lack of plumbing and garbage disposal, the streets of the slums often exposed the inhabitants to many diseases because they were “filthy and strewn with animals and vegetable refuse” (Doc 5). The families of the proletariat were also often overcrowded- many times multiple families were crammed into one small living space.
The unsanitary and overcrowded living conditions of the workers provided yet another negative effect of the Industrial Revolution. The extent of how unsanitary their living conditions were is shown in this quote: “… the annual loss of life from filth and bad ventilation are greater than the loss from death or wounds in any wars in which the country has been engaged in modern times” (Doc 6).
This proves that not only were the working conditions of the proletariat dangerous, but the unsanitary conditions in which they lived also provided an unsafe environment that caused the deaths of many. Finally, one dominant, negative issue that resulted from the Industrial Revolution was child labor.
Children were often used in the factories and coal mines because of their size. In the textile factories, they were small enough to dart under the machines and try to fix tangled threads with their quick, nimble fingers. However, this work was quite dangerous because they could lose their fingers if they were not fast enough; if they got injured in this way, or any way really, they could then lose their job. Fortunately, child labor was an issue soon solved due to the Labor Acts of 1833, 1842 (Mines Act), 1845, and 1874. Undoubtedly, the Industrial Revolution had a considerable number of negative effects.
The Industrial Revolution was certainly one movement that had a huge impact on Europe. As with many things, it had its pros and cons. Some pros comprised of the increase of production, quality, and quantity of goods. This increase also led to another positive effect: an improved economy due to lowered prices of goods. Some cons included the unsafe working conditions workers suffered through as well as the unsanitary, overcrowded living conditions they had to deal with.
Also, early on, lack of worker’s compensation, or job security, and public services such as plumbing and proper garbage disposal did not make matters any better. The Industrial Revolution may have had its ups and downs, but nonetheless, completely changed the face of Europe by the time of its end. | <urn:uuid:0c87913d-b286-4893-b619-3cae649786a7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://lawaspect.com/positive-negative-effects-industrial-revolution/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607118.51/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122131612-20200122160612-00131.warc.gz | en | 0.985016 | 1,366 | 4.21875 | 4 | [
-0.33088040351867676,
0.021847078576683998,
0.4085853397846222,
0.08013028651475906,
0.11768952012062073,
0.2833493947982788,
-0.030981462448835373,
0.4528433680534363,
-0.43624037504196167,
0.0985063835978508,
0.04067758098244667,
0.01719377189874649,
-0.13041625916957855,
-0.127909839153... | 4 | The Industrial Revolution was a change in the mid-18th century from small scale, domestic production of goods to machine-based, mass production of goods. It is usually thought of as having mostly or only positive impacts on Europe. Although the revolution did have many positive impacts, it had its fair share of negative impacts as well. Some of the positive outcomes included the overall increase in production and value of goods, improved efficiency of how these goods were made, and the development of new power sources.
The Industrial Revolution also caused a great increase in population and urbanization. This increase resulted in several negative impacts. Some included unsafe working and living conditions, child labor, and lack of many public services. Clearly, the Industrial Revolution had a huge impact on European society with both positive and negative effects.
The Industrial Revolution had many positive effects. Overall, the increase in quality, quantity, and efficiency of goods were the main positive impacts of the Industrial Revolution. However, it all started in the agricultural industry. Due to numerous inventions and improvements in the agricultural methods, many of the people who worked the lands on manors had to move to the cities. This caused a growth in the number of cities as well as a growth of the population living in the cities- urbanization. This was one positive effect of the revolution. Inventions in the textile industry also were developed.
The first was the flying shuttle which greatly sped up the weaving process. This invention led to a chain of new inventions that continually increased the speed and efficiency of production and quantity. Eventually domestic production of goods evolved into larger machines run in factories, mass production, and the need for larger power sources. This change from domestic production of goods to factory-based production was another positive effect (Docs 1a and 1b). The large-scale production of goods, first in the textile industry, caused a decrease in the price of these goods. This in turn caused a better economy.
Therefore, as the goods became cheaper and the economy became better, the demand and production increased. These two impacts, the improved economy and decrease in price of goods were also positive. Because the machines mass producing goods in factories were so large, a new, stronger power source became a necessity. This resulted in the invention of the water frame, which then led to the steam engine and the internal combustion engine (used mostly in vehicles and other modes of transportation).
This development of new power sources was yet another positive impact of the revolution. Finally, as urbanization and industrialization caused unsafe living and working conditions, a series of reforms were made to improve these conditions. Reform groups such as the Labor Unions advocated for improvements in the laborers’ conditions in which they were subjected to work and live. The Factory Act of 1833 was among several laws passed prohibiting child labor (Doc 2).
The Sadler Commission, a government sponsored organization, sent inspectors to the factories to enforce the new laws that improved the laborers’ lives at work. Clearly, the Industrial Revolution had numerous positive impacts on Europe. Several negative impacts of the Industrial Revolution also developed despite its numerous positive effects. Many of the negative impacts actually came as a result of urbanization and industrialization.
According to document 3, the number of large cites just about doubled between 1801 and 1851. The primary negative impacts of the Industrial Revolution included the working and living conditions of the workers. Because of their low social status and lack of money and land, the laborers were forced to work for people of higher social status, or the bourgeoisie. As previously mentioned, the workers, or the proletariat, were forced off of their land as their manual agricultural labor was replaced by faster, more efficient machines. With almost no money, they moved to the cities and set to work right away.
Unfortunately, their poverty earned them horrible working and living conditions. They received very little pay given the number of hours they put in- they were usually overworked for up to 16 hours a day. The machines they worked around were very large and dangerous, and a worker could get fired if he or she was injured by a machine. This lack of worker’s compensation, or job security, was one negative impact of the revolution.
Another major negative effect of the revolution was the worker’s dangerous working conditions. Even the few hours the workers spent at home were pretty unsafe. Due to lack of plumbing and garbage disposal, the streets of the slums often exposed the inhabitants to many diseases because they were “filthy and strewn with animals and vegetable refuse” (Doc 5). The families of the proletariat were also often overcrowded- many times multiple families were crammed into one small living space.
The unsanitary and overcrowded living conditions of the workers provided yet another negative effect of the Industrial Revolution. The extent of how unsanitary their living conditions were is shown in this quote: “… the annual loss of life from filth and bad ventilation are greater than the loss from death or wounds in any wars in which the country has been engaged in modern times” (Doc 6).
This proves that not only were the working conditions of the proletariat dangerous, but the unsanitary conditions in which they lived also provided an unsafe environment that caused the deaths of many. Finally, one dominant, negative issue that resulted from the Industrial Revolution was child labor.
Children were often used in the factories and coal mines because of their size. In the textile factories, they were small enough to dart under the machines and try to fix tangled threads with their quick, nimble fingers. However, this work was quite dangerous because they could lose their fingers if they were not fast enough; if they got injured in this way, or any way really, they could then lose their job. Fortunately, child labor was an issue soon solved due to the Labor Acts of 1833, 1842 (Mines Act), 1845, and 1874. Undoubtedly, the Industrial Revolution had a considerable number of negative effects.
The Industrial Revolution was certainly one movement that had a huge impact on Europe. As with many things, it had its pros and cons. Some pros comprised of the increase of production, quality, and quantity of goods. This increase also led to another positive effect: an improved economy due to lowered prices of goods. Some cons included the unsafe working conditions workers suffered through as well as the unsanitary, overcrowded living conditions they had to deal with.
Also, early on, lack of worker’s compensation, or job security, and public services such as plumbing and proper garbage disposal did not make matters any better. The Industrial Revolution may have had its ups and downs, but nonetheless, completely changed the face of Europe by the time of its end. | 1,369 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Recent research shows that punishing students who bully is not enough and that we must begin every child’s education by establishing relationship skills and building empathy among students. October is National Bullying Prevention Month and all month long on the Heinemann blog we’ve been sharing blogs, resources and articles from Heinemann authors Lester Laminack and Reba Wadsworth. In 2012, Lester and Reba co-authored the book Bullying Hurts.
Bullying Hurts is not your same-old anti-bullying guide. Lester and Reba show how read alouds can be used as a powerful way to neutralize bullying behaviors and create community in the classroom. They also detail the Layers of Essential Understanding.
We’re breaking this podcast up in two parts, part one is with author Reba Wadsworth. We started our conversation on how to work towards a classroom of kindness, everyday.
For our blog series Bullying Hurts click here.
See below for the transcript of our conversation:
Reba: That is 1 of the things that I think is missing so much in education today. Our teachers are just being driven toward testing data to prove that they're doing what they need to be doing.
They launch into the academic part before they really start to build that community among the children. One of the ways that I think is the easiest thing is just the way we model and the way we, as the adults, treat each other as adults and treat the children. Do we treat them with kindness and respect?
An easy way to do that, to model it, is to do it through our read alouds. There are wonderful books out there now. Since we wrote the book, there's just been numerous outstanding books that teachers can use as a launching pad for the discussion that follows.
We don't have to label them and put them into 1 of the layers. Just to build that culture that children understand that bullying and trying to disrespect other people doesn't get us anywhere. We've got to build that culture from day 1 throughout the day as often as we can.
One of the things that's so detrimental is this system that so many teachers are required to use now. You may not been in classrooms lately to see this, but when teachers are required to look at negative behavior and by looking at the negative, we're going to see the negative. When a principal demands that you do that, it really makes it even more difficult for a teacher to build that culture of kindness.
Speaker 2: I want to go back a little bit. You mentioned read alouds. They are such an important part of your book, Bullying Hurts. Why are read alouds so vital to the process?
Reba: First of all, a read aloud, Lucy Calkins said, "The single most important thing that you can do in a day is to read aloud to your children." By doing that, you are showing them fluent language. You're exposing them to rich vocabulary and to story. If you pick your read aloud carefully, it does that plus it gives kids the language to talk about and to notice bullying, the situational kind of thing.
I was reading aloud last week to a group, a new book that had just come out about a little boy that was so envious of his best friend having a bike. He knew he couldn't afford one and how he went through.
He found a hundred dollar bill that a lady in the grocery store had dropped. He put his foot over it, because she walked on out of the store. He hoarded that hundred dollars even though his mother couldn't afford to buy extra food for supper.
That kind of behavior is a tempting human reaction. He wanted the bicycle. He knew he couldn't have one, but then he found the hundred dollar bill. That gives kids a platform to talk about envy, to talk about selfishness, to talk about being honest.
Of course, the little boy in the story did return the hundred dollars. It turned out that the lady that he returned the hundred dollars to did not have any money at all to buy food for her family. Of course, it gave that situation for children to talk even more.
When you're 9 and 10 and 5 and 6, those kind of things if you don't have the language and the vocabulary to talk about it, you have those anxious feelings inside.
Speaker 2: You also write about the layers of essential understanding. Can you explain more about that idea?
Reba: The layers are just a representation of the stages that you go through to get to bullying. We want children to recognize the fact that in this world we are all special. We are all unique. We all have something that we do well. We want to appreciate that. We don't have to put somebody else down to make ourselves look better. That's layer 1.
Then you move into layer 2, which talks about that even though we are all alike, there are some differences in us. Some of us like things that others don't like. Some of us walk differently. It progresses into the fact that there are many, many children who can't hear well, can't see well. We still have that human trait, that human characteristic that makes us more alike than the ones that make us different.
Then you move on into .... This is where the respect really starts. We're different, but yet we've got to understand that when we act on the differences, that reflects what we truly believe about humanity. They tie into each other.
For instance, if we go back to that second layer where there's some differences. In the third layer, if I react to a child who can't walk, or to a child who can't see and make fun of them, then that really shows you what I believe about myself and others.
Then we get into really where they bullying takes place. To feel powerful, I've got to make somebody else be diminished. The thing is we see this in adults. We see this among teachers. We see this among employees in a building where we all want to get ahead. We all want to be successful, but we don't want to do it on our own merit. We're afraid that if someone else looks really good, then that diminishes us.
Think about that through the eyes of a 5 or a 6 year old. That's where the teachers building that culture of kindness can offset a lot of that. They help kids see their uniqueness without putting somebody else down.
Of course, the very last layer, which is the heart we think, or we see it as that. We want to feel good about ourselves without letting somebody else influence that and put us down. Everyone of us has a little kid inside of us. It's just hard sometimes to overcome what society is throwing at us.
There is the richness of the layers. It's when we get to that point where we understand that we're unique. There are people who are a little bit different to us, but yet that doesn't take away from our uniqueness. Our belief in that tells us a lot about our character.
Speaker 2: The idea of taking on the issue of bullying, it's very daunting. When you talk to teachers and you're advising them, what's your advice for a teacher to not get overwhelmed at the idea of taking on bullying?
Reba: It's just a culture. It's just a part of the thinking. It's the way teachers interact with the kids. It's how we deal with them. It doesn't have to be.
Like this book, yes, it's got some wonderful lessons in it. If you read through it, and you let it become a part of your everyday thinking about how you interact with your kids, the teacher is absolutely essential to getting this culture started in the classroom.
One of the things when we started this book and we started doing the research and we looked at all these different policies that everybody had about zero tolerance and all that, that's good. That's all surface level. We've got to get down to the culture of what we're doing in our classroom. It doesn't depend on what the principal's doing, or the superintendent is doing.
Yes, they put some burdens on us. Like I was talking about about the system where you're looking at the negative behavior and your moving a clothespin up or, you're moving it down all day long. There's ways to lessen that blow.
One of the things that I discovered just recently is to lessen that, start .... I don't know whether you've read the book about have you filled a bucket lately? It's talking about how you look at the positive things all day long.
That's filling somebody's bucket. Once you become a bully, or you make fun of somebody in any way, or step over books that they dropped rather than helping them pick it, you're emptying their bucket.
You can empty an adult's bucket very quickly. Going through the lunch line and a little kid can be rude, or obstinate to one of the lunch room ladies. You make them see that they've got power. They're lessening that person's day by emptying a bucket.
That goes back to children's literature. There's just rich examples all around us that can help us help kids understand the element of bullying.
Speaker 2: You also write about strengthening the school and home relationship. Can you talk a little bit more about that?
Reba: So many children come to school. Their narrative has already been written by what they've gone through at home and what they go through when they walk in the front door of the school.
Let's say that they get out of the car and they've had a terrible morning. They walk in and the first adult they see doesn't have a smile, but gets on to them about slamming the door, or not wiping their shoes off. That starts that day for that child on a negative. It's hard for that teacher to overcome that.
We all know that the academic part, it's what we've got to get through. Teachers are losing their jobs, because the kids are not achieving what they need to achieve.
We've got to build on kids and infuse into all the adults in a school that they play a major role in the culture for that child and by working and building that bridge to parents.
So many parents, specially low socio-economic parents come to the school with a negative attitude. If you've read any of Ruby Payne's research about low socio-economic children, you understand that that culture is hard to overcome. It's hard to build a life from. It's hard to educate parents that you want that child to achieve.
In Ruby Payne's research, she says that most parents don't want the child to succeed above what they have achieved. They feel threatened by the school environment. That puts an extra burden on teachers and principals, and school personnel to build that bridge of a welcoming, friendly, accepting environment for the parents.
You want them to be the first line of support for their child. Parents want .... They're sending us the best they've got. We've got to understand that and work with them and work to understand.
Speaker 2: The book came out in 2012. What new resources since then are you and Lester sharing with educators today?
Reba: Pretty much the web sites that we shared in the book are still very valid. The major thing is the fact that the statistics have changed rapidly. All we have to do is to turn on the TV, or pull up Facebook to see bullying taking place in a much more aggressive and much more open way in just 4 years.
This election, oh my goodness. Does it offer perfect examples of bullying behavior on everybody's part. The more that comes out, the more we see .... We can flip to a certain page in our books and just read the behavior. You can see it.
I'm a huge football fan. I love my team, but I'm not going to put down your team because I want you to love it just as much as I love mine.
There's the adults setting the example in front of children. It's okay to bully about football. It's okay to bully about political beliefs. It's not okay when you walk into a classroom to bully. You're giving kids a mixed message.
I think that's one of the most .... This book is so powerful in the beginning of thinking of what bullying culture does to any social situation.
Speaker 2: Reba, this has been fantastic talking to you. Thank you so much for your time. Is there anything else you want to add that maybe we missed?
Reba: No. I just think this book was so timely. I thank Heinemann for recognizing the need for it. I just implore teachers to really think about what they do as role models for kids. I'm telling you our society needs it more right now than it needed it 4 years ago. | <urn:uuid:b60aba3e-be9d-4475-8005-d17f07845e7b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://blog.heinemann.com/the-heinemann-podcast-bullying-hurts-part-1 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250625097.75/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124191133-20200124220133-00213.warc.gz | en | 0.98128 | 2,691 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.02840585634112358,
0.16830508410930634,
0.20162829756736755,
0.06003648787736893,
-0.37109678983688354,
0.34397539496421814,
-0.14031627774238586,
-0.169464573264122,
0.050249628722667694,
-0.08593641221523285,
0.2013382911682129,
-0.1807563602924347,
0.22576183080673218,
0.246248200535... | 3 | Recent research shows that punishing students who bully is not enough and that we must begin every child’s education by establishing relationship skills and building empathy among students. October is National Bullying Prevention Month and all month long on the Heinemann blog we’ve been sharing blogs, resources and articles from Heinemann authors Lester Laminack and Reba Wadsworth. In 2012, Lester and Reba co-authored the book Bullying Hurts.
Bullying Hurts is not your same-old anti-bullying guide. Lester and Reba show how read alouds can be used as a powerful way to neutralize bullying behaviors and create community in the classroom. They also detail the Layers of Essential Understanding.
We’re breaking this podcast up in two parts, part one is with author Reba Wadsworth. We started our conversation on how to work towards a classroom of kindness, everyday.
For our blog series Bullying Hurts click here.
See below for the transcript of our conversation:
Reba: That is 1 of the things that I think is missing so much in education today. Our teachers are just being driven toward testing data to prove that they're doing what they need to be doing.
They launch into the academic part before they really start to build that community among the children. One of the ways that I think is the easiest thing is just the way we model and the way we, as the adults, treat each other as adults and treat the children. Do we treat them with kindness and respect?
An easy way to do that, to model it, is to do it through our read alouds. There are wonderful books out there now. Since we wrote the book, there's just been numerous outstanding books that teachers can use as a launching pad for the discussion that follows.
We don't have to label them and put them into 1 of the layers. Just to build that culture that children understand that bullying and trying to disrespect other people doesn't get us anywhere. We've got to build that culture from day 1 throughout the day as often as we can.
One of the things that's so detrimental is this system that so many teachers are required to use now. You may not been in classrooms lately to see this, but when teachers are required to look at negative behavior and by looking at the negative, we're going to see the negative. When a principal demands that you do that, it really makes it even more difficult for a teacher to build that culture of kindness.
Speaker 2: I want to go back a little bit. You mentioned read alouds. They are such an important part of your book, Bullying Hurts. Why are read alouds so vital to the process?
Reba: First of all, a read aloud, Lucy Calkins said, "The single most important thing that you can do in a day is to read aloud to your children." By doing that, you are showing them fluent language. You're exposing them to rich vocabulary and to story. If you pick your read aloud carefully, it does that plus it gives kids the language to talk about and to notice bullying, the situational kind of thing.
I was reading aloud last week to a group, a new book that had just come out about a little boy that was so envious of his best friend having a bike. He knew he couldn't afford one and how he went through.
He found a hundred dollar bill that a lady in the grocery store had dropped. He put his foot over it, because she walked on out of the store. He hoarded that hundred dollars even though his mother couldn't afford to buy extra food for supper.
That kind of behavior is a tempting human reaction. He wanted the bicycle. He knew he couldn't have one, but then he found the hundred dollar bill. That gives kids a platform to talk about envy, to talk about selfishness, to talk about being honest.
Of course, the little boy in the story did return the hundred dollars. It turned out that the lady that he returned the hundred dollars to did not have any money at all to buy food for her family. Of course, it gave that situation for children to talk even more.
When you're 9 and 10 and 5 and 6, those kind of things if you don't have the language and the vocabulary to talk about it, you have those anxious feelings inside.
Speaker 2: You also write about the layers of essential understanding. Can you explain more about that idea?
Reba: The layers are just a representation of the stages that you go through to get to bullying. We want children to recognize the fact that in this world we are all special. We are all unique. We all have something that we do well. We want to appreciate that. We don't have to put somebody else down to make ourselves look better. That's layer 1.
Then you move into layer 2, which talks about that even though we are all alike, there are some differences in us. Some of us like things that others don't like. Some of us walk differently. It progresses into the fact that there are many, many children who can't hear well, can't see well. We still have that human trait, that human characteristic that makes us more alike than the ones that make us different.
Then you move on into .... This is where the respect really starts. We're different, but yet we've got to understand that when we act on the differences, that reflects what we truly believe about humanity. They tie into each other.
For instance, if we go back to that second layer where there's some differences. In the third layer, if I react to a child who can't walk, or to a child who can't see and make fun of them, then that really shows you what I believe about myself and others.
Then we get into really where they bullying takes place. To feel powerful, I've got to make somebody else be diminished. The thing is we see this in adults. We see this among teachers. We see this among employees in a building where we all want to get ahead. We all want to be successful, but we don't want to do it on our own merit. We're afraid that if someone else looks really good, then that diminishes us.
Think about that through the eyes of a 5 or a 6 year old. That's where the teachers building that culture of kindness can offset a lot of that. They help kids see their uniqueness without putting somebody else down.
Of course, the very last layer, which is the heart we think, or we see it as that. We want to feel good about ourselves without letting somebody else influence that and put us down. Everyone of us has a little kid inside of us. It's just hard sometimes to overcome what society is throwing at us.
There is the richness of the layers. It's when we get to that point where we understand that we're unique. There are people who are a little bit different to us, but yet that doesn't take away from our uniqueness. Our belief in that tells us a lot about our character.
Speaker 2: The idea of taking on the issue of bullying, it's very daunting. When you talk to teachers and you're advising them, what's your advice for a teacher to not get overwhelmed at the idea of taking on bullying?
Reba: It's just a culture. It's just a part of the thinking. It's the way teachers interact with the kids. It's how we deal with them. It doesn't have to be.
Like this book, yes, it's got some wonderful lessons in it. If you read through it, and you let it become a part of your everyday thinking about how you interact with your kids, the teacher is absolutely essential to getting this culture started in the classroom.
One of the things when we started this book and we started doing the research and we looked at all these different policies that everybody had about zero tolerance and all that, that's good. That's all surface level. We've got to get down to the culture of what we're doing in our classroom. It doesn't depend on what the principal's doing, or the superintendent is doing.
Yes, they put some burdens on us. Like I was talking about about the system where you're looking at the negative behavior and your moving a clothespin up or, you're moving it down all day long. There's ways to lessen that blow.
One of the things that I discovered just recently is to lessen that, start .... I don't know whether you've read the book about have you filled a bucket lately? It's talking about how you look at the positive things all day long.
That's filling somebody's bucket. Once you become a bully, or you make fun of somebody in any way, or step over books that they dropped rather than helping them pick it, you're emptying their bucket.
You can empty an adult's bucket very quickly. Going through the lunch line and a little kid can be rude, or obstinate to one of the lunch room ladies. You make them see that they've got power. They're lessening that person's day by emptying a bucket.
That goes back to children's literature. There's just rich examples all around us that can help us help kids understand the element of bullying.
Speaker 2: You also write about strengthening the school and home relationship. Can you talk a little bit more about that?
Reba: So many children come to school. Their narrative has already been written by what they've gone through at home and what they go through when they walk in the front door of the school.
Let's say that they get out of the car and they've had a terrible morning. They walk in and the first adult they see doesn't have a smile, but gets on to them about slamming the door, or not wiping their shoes off. That starts that day for that child on a negative. It's hard for that teacher to overcome that.
We all know that the academic part, it's what we've got to get through. Teachers are losing their jobs, because the kids are not achieving what they need to achieve.
We've got to build on kids and infuse into all the adults in a school that they play a major role in the culture for that child and by working and building that bridge to parents.
So many parents, specially low socio-economic parents come to the school with a negative attitude. If you've read any of Ruby Payne's research about low socio-economic children, you understand that that culture is hard to overcome. It's hard to build a life from. It's hard to educate parents that you want that child to achieve.
In Ruby Payne's research, she says that most parents don't want the child to succeed above what they have achieved. They feel threatened by the school environment. That puts an extra burden on teachers and principals, and school personnel to build that bridge of a welcoming, friendly, accepting environment for the parents.
You want them to be the first line of support for their child. Parents want .... They're sending us the best they've got. We've got to understand that and work with them and work to understand.
Speaker 2: The book came out in 2012. What new resources since then are you and Lester sharing with educators today?
Reba: Pretty much the web sites that we shared in the book are still very valid. The major thing is the fact that the statistics have changed rapidly. All we have to do is to turn on the TV, or pull up Facebook to see bullying taking place in a much more aggressive and much more open way in just 4 years.
This election, oh my goodness. Does it offer perfect examples of bullying behavior on everybody's part. The more that comes out, the more we see .... We can flip to a certain page in our books and just read the behavior. You can see it.
I'm a huge football fan. I love my team, but I'm not going to put down your team because I want you to love it just as much as I love mine.
There's the adults setting the example in front of children. It's okay to bully about football. It's okay to bully about political beliefs. It's not okay when you walk into a classroom to bully. You're giving kids a mixed message.
I think that's one of the most .... This book is so powerful in the beginning of thinking of what bullying culture does to any social situation.
Speaker 2: Reba, this has been fantastic talking to you. Thank you so much for your time. Is there anything else you want to add that maybe we missed?
Reba: No. I just think this book was so timely. I thank Heinemann for recognizing the need for it. I just implore teachers to really think about what they do as role models for kids. I'm telling you our society needs it more right now than it needed it 4 years ago. | 2,653 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Called a "miracle" by Winston Churchill, and code named Operation Dynamo, the Dunkirk evacuation was the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and other Allied soldiers from the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk to England between May 26 and June 4, 1940, during World War II.
The evacuation is often referred to as "the miracle of Dunkirk" because only 30,000 to 45,000 were expected to be rescued, but in fact, between May 26, 1940, and June 3, 1940, more than 300,000 troops were able to get off the beach.
Hundreds of naval vessels and hundreds of civilian boats were used in the evacuation. When it ended on June 4, about 1,98,000 British and 1,40,000 French and Belgian troops had been saved.
Where and what is Dunkirk?Dunkirk, located in the north of France, on the shores of the North Sea near the Belgian-French border, is a small town on the coast of France and the scene of a massive miliatry campaign during the World War II.
The strait of Dover, where the distance between England and France is just 21 miles across the English Channel, is located to the southwest.
Because of its seaside location near the borders of three major European powers, Dunkirk aka Dunkerque in French, and the surrounding areas have been the scene of centuries of trade and travel, as well as numerous bloody battles.
The Battle of Dunkirk
On May 10, 1940, he Germans launched their attack against the West, storming into belgium, Holland and Luxembourg with lightening speed. Faced with vastly superior airpower, a more unified command and highly mobile armed forces, the Allied defenders were a poor match for the German Wehrmacht.
On May 12, the Germans had entered France, going around the northwest corners of the Maginot Line, alleged by French military commanders to be an impregnable defense of their border. On May 15, the Dutch surrendered and Belgium would surrender unconditionally two weeks later.
The role of Indian army in Dunkirk
The Indian soldiers of the Royal British Army played a huge part during the evacuation of Dunkirk.
The Indian soldiers went to France all the way from Bombay with 2,700 mules so that they could travel through the rough terrains that vehicles couldn't cover along with carrying massive bulks of supplies for the British. The mules had their voice boxes surgically removed so that they didn't bray and attract the Germans' attention.
After all the efforts by the Indians and their mules, the British decided that they did not need the extra burden while going home, so they decided to abandon them at Dunkirk.
Thankfully, British military leaders like Colonel Ashdown, who turned a deaf ear to the abandonment orders got his troop of Indian soldiers to Dunkirk beach anyway. But he was sentenced with a Court Martial.
Many soldiers had to save themselves. Junior officer Jemedar Maula Dad Khan saved his entire troop from being shelled, for which he got an honorary medal later.
Indian soldiers fought not only in France, but in Persia, Iraq, Hong Kong, Greece, Italy and Eritrea.
Without the Indian Army, the Japanese would have overrun India and would have linked up with the Germans in Iran and the whole world could have come under the dominance of the Axis alliance!
Over 36,000 Indian soldiers died during the Second World War.
Interested in General Knowledge and Current Affairs? Click here to stay informed and know what is happening around the world with our G.K. and Current Affairs section.To get more updates on Current Affairs, send in your query by mail to email@example.com | <urn:uuid:bdf59b25-c24b-4169-860c-7e9015f7e2b3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/indian-army-dunkirk-1027675-2017-08-02 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00234.warc.gz | en | 0.982061 | 770 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
0.00710377749055624,
0.3228585720062256,
-0.17212143540382385,
0.060167960822582245,
0.3245016932487488,
0.042877644300460815,
0.15791068971157074,
0.1109636127948761,
-0.026119070127606392,
0.06578341126441956,
0.31196415424346924,
-0.7195782661437988,
0.1860940158367157,
0.31206691265106... | 1 | Called a "miracle" by Winston Churchill, and code named Operation Dynamo, the Dunkirk evacuation was the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and other Allied soldiers from the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk to England between May 26 and June 4, 1940, during World War II.
The evacuation is often referred to as "the miracle of Dunkirk" because only 30,000 to 45,000 were expected to be rescued, but in fact, between May 26, 1940, and June 3, 1940, more than 300,000 troops were able to get off the beach.
Hundreds of naval vessels and hundreds of civilian boats were used in the evacuation. When it ended on June 4, about 1,98,000 British and 1,40,000 French and Belgian troops had been saved.
Where and what is Dunkirk?Dunkirk, located in the north of France, on the shores of the North Sea near the Belgian-French border, is a small town on the coast of France and the scene of a massive miliatry campaign during the World War II.
The strait of Dover, where the distance between England and France is just 21 miles across the English Channel, is located to the southwest.
Because of its seaside location near the borders of three major European powers, Dunkirk aka Dunkerque in French, and the surrounding areas have been the scene of centuries of trade and travel, as well as numerous bloody battles.
The Battle of Dunkirk
On May 10, 1940, he Germans launched their attack against the West, storming into belgium, Holland and Luxembourg with lightening speed. Faced with vastly superior airpower, a more unified command and highly mobile armed forces, the Allied defenders were a poor match for the German Wehrmacht.
On May 12, the Germans had entered France, going around the northwest corners of the Maginot Line, alleged by French military commanders to be an impregnable defense of their border. On May 15, the Dutch surrendered and Belgium would surrender unconditionally two weeks later.
The role of Indian army in Dunkirk
The Indian soldiers of the Royal British Army played a huge part during the evacuation of Dunkirk.
The Indian soldiers went to France all the way from Bombay with 2,700 mules so that they could travel through the rough terrains that vehicles couldn't cover along with carrying massive bulks of supplies for the British. The mules had their voice boxes surgically removed so that they didn't bray and attract the Germans' attention.
After all the efforts by the Indians and their mules, the British decided that they did not need the extra burden while going home, so they decided to abandon them at Dunkirk.
Thankfully, British military leaders like Colonel Ashdown, who turned a deaf ear to the abandonment orders got his troop of Indian soldiers to Dunkirk beach anyway. But he was sentenced with a Court Martial.
Many soldiers had to save themselves. Junior officer Jemedar Maula Dad Khan saved his entire troop from being shelled, for which he got an honorary medal later.
Indian soldiers fought not only in France, but in Persia, Iraq, Hong Kong, Greece, Italy and Eritrea.
Without the Indian Army, the Japanese would have overrun India and would have linked up with the Germans in Iran and the whole world could have come under the dominance of the Axis alliance!
Over 36,000 Indian soldiers died during the Second World War.
Interested in General Knowledge and Current Affairs? Click here to stay informed and know what is happening around the world with our G.K. and Current Affairs section.To get more updates on Current Affairs, send in your query by mail to email@example.com | 807 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Celebrated annually on May 6th since 1982, National Nurses Day is a holiday that not only celebrates nurses and raises awareness about the importance of their contributions to society. This holiday kicks off National Nurses Week – a week that ends on May 12th and marks the birthday of Florence Nightingale.
Florence Nightingale (1820-1910)
Florence Nightingale was born on May 12th, 1820 in London, England. During her life, she was a statistician, writer, and social reformer, but today she is known as the founder of modern nursing. Most of the work she was known for at the time was her published work on medical knowledge, some of which were written in simple English so they could be understood by the masses. It was her work during the Crimean War, however, that would cement her position in modern history. It was during this time she would become the founder of modern nursing and become known as the “The Lady with the Lamp.” On August 13, 1910, at the age of 90, she died peacefully in her sleep.
History of National Nurses Day
National Nurses Day can be traced back to 1953 when Dorothy Sutherland, an employee at the U.S. Dept. of Health, composed a letter to President Eisenhower suggesting that a National Nurses Day be officially declared. Unfortunately, the President didn’t take up her suggestion and it was left to private citizens to begin celebrating a National Nurses Day and eventually, a National Nurses Week. Finally, in 1974, President Richard Nixon declared a National Nurse Week. This was followed by a resolution started in New Mexico in 1981 to declare the 6th of May National Recognition Day for Nurses. This proposal was heavily promoted by the American Nursing Association over the next year. Finally, in 1982, the U.S Congress declared May 6th to be National Recognition Day for Nurses and it was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
Celebrating National Nurses Day
While National Nurses Day was established by the U.S Congress, it is considered an observance day and not a holiday. As such, post offices, government offices, and most businesses will remain open on this day. However, that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything to do on this day. Quite the opposite, in fact. This day is usually celebrated with special events such as banquets and parties to celebrate local nurses. And there is usually a seminar or a public proclamation by local governments to raise the profile of the nursing profession and to educate the public on the importance of the nursing profession.
Each and every year, the American Nurses Association chooses a theme for the National Nurses Day festivities. In 1988, the theme was “Safe Motherhood”; in 2009, the theme was “Delivering Quality, Serving Communities: Nurses Leading Care Innovations”; and in 2017, the theme was “Year of the Healthy Nurse.”
If you’re looking for a more personal way to celebrate this holiday, however, you can always give your favorite nurse gifts or flowers. And if you have a family member who just so happens to be a nurse, then why not take them out for a special dinner to thank them for everything they do?
When is National Nurses Day?
|This year (2020)||May 6 (Wednesday)||Multiple dates - more|
|Next year (2021)||May 6 (Thursday)||Multiple dates - more|
|Last year (2019)||May 6 (Monday)||Multiple dates - more| | <urn:uuid:fecd8457-3271-4a07-8a68-2af7e59a76ae> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.holidayscalendar.com/event/national-nurses-day/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00111.warc.gz | en | 0.982136 | 749 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.39090850949287415,
0.38918817043304443,
0.42327597737312317,
-0.18569108843803406,
0.11317116022109985,
0.1345849335193634,
0.0890786424279213,
0.2192274034023285,
-0.09604813903570175,
0.07968699932098389,
-0.2387816309928894,
0.7183741331100464,
-0.2369425743818283,
0.255148708820343,... | 3 | Celebrated annually on May 6th since 1982, National Nurses Day is a holiday that not only celebrates nurses and raises awareness about the importance of their contributions to society. This holiday kicks off National Nurses Week – a week that ends on May 12th and marks the birthday of Florence Nightingale.
Florence Nightingale (1820-1910)
Florence Nightingale was born on May 12th, 1820 in London, England. During her life, she was a statistician, writer, and social reformer, but today she is known as the founder of modern nursing. Most of the work she was known for at the time was her published work on medical knowledge, some of which were written in simple English so they could be understood by the masses. It was her work during the Crimean War, however, that would cement her position in modern history. It was during this time she would become the founder of modern nursing and become known as the “The Lady with the Lamp.” On August 13, 1910, at the age of 90, she died peacefully in her sleep.
History of National Nurses Day
National Nurses Day can be traced back to 1953 when Dorothy Sutherland, an employee at the U.S. Dept. of Health, composed a letter to President Eisenhower suggesting that a National Nurses Day be officially declared. Unfortunately, the President didn’t take up her suggestion and it was left to private citizens to begin celebrating a National Nurses Day and eventually, a National Nurses Week. Finally, in 1974, President Richard Nixon declared a National Nurse Week. This was followed by a resolution started in New Mexico in 1981 to declare the 6th of May National Recognition Day for Nurses. This proposal was heavily promoted by the American Nursing Association over the next year. Finally, in 1982, the U.S Congress declared May 6th to be National Recognition Day for Nurses and it was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
Celebrating National Nurses Day
While National Nurses Day was established by the U.S Congress, it is considered an observance day and not a holiday. As such, post offices, government offices, and most businesses will remain open on this day. However, that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything to do on this day. Quite the opposite, in fact. This day is usually celebrated with special events such as banquets and parties to celebrate local nurses. And there is usually a seminar or a public proclamation by local governments to raise the profile of the nursing profession and to educate the public on the importance of the nursing profession.
Each and every year, the American Nurses Association chooses a theme for the National Nurses Day festivities. In 1988, the theme was “Safe Motherhood”; in 2009, the theme was “Delivering Quality, Serving Communities: Nurses Leading Care Innovations”; and in 2017, the theme was “Year of the Healthy Nurse.”
If you’re looking for a more personal way to celebrate this holiday, however, you can always give your favorite nurse gifts or flowers. And if you have a family member who just so happens to be a nurse, then why not take them out for a special dinner to thank them for everything they do?
When is National Nurses Day?
|This year (2020)||May 6 (Wednesday)||Multiple dates - more|
|Next year (2021)||May 6 (Thursday)||Multiple dates - more|
|Last year (2019)||May 6 (Monday)||Multiple dates - more| | 755 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Saints of the Day – 12 May – Sts Nereus and Achilleus
Little is known about Saints Nereus and Achilleus but we know is engraved in stone. Damasus, one of the first popes and later a saint himself, wrote the epitaph for the tombstone of Saints Nereus and Achilleus. In this epitaph he proclaimed that it was love for Christ and a desire to witness to their new faith that inspired Nereus and Achilleus to “throw away their shields, their armour and their bloody spears.”
It seems that both men were Roman soldiers who obeyed orders in the persecution of Christians until they themselves were converted to Christianity. Because Christians were not allowed to bear arms, they resigned from the emperor’s army and escaped from Rome. Eventually Nereus and Achilleus were captured and were removed to the island of Terracina, where they were martyred. Their bodies were buried in a family vault, later known as the cemetery of Domitilla. They were among the first martyrs to be venerated as saints. Excavations by De Rossi in 1896 resulted in the discovery of their empty tomb in the underground church built by Pope Siricius in 390.
Two hundred years after their deaths, St Pope Gregory the Great (540-604) Doctor of the Church, delivered his 28th homily on the occasion of their feast. “These saints, before whom we are assembled, despised the world and trampled it under their feet when peace, riches and health gave it charms.”
“O miracle of faith!” wrote Damasus. “Suddenly they cease from their fury, they become converted, they flee from the camp of their wicked leader. Professing the faith of Christ, they are happy to witness to its triumph. Learn from the words of Damasus what great things the glory of Christ can accomplish.” | <urn:uuid:f8886260-256c-4fab-815e-a6b017e1f11c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://anastpaul.com/2018/05/12/saints-of-the-day-12-may-sts-nereus-and-achilleus/?shared=email&msg=fail | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00303.warc.gz | en | 0.987786 | 399 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
0.05796043574810028,
0.43847420811653137,
0.025867080315947533,
-0.2831876873970032,
-0.24154187738895416,
-0.32949861884117126,
-0.08607728779315948,
0.4660985767841339,
0.2559952735900879,
0.20366016030311584,
-0.17153671383857727,
-0.24792884290218353,
-0.06314916908740997,
0.4705463051... | 4 | Saints of the Day – 12 May – Sts Nereus and Achilleus
Little is known about Saints Nereus and Achilleus but we know is engraved in stone. Damasus, one of the first popes and later a saint himself, wrote the epitaph for the tombstone of Saints Nereus and Achilleus. In this epitaph he proclaimed that it was love for Christ and a desire to witness to their new faith that inspired Nereus and Achilleus to “throw away their shields, their armour and their bloody spears.”
It seems that both men were Roman soldiers who obeyed orders in the persecution of Christians until they themselves were converted to Christianity. Because Christians were not allowed to bear arms, they resigned from the emperor’s army and escaped from Rome. Eventually Nereus and Achilleus were captured and were removed to the island of Terracina, where they were martyred. Their bodies were buried in a family vault, later known as the cemetery of Domitilla. They were among the first martyrs to be venerated as saints. Excavations by De Rossi in 1896 resulted in the discovery of their empty tomb in the underground church built by Pope Siricius in 390.
Two hundred years after their deaths, St Pope Gregory the Great (540-604) Doctor of the Church, delivered his 28th homily on the occasion of their feast. “These saints, before whom we are assembled, despised the world and trampled it under their feet when peace, riches and health gave it charms.”
“O miracle of faith!” wrote Damasus. “Suddenly they cease from their fury, they become converted, they flee from the camp of their wicked leader. Professing the faith of Christ, they are happy to witness to its triumph. Learn from the words of Damasus what great things the glory of Christ can accomplish.” | 402 | ENGLISH | 1 |
It is unrealistic to talk about just one American society in the 1920’s. It was a time where there was infact an extremely divided society, which was not only divided in terms of wealth and area, but also in the way that people were treated. It was divided geographically, in terms of religion, the rights of different people, in the workplace etc. There had previously been a divide between the north and the south, and between the rich and the poor, but the boom period in America made this divide even more distinct.
For many people the “roaring twenties” were about shorter working hours, higher pay, and more leisure. But, there was also a large percentage of the population who did not boom. The main two different societies were the north and the south. They differed in culture, and in economic systems. The north was the area which did see the twenties as “roaring” and the south was somewhat left behind. Access to the car opened people up to many new possibilities for entertainment, and there were also many labour saving machines such as the washing machine.
There was a developing interest in games, and music and dancing, and new fashions emerged but this tended to be in the industrialised north – an ideal place for new business to begin, leaving the agricultural south behind. Due to the laissez-faire government, big business was allowed a free-reign so people were better off. But the area that needed the most attention was also ignored. The government were not helping those who needed it, creating a much bigger divide between the rich and the poor. What with the end of the war, and prohibition much less wheat was needed.
Farmers were the main group who did not prosper in the boom period. In the 1920’s there were still 6million families on less than $1000 per year and 60% of families were on less than $2000. However, there was also an increase in millionaires; in 1914, there were 7,000 millionaires and by 1928, this number had increased to 35,000! Not everyone in the North was rich though, many black people moved there in search of a better life – and even though they were treated differently, and weren’t living in as extreme poverty as if they were in the south, they still found life difficult, and were definitely not rich.
The WASPs, (white Anglo-Saxon protestants) were the core of the American culture, and they were the people who DID want “one American society”. They wanted the whole population to be like them, and wanted to get rid of anyone who wasn’t protestant. They were the people who really saw the boom, but felt threatened by anyone different to them. They wanted the “American Dream”. A group called the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) had been set up in the mid 19th century and was reformed in 1915 in Georgia, partly as a reaction to the mass immigration that America had been seeing.
They believed anyone who was different was inferior and resented these people’s new freedom and power. It targeted anybody who was seen to be undermining the government including Jews, Catholics, Trade Unions, Mexicans, blacks, etc and their aim was to preserve the WASPs. They showed lack of tolerance, but if they had gained what they wanted, then there would have been just one society. One group of people who stood in the way of the WASPs were the immigrants.
They were harshly discriminated against, as they were threatening the “ideal” American society, and were taking away jobs for the Americans. The Red Scare was a trigger for the prejudice in America, as people were frightened that communism may spread to them. The uneasy feeling was represented by the number of strikes and then the Palmer raids. The president wanted to track down any radicals and set up a special division called the anti-subversive division of the justice department.
The raids were aimed at the union meetings, private homes and infact anything that was remotely controversial or a potential threat. In 1920, 6000 people were rounded up and put into prison or deported. The effect of these raids was to divide American beliefs – those who thought immigrants were a threat, and those who believed that they contribute to society. The trial of Sacco and Vanzetti was also important as it highlighted the divisions and prejudice that was around.
They were given the death penalty after an unfair trial of robbery and murder, and were refused a re-trial, just because they were anarchists, anti-war and Italian. They were victims of the discrimination and also of the conservative political mood of the time. If there had been just one society in America, then they would have been treated much more fairly. There were even two quota acts, in 1921, and then again in 1924. This ceased the mass immigration to a halt and represented a sharp break from the past in terms of ideology.
America could no longer be seen as the “melting pot”. The black Americans also saw unfair treatment at this time, as they were another threat to the white Protestants. Many whites felt that their jobs and homes were being threatened, after there was an increasing number of black people migrating to the cities in order to try and escape persecution and unfair treatment. However, there was a lot of racial hatred all over the USA, not just in the southern states, and the rapid migration caused much racial tension.
There was a housing shortage and so blacks tended to congregate in ghettos and living in poor conditions and poor health. This lead to an extremely divided society in terms of black and white neighbourhoods and aggravated tension further leading to race riots etc. Another opponent to the WASPs, was the factor of religion. People who were not protestant were discriminated against. People were turning to religion to protect themselves from immoralities in the cities, and there was growth of “fundamentalists” religion. Fewer people were attending church, but many churches had huge congregations.
It became a controversial topic, which was made even stronger after Darwin’s theory of evolution was published. The Scopes Trial came very much at a time where there were conflicts between rural, traditional ideas and evolving cities. Darwin challenged religion and gave a contrasting view to the one put forward in the Old Testament. He argues that species were not created by God, but in fact evolved. It caused much debate within religious circles and became a huge issue to fundamentalists as it goes against their entire belief.
In 1921 a law was passed forbidding the teaching of evolution in school, and when John T Scopes decided to go against this and teach it, he was taken to trial. This trial became a huge media event and was the first trial to be reported all over the world. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100. After this, support for fundamentalists died down but the idea of white supremacy remained, and was reflected in the treatment to blacks and immigrants. It was an example of the splitting society and conflict. For women, the twenties did show some signs of hope. Women gained confidence and began to show signs of confidence.
A group called NAWSA was set up in 1890 and it regained more support in the 1910’s, and women were on a quest for political emancipation. Their efforts paid off in 1920 when the vote to women became law in the 19th amendment. But, many women didn’t know how to use this, and most women didn’t want the vote anyway. More and more women were entering the professions, and there was a large increase in the number of women in higher education. However, education did not necessarily mean access to the professions, and society for women was only improving in a limited way.
They kept to the more traditional jobs such as teaching and nursing and even if they were in the same job as a male, such as law, they were paid much less. They didn’t really have a voice, so it was arguable whether or not they were making much progress. Therefore, in a way, it was one society, but it was far from united. People were all governed under the same laws and had the same president but within that there was a lot of discrimination and conflicts between people, areas and ideas, which split the whole community into pieces. | <urn:uuid:b7c07f29-8f5b-4ab1-9c35-08beae46069b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://thenewstandardgallery.com/is-it-realistic-to-talk-about-one-american-society-in-the-1920s/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00230.warc.gz | en | 0.994476 | 1,710 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
0.03764326870441437,
0.12186872959136963,
0.03211737796664238,
-0.061547085642814636,
0.19301283359527588,
0.09032545238733292,
-0.40468263626098633,
0.05243241786956787,
0.04301305115222931,
-0.0012543653137981892,
0.42707544565200806,
0.3233318328857422,
0.09288343042135239,
0.0050787143... | 2 | It is unrealistic to talk about just one American society in the 1920’s. It was a time where there was infact an extremely divided society, which was not only divided in terms of wealth and area, but also in the way that people were treated. It was divided geographically, in terms of religion, the rights of different people, in the workplace etc. There had previously been a divide between the north and the south, and between the rich and the poor, but the boom period in America made this divide even more distinct.
For many people the “roaring twenties” were about shorter working hours, higher pay, and more leisure. But, there was also a large percentage of the population who did not boom. The main two different societies were the north and the south. They differed in culture, and in economic systems. The north was the area which did see the twenties as “roaring” and the south was somewhat left behind. Access to the car opened people up to many new possibilities for entertainment, and there were also many labour saving machines such as the washing machine.
There was a developing interest in games, and music and dancing, and new fashions emerged but this tended to be in the industrialised north – an ideal place for new business to begin, leaving the agricultural south behind. Due to the laissez-faire government, big business was allowed a free-reign so people were better off. But the area that needed the most attention was also ignored. The government were not helping those who needed it, creating a much bigger divide between the rich and the poor. What with the end of the war, and prohibition much less wheat was needed.
Farmers were the main group who did not prosper in the boom period. In the 1920’s there were still 6million families on less than $1000 per year and 60% of families were on less than $2000. However, there was also an increase in millionaires; in 1914, there were 7,000 millionaires and by 1928, this number had increased to 35,000! Not everyone in the North was rich though, many black people moved there in search of a better life – and even though they were treated differently, and weren’t living in as extreme poverty as if they were in the south, they still found life difficult, and were definitely not rich.
The WASPs, (white Anglo-Saxon protestants) were the core of the American culture, and they were the people who DID want “one American society”. They wanted the whole population to be like them, and wanted to get rid of anyone who wasn’t protestant. They were the people who really saw the boom, but felt threatened by anyone different to them. They wanted the “American Dream”. A group called the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) had been set up in the mid 19th century and was reformed in 1915 in Georgia, partly as a reaction to the mass immigration that America had been seeing.
They believed anyone who was different was inferior and resented these people’s new freedom and power. It targeted anybody who was seen to be undermining the government including Jews, Catholics, Trade Unions, Mexicans, blacks, etc and their aim was to preserve the WASPs. They showed lack of tolerance, but if they had gained what they wanted, then there would have been just one society. One group of people who stood in the way of the WASPs were the immigrants.
They were harshly discriminated against, as they were threatening the “ideal” American society, and were taking away jobs for the Americans. The Red Scare was a trigger for the prejudice in America, as people were frightened that communism may spread to them. The uneasy feeling was represented by the number of strikes and then the Palmer raids. The president wanted to track down any radicals and set up a special division called the anti-subversive division of the justice department.
The raids were aimed at the union meetings, private homes and infact anything that was remotely controversial or a potential threat. In 1920, 6000 people were rounded up and put into prison or deported. The effect of these raids was to divide American beliefs – those who thought immigrants were a threat, and those who believed that they contribute to society. The trial of Sacco and Vanzetti was also important as it highlighted the divisions and prejudice that was around.
They were given the death penalty after an unfair trial of robbery and murder, and were refused a re-trial, just because they were anarchists, anti-war and Italian. They were victims of the discrimination and also of the conservative political mood of the time. If there had been just one society in America, then they would have been treated much more fairly. There were even two quota acts, in 1921, and then again in 1924. This ceased the mass immigration to a halt and represented a sharp break from the past in terms of ideology.
America could no longer be seen as the “melting pot”. The black Americans also saw unfair treatment at this time, as they were another threat to the white Protestants. Many whites felt that their jobs and homes were being threatened, after there was an increasing number of black people migrating to the cities in order to try and escape persecution and unfair treatment. However, there was a lot of racial hatred all over the USA, not just in the southern states, and the rapid migration caused much racial tension.
There was a housing shortage and so blacks tended to congregate in ghettos and living in poor conditions and poor health. This lead to an extremely divided society in terms of black and white neighbourhoods and aggravated tension further leading to race riots etc. Another opponent to the WASPs, was the factor of religion. People who were not protestant were discriminated against. People were turning to religion to protect themselves from immoralities in the cities, and there was growth of “fundamentalists” religion. Fewer people were attending church, but many churches had huge congregations.
It became a controversial topic, which was made even stronger after Darwin’s theory of evolution was published. The Scopes Trial came very much at a time where there were conflicts between rural, traditional ideas and evolving cities. Darwin challenged religion and gave a contrasting view to the one put forward in the Old Testament. He argues that species were not created by God, but in fact evolved. It caused much debate within religious circles and became a huge issue to fundamentalists as it goes against their entire belief.
In 1921 a law was passed forbidding the teaching of evolution in school, and when John T Scopes decided to go against this and teach it, he was taken to trial. This trial became a huge media event and was the first trial to be reported all over the world. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100. After this, support for fundamentalists died down but the idea of white supremacy remained, and was reflected in the treatment to blacks and immigrants. It was an example of the splitting society and conflict. For women, the twenties did show some signs of hope. Women gained confidence and began to show signs of confidence.
A group called NAWSA was set up in 1890 and it regained more support in the 1910’s, and women were on a quest for political emancipation. Their efforts paid off in 1920 when the vote to women became law in the 19th amendment. But, many women didn’t know how to use this, and most women didn’t want the vote anyway. More and more women were entering the professions, and there was a large increase in the number of women in higher education. However, education did not necessarily mean access to the professions, and society for women was only improving in a limited way.
They kept to the more traditional jobs such as teaching and nursing and even if they were in the same job as a male, such as law, they were paid much less. They didn’t really have a voice, so it was arguable whether or not they were making much progress. Therefore, in a way, it was one society, but it was far from united. People were all governed under the same laws and had the same president but within that there was a lot of discrimination and conflicts between people, areas and ideas, which split the whole community into pieces. | 1,739 | ENGLISH | 1 |
About the Book
Who was Saint Columba? How did this Irish aristocrat become the most important figure in early Scottish Christianity? In seeking answers to these questions this book examines the different roles played by the saint in life and death, tracing his career in Ireland and Scotland before looking at the development of his cult in later times. Here we encounter not only Columba the abbot and missionary but also Columba the politician and peacemaker. We see him at the centre of a major controversy which led to his excommunication by an Irish synod. We follow him then to Scotland, to Iona, where he founded his principal monastery. It was from this small Hebridean isle that he undertook missionary work among the Picts and had dealings with powerful warrior-kings. It was from Iona, too, that his cult was vigorously promoted after his death in 597, most famously by Abbot Adomnan, whose writings provide our main source of information on Columba's career.
The final chapters of the book look at the evolution of the cult of Columba from the seventh century onwards, examining the important roles played by famous figures such as Cinaed mac Ailpin, before ending with a study of the image of the saint in modern Scotland. | <urn:uuid:fb1cf112-f228-432f-924e-52a1e15ad412> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://birlinn.co.uk/product/columba-2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00064.warc.gz | en | 0.990095 | 258 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.13719013333320618,
0.10952980071306229,
0.34040361642837524,
-0.1497431993484497,
0.11883115023374557,
-0.04642554372549057,
0.3837187886238098,
-0.07537034898996353,
0.2571348249912262,
0.014193019829690456,
-0.07334800064563751,
-0.3467697203159332,
0.017530003562569618,
0.21705424785... | 1 | About the Book
Who was Saint Columba? How did this Irish aristocrat become the most important figure in early Scottish Christianity? In seeking answers to these questions this book examines the different roles played by the saint in life and death, tracing his career in Ireland and Scotland before looking at the development of his cult in later times. Here we encounter not only Columba the abbot and missionary but also Columba the politician and peacemaker. We see him at the centre of a major controversy which led to his excommunication by an Irish synod. We follow him then to Scotland, to Iona, where he founded his principal monastery. It was from this small Hebridean isle that he undertook missionary work among the Picts and had dealings with powerful warrior-kings. It was from Iona, too, that his cult was vigorously promoted after his death in 597, most famously by Abbot Adomnan, whose writings provide our main source of information on Columba's career.
The final chapters of the book look at the evolution of the cult of Columba from the seventh century onwards, examining the important roles played by famous figures such as Cinaed mac Ailpin, before ending with a study of the image of the saint in modern Scotland. | 260 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In Bronze Age Greece, about 3,500 years ago, two people lived and died near Pylos. They must have been important when they were alive because they were buried in two lavish tombs. So lavish, in fact, that they were once lined with gold leaf! Sadly they were looted long ago. Still, the tombs remain evidence of its inhabitants' prestige and wealth. Archaeologists found thousands of fragments of gold leaf, as well as beads, jewellery and a carved sealstone. There were also treasures that had to have been imported - red carnelian, Baltic amber and Egyptian amethyst.
The two tombs were found near the unlooted Griffin Warrior's tomb. Their beehive-like domes collapsed long ago and were covered over with vegetation, making finding the remaining underground rooms difficult. But their collapse also protected the tombs from further looting so there was still something for modern archaeologists to find.
Merit Ptah, the ancient Egyptian often cited as the “first woman doctor,” was likely made-up in the 1930s. A historian confused some names, and their mistake ended up in a book that has gone on to be widely cited.
The good news? The doctor who was mistakenly called Merit Ptah does exist! Her name was Peseshet, she was an “Overseer of Healer Women,” and there is strong evidence thanks to the 2400 BCE tomb of her son.
Archaeologists worked with primatologists to re-examine wall-paintings of monkeys in a Minoan building buried in volcanic ash around 1600 BCE. at the site of Akrotiri, which is located on the Greek island of Thera in the Aegean Sea. No monkeys are known to have lived in Greece at the time. Most of the monkeys in the painting have been identified as olive baboons, which are native to Egypt, but one monkey, with distinctive fur and an S-shaped tail, was identified as a grey langur, a species that lives in Nepal, Bhutan, and the Indus Valley of India. It was already known that the Minoans had contact with Egypt. And this wall mosaic hints at contacts with the Indus River Valley civilization, as well. Or perhaps it demonstrates the far-reaching and interconnected nature of the trade networks even in the Bronze Age.
A 110-foot-long courtyard surrounded by a majestic Minoan building have been found at Sissi on Crete's northern coast. It was built around 1700 BCE and with its fine plastered floors, the site is similar in size and opulence to other palaces on the island from the same period. But Sissi lacks many typical palace features. It has no storage rooms, no administrative materials, and no industrial areas. A variety of ritual objects have been found, suggesting that it was used for religious purposes more than governmental ones.
Nearby, a tomb of a woman dating to about 1400 BCE has also been found. The lady was buried with an ivory-handled bronze mirror, a necklace of gold beads, and bone and bronze pins which held her clothing. The tomb is typical Mycenaean, making it the first such grave found so far east on Crete. Her grave is contemporary with a Mycenaean-era complex constructed around 1400 BCE and abandoned around 1200 BCE.
Coral reefs have existed for over 400 million years!
It is known that animal herding, which had been in northeastern Africa since about 8,000 years ago, made it to southern Africa by about 2,000 years ago. But it has been an open question whether the pastoral life was brought south by immigrants, or whether it was adopted by hunter-gatherers already in the area. A multinational team of scientists recently examined 41 genomes from individuals who lived in Africa between 4,000 and 300 years ago. The genomes suggested that pastoralists migrated from southwestern Asia into eastern Africa around 5,000 years ago. They interbred with local foragers, mixing genomes. However, about 3,300 years ago, the inbreeding ceased.
Pastoralism had already been established by this point. The immigrants were now locals. So this study creates a new question: why did the genomes separate? What happened that pastoralists and hunter-gatherers suddenly stop intermarrying?
Recent work on the mummies of working people at Deir El-Medina in Egypt suggest that tattoos were much more common than previously thought 3,000 years ago. In the local cemetery, seven mummified women have been identified with tattoos. One had over 30! The subject of the tattoos included sacred motifs such as Wadjet eyes, baboons, cobras, cows, scarab beetles, and lotus flowers. Some tattoos appear to have religious meaning, while others appear to offer healing or protection. Just like today, ancient Egyptians got tattoos for many reasons.
A fragment of a cave lion figurine estimated to be 45,000 years old was unearthed in Siberia’s Denisova Cave. The cave is already famous for holding the first and so far only evidence of homo denisova, a homonid species that co-existed with and intermarried with homo sapiens. The newly-found fragment is carved from wooly mammoth ivory andmeasures about 1.6 inches long and less than one-half inch tall. It depicts the animal’s shoulders, belly, and hip, which is extended as if the lion is in motion. The figurine was decorated with notches and painted with red ochre. It is not clear at this time if the object was carved by Denisovans or by modern humans.
Oyster eaters have been avoiding the shellfish during the summer months — and so lowering their risk of food poisoning — for at least 4,000 years. That’s the major finding of a new study examining remains of the Boonea impressa, a parasitic snail that latches onto oyster shells, in a 230-foot shell ring built by the inhabitants of St. Catherine’s Island off the coast of Georgia.
The snail has a predictable 12-month life cycle, and so by measuring the length of its shell, the scientists were able to estimate when its oyster host had been harvested by humans. Based on the size of the snail shells on the oyster shells in the ring, oyster harvest was limited to the late fall, winter, and spring. This avoids not only the summer months, but the time when southeastern oysters spawned as well. In other words humans knew how to ensure they would have food for next year. | <urn:uuid:551ea66e-a5f2-40e0-a652-ddd860f40d2e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://historical-nonfiction.com/?filter=time_period&value=Prehistory | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601615.66/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121044233-20200121073233-00137.warc.gz | en | 0.982767 | 1,360 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
0.10439009219408035,
0.5802881717681885,
0.4725281000137329,
-0.0025483814533799887,
-0.3717772364616394,
-0.2887328863143921,
-0.029445823282003403,
0.26163357496261597,
-0.285534143447876,
0.29354313015937805,
-0.030844617635011673,
-0.7196643352508545,
0.03670499473810196,
0.54722833633... | 1 | In Bronze Age Greece, about 3,500 years ago, two people lived and died near Pylos. They must have been important when they were alive because they were buried in two lavish tombs. So lavish, in fact, that they were once lined with gold leaf! Sadly they were looted long ago. Still, the tombs remain evidence of its inhabitants' prestige and wealth. Archaeologists found thousands of fragments of gold leaf, as well as beads, jewellery and a carved sealstone. There were also treasures that had to have been imported - red carnelian, Baltic amber and Egyptian amethyst.
The two tombs were found near the unlooted Griffin Warrior's tomb. Their beehive-like domes collapsed long ago and were covered over with vegetation, making finding the remaining underground rooms difficult. But their collapse also protected the tombs from further looting so there was still something for modern archaeologists to find.
Merit Ptah, the ancient Egyptian often cited as the “first woman doctor,” was likely made-up in the 1930s. A historian confused some names, and their mistake ended up in a book that has gone on to be widely cited.
The good news? The doctor who was mistakenly called Merit Ptah does exist! Her name was Peseshet, she was an “Overseer of Healer Women,” and there is strong evidence thanks to the 2400 BCE tomb of her son.
Archaeologists worked with primatologists to re-examine wall-paintings of monkeys in a Minoan building buried in volcanic ash around 1600 BCE. at the site of Akrotiri, which is located on the Greek island of Thera in the Aegean Sea. No monkeys are known to have lived in Greece at the time. Most of the monkeys in the painting have been identified as olive baboons, which are native to Egypt, but one monkey, with distinctive fur and an S-shaped tail, was identified as a grey langur, a species that lives in Nepal, Bhutan, and the Indus Valley of India. It was already known that the Minoans had contact with Egypt. And this wall mosaic hints at contacts with the Indus River Valley civilization, as well. Or perhaps it demonstrates the far-reaching and interconnected nature of the trade networks even in the Bronze Age.
A 110-foot-long courtyard surrounded by a majestic Minoan building have been found at Sissi on Crete's northern coast. It was built around 1700 BCE and with its fine plastered floors, the site is similar in size and opulence to other palaces on the island from the same period. But Sissi lacks many typical palace features. It has no storage rooms, no administrative materials, and no industrial areas. A variety of ritual objects have been found, suggesting that it was used for religious purposes more than governmental ones.
Nearby, a tomb of a woman dating to about 1400 BCE has also been found. The lady was buried with an ivory-handled bronze mirror, a necklace of gold beads, and bone and bronze pins which held her clothing. The tomb is typical Mycenaean, making it the first such grave found so far east on Crete. Her grave is contemporary with a Mycenaean-era complex constructed around 1400 BCE and abandoned around 1200 BCE.
Coral reefs have existed for over 400 million years!
It is known that animal herding, which had been in northeastern Africa since about 8,000 years ago, made it to southern Africa by about 2,000 years ago. But it has been an open question whether the pastoral life was brought south by immigrants, or whether it was adopted by hunter-gatherers already in the area. A multinational team of scientists recently examined 41 genomes from individuals who lived in Africa between 4,000 and 300 years ago. The genomes suggested that pastoralists migrated from southwestern Asia into eastern Africa around 5,000 years ago. They interbred with local foragers, mixing genomes. However, about 3,300 years ago, the inbreeding ceased.
Pastoralism had already been established by this point. The immigrants were now locals. So this study creates a new question: why did the genomes separate? What happened that pastoralists and hunter-gatherers suddenly stop intermarrying?
Recent work on the mummies of working people at Deir El-Medina in Egypt suggest that tattoos were much more common than previously thought 3,000 years ago. In the local cemetery, seven mummified women have been identified with tattoos. One had over 30! The subject of the tattoos included sacred motifs such as Wadjet eyes, baboons, cobras, cows, scarab beetles, and lotus flowers. Some tattoos appear to have religious meaning, while others appear to offer healing or protection. Just like today, ancient Egyptians got tattoos for many reasons.
A fragment of a cave lion figurine estimated to be 45,000 years old was unearthed in Siberia’s Denisova Cave. The cave is already famous for holding the first and so far only evidence of homo denisova, a homonid species that co-existed with and intermarried with homo sapiens. The newly-found fragment is carved from wooly mammoth ivory andmeasures about 1.6 inches long and less than one-half inch tall. It depicts the animal’s shoulders, belly, and hip, which is extended as if the lion is in motion. The figurine was decorated with notches and painted with red ochre. It is not clear at this time if the object was carved by Denisovans or by modern humans.
Oyster eaters have been avoiding the shellfish during the summer months — and so lowering their risk of food poisoning — for at least 4,000 years. That’s the major finding of a new study examining remains of the Boonea impressa, a parasitic snail that latches onto oyster shells, in a 230-foot shell ring built by the inhabitants of St. Catherine’s Island off the coast of Georgia.
The snail has a predictable 12-month life cycle, and so by measuring the length of its shell, the scientists were able to estimate when its oyster host had been harvested by humans. Based on the size of the snail shells on the oyster shells in the ring, oyster harvest was limited to the late fall, winter, and spring. This avoids not only the summer months, but the time when southeastern oysters spawned as well. In other words humans knew how to ensure they would have food for next year. | 1,400 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Remembering Author and Activist Upton Sinclair
Upton Sinclair passed away 50 years ago on November 25, 1968. He was a controversial figure to say the least. He was a prolific writer who is best remembered for his classic novel The Jungle, which was published in 1904.
The publication placed him alongside the muckrakers during the Progressive Era period of the 1890s –1920s who strived to raise public awareness and anger at poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare, prostitution, child labor, and unsafe working conditions.
Sinclair intended The Jungle to be an exposé of the poor working conditions of industrial labor. His novel became more than that. During the seven weeks that he spent in Chicago’s meatpacking plants, he witnessed the poor working conditions of immigrant laborers. He also witnessed the unsanitary practices of slaughterhouses and meatpackers.
He exposed the unsafe labor and sanitary conditions and practices of the meatpacking industry, which caused a public uproar. Legislation was soon passed. Both the Pure Food and Drug Act became law, which required manufacturers to label the active ingredients on their products among other safety practices, and the Meat Inspection Act, which required meat products to be slaughtered and processed under sanitary conditions.
Reflecting on his success, Sinclair noted:
“I wished to frighten the country by a picture of what its industrial masters were doing to their victims; entirely by chance I had stumbled on another discovery—what they were doing to the meat-supply of the civilized world. In other words, I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”
Sinclair later became well known for his “End Poverty in California” movement, which served as the basis of his campaign for Governor of California in 1934. The plan called for a massive public works program, which was timely because of the thousands of migrants coming to California looking for work because of the Dust Bowl that eroded the soil of many parts of other western states that forced tens of thousands of poverty-stricken families to abandon their farms.
Other authors, artists, and activists along with Sinclair drew attention to the after effects of the Dust Bowl including John Steinbeck who died nearly a month after Sinclair on December 20, 1968. His novel, The Grapes of Wrath, focused on families leaving Oklahoma because of the aftermath of the Dust Bowl and coming to California to start a new life. The folk music and lyrics of Woody Guthrie and the photographs depicting the poverty conditions of migrants by Dorthea Lange also drew attention to the struggles of families coming to California as a result of escaping the aftermath of the Dust Bowl.
Sinclair was not elected California Governor. However, his End Poverty in California movement is credited with influencing President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1930s New Deal programs that included a series of public work programs as well as reforms in agriculture and housing. | <urn:uuid:9b6f9822-64a2-4076-bac9-279b9431fc3d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.joecolletti.com/remembering-author-and-activist-upton-sinclair/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00028.warc.gz | en | 0.981528 | 599 | 3.84375 | 4 | [
-0.30299097299575806,
0.48683735728263855,
0.35061681270599365,
-0.14207619428634644,
0.11843154579401016,
0.4375552833080292,
-0.30280768871307373,
0.006908228620886803,
-0.4708520472049713,
0.1901940405368805,
0.19953715801239014,
0.12183207273483276,
0.20231707394123077,
0.3653011322021... | 12 | Remembering Author and Activist Upton Sinclair
Upton Sinclair passed away 50 years ago on November 25, 1968. He was a controversial figure to say the least. He was a prolific writer who is best remembered for his classic novel The Jungle, which was published in 1904.
The publication placed him alongside the muckrakers during the Progressive Era period of the 1890s –1920s who strived to raise public awareness and anger at poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare, prostitution, child labor, and unsafe working conditions.
Sinclair intended The Jungle to be an exposé of the poor working conditions of industrial labor. His novel became more than that. During the seven weeks that he spent in Chicago’s meatpacking plants, he witnessed the poor working conditions of immigrant laborers. He also witnessed the unsanitary practices of slaughterhouses and meatpackers.
He exposed the unsafe labor and sanitary conditions and practices of the meatpacking industry, which caused a public uproar. Legislation was soon passed. Both the Pure Food and Drug Act became law, which required manufacturers to label the active ingredients on their products among other safety practices, and the Meat Inspection Act, which required meat products to be slaughtered and processed under sanitary conditions.
Reflecting on his success, Sinclair noted:
“I wished to frighten the country by a picture of what its industrial masters were doing to their victims; entirely by chance I had stumbled on another discovery—what they were doing to the meat-supply of the civilized world. In other words, I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”
Sinclair later became well known for his “End Poverty in California” movement, which served as the basis of his campaign for Governor of California in 1934. The plan called for a massive public works program, which was timely because of the thousands of migrants coming to California looking for work because of the Dust Bowl that eroded the soil of many parts of other western states that forced tens of thousands of poverty-stricken families to abandon their farms.
Other authors, artists, and activists along with Sinclair drew attention to the after effects of the Dust Bowl including John Steinbeck who died nearly a month after Sinclair on December 20, 1968. His novel, The Grapes of Wrath, focused on families leaving Oklahoma because of the aftermath of the Dust Bowl and coming to California to start a new life. The folk music and lyrics of Woody Guthrie and the photographs depicting the poverty conditions of migrants by Dorthea Lange also drew attention to the struggles of families coming to California as a result of escaping the aftermath of the Dust Bowl.
Sinclair was not elected California Governor. However, his End Poverty in California movement is credited with influencing President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1930s New Deal programs that included a series of public work programs as well as reforms in agriculture and housing. | 609 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Third Battle of Panipat fought on January 14, 1761 between the Marathas and forces of the Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali and his allies was one of the biggest and most significant battles of the 18th century in India.
After Aurangzeb’s death in 1707 the great Mughal empire had entered a phase of terminal decline and the Maratha power was on the ascendancy. When Persian ruler Nadir Shah easily invaded India in 1739 any remaining illusion of the continued domination of Mughal power was shattered, and India entered a period of great instability. Some states that were formerly part of the Mughal empire declared their independence. Others continued to pay lip service to the seat of imperial power while following policies that were increasingly independent. Among those rebelling against the empire the Marathas, who had even challenged Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s authority, captured a large swathe of territory in central and north India.
Meanwhile the Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali was making frequent inroads into Punjab. In 1758 the Marathas pushed forward, taking control of Lahore and Peshawar and forcing Timur Shah Durrani, the son of Abdali, out of Punjab and Kashmir.
The Maratha rule was now at its zenith.
Abdali decided to strike back and check Maratha power. In 1759 Abdali and his allies reached upto Lahore and Delhi. Seeing the Afghan advance, the Maratha chieftain Sadashivrao Bhau headed north towards Delhi with a large army of 100,000 men that was strengthened by other Maratha forces on the way. Bhau hoped to put his nephew on the Mughal throne. But the Maratha plans suffered a setback when their potential allies, the Jats, withdrew from the battle. In one of the initial battles Abdali’s forces defeated and killed the Maratha warrior Dattaji Shinde.
But the Marathas retaliated at other places such as Kunjpura on the banks of a flooded Yamuna, where they easily defeated the Afghan forces. Abdali who was stuck on the other side of the river crossed it after finding a safer route. There were several tactical manoeuvres from both sides but eventually the Marathas were encircled and their supply lines disrupted. The Maratha generals hoped they could confront the enemy with some of their new French-built artillery.
Smaller battles continued through the months and forces from both sides amassed for the final assault. But the food was running out for the Marathas.
The battle started in the wee hours on January 14, 1761. Towards the start of the battle the Marathas pushed back the Rohillas, who were on the Afghan side. But the tide of the battle soon turned against the Marathas and by the end of the day they were killed, taken prisoner or fled. There were several reasons for this. The Afghan forces and their allies were larger in number and better trained than the Marathas. Despite the Marathas’ possession of good guns, the Afghans’ artillery was more effective. However, more than military and tactical reasons, it was the perhaps the inability of the Marathas to get the Rajputs, Sikhs and Jats on their side that proved to be their undoing. The Marathas also spent time and resources in protecting Hindu pilgrims and other non-combatants who were caught in the siege.
On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Panipat, the military historian Colonel (retd) Anil Athale wrote in rediff.com in January 2011: “Panipat was the first major battle that Marathas fought with reliance on artillery and fire-arms based infantry. The defeat at Panipat discredited this form of war and Maratha armies again reverted back to cavalry mode of fighting. The Maratha faith in efficacy of guns was shaken up so thoroughly that in many future battles with the British, they never hesitated to abandon the guns. The Maratha defeat at Panipat can be primarily attributed to their failure to harmonise the cavalry mode of warfare with the drilled infantry and artillery based set piece battles. This problem was to plague the Marathas for long time to come.”
The Third Battle of Panipat altered the power equations in India but not necessarily in a predictable manner. The victorious Afghans could hardly make any further inroads into India and were even pushed out of Punjab by the Sikhs.
In his book History of Modern India, the historian Bipan Chandra writes: “The Maratha defeat at Panipat was a disaster for them. They lost the cream of their army and their political prestige suffered a big blow. Most of all, their defeat gave an opportunity to the English East India Company to consolidate its power in Bengal and south India. Nor did the Afghans benefit from their victory . . . In fact, the [battle] did not decide who was to rule India but rather who was not. The way was, therefore, cleared for the rise of the British power in India.”
Also on this day:
1926 — Mahasweta Devi, writer and social activist, was born
1965 — Seema Biswas, Indian film and theatre actress, was born
1977 — Narain Karthikeyan, Formula One driver, was born | <urn:uuid:b06babdb-efa1-4c0a-abf3-60b88242cb93> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.mapsofindia.com/on-this-day/14-january-1761-the-third-battle-of-panipat-took-place | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00343.warc.gz | en | 0.981979 | 1,110 | 3.703125 | 4 | [
-0.38761720061302185,
0.4874781370162964,
-0.09745137393474579,
0.2855238616466522,
-0.6690850853919983,
-0.1268128603696823,
0.25180965662002563,
0.3150852918624878,
0.15742909908294678,
-0.29606014490127563,
0.014746768400073051,
-0.5911164879798889,
0.3209323287010193,
-0.00544770155102... | 3 | The Third Battle of Panipat fought on January 14, 1761 between the Marathas and forces of the Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali and his allies was one of the biggest and most significant battles of the 18th century in India.
After Aurangzeb’s death in 1707 the great Mughal empire had entered a phase of terminal decline and the Maratha power was on the ascendancy. When Persian ruler Nadir Shah easily invaded India in 1739 any remaining illusion of the continued domination of Mughal power was shattered, and India entered a period of great instability. Some states that were formerly part of the Mughal empire declared their independence. Others continued to pay lip service to the seat of imperial power while following policies that were increasingly independent. Among those rebelling against the empire the Marathas, who had even challenged Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s authority, captured a large swathe of territory in central and north India.
Meanwhile the Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali was making frequent inroads into Punjab. In 1758 the Marathas pushed forward, taking control of Lahore and Peshawar and forcing Timur Shah Durrani, the son of Abdali, out of Punjab and Kashmir.
The Maratha rule was now at its zenith.
Abdali decided to strike back and check Maratha power. In 1759 Abdali and his allies reached upto Lahore and Delhi. Seeing the Afghan advance, the Maratha chieftain Sadashivrao Bhau headed north towards Delhi with a large army of 100,000 men that was strengthened by other Maratha forces on the way. Bhau hoped to put his nephew on the Mughal throne. But the Maratha plans suffered a setback when their potential allies, the Jats, withdrew from the battle. In one of the initial battles Abdali’s forces defeated and killed the Maratha warrior Dattaji Shinde.
But the Marathas retaliated at other places such as Kunjpura on the banks of a flooded Yamuna, where they easily defeated the Afghan forces. Abdali who was stuck on the other side of the river crossed it after finding a safer route. There were several tactical manoeuvres from both sides but eventually the Marathas were encircled and their supply lines disrupted. The Maratha generals hoped they could confront the enemy with some of their new French-built artillery.
Smaller battles continued through the months and forces from both sides amassed for the final assault. But the food was running out for the Marathas.
The battle started in the wee hours on January 14, 1761. Towards the start of the battle the Marathas pushed back the Rohillas, who were on the Afghan side. But the tide of the battle soon turned against the Marathas and by the end of the day they were killed, taken prisoner or fled. There were several reasons for this. The Afghan forces and their allies were larger in number and better trained than the Marathas. Despite the Marathas’ possession of good guns, the Afghans’ artillery was more effective. However, more than military and tactical reasons, it was the perhaps the inability of the Marathas to get the Rajputs, Sikhs and Jats on their side that proved to be their undoing. The Marathas also spent time and resources in protecting Hindu pilgrims and other non-combatants who were caught in the siege.
On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Panipat, the military historian Colonel (retd) Anil Athale wrote in rediff.com in January 2011: “Panipat was the first major battle that Marathas fought with reliance on artillery and fire-arms based infantry. The defeat at Panipat discredited this form of war and Maratha armies again reverted back to cavalry mode of fighting. The Maratha faith in efficacy of guns was shaken up so thoroughly that in many future battles with the British, they never hesitated to abandon the guns. The Maratha defeat at Panipat can be primarily attributed to their failure to harmonise the cavalry mode of warfare with the drilled infantry and artillery based set piece battles. This problem was to plague the Marathas for long time to come.”
The Third Battle of Panipat altered the power equations in India but not necessarily in a predictable manner. The victorious Afghans could hardly make any further inroads into India and were even pushed out of Punjab by the Sikhs.
In his book History of Modern India, the historian Bipan Chandra writes: “The Maratha defeat at Panipat was a disaster for them. They lost the cream of their army and their political prestige suffered a big blow. Most of all, their defeat gave an opportunity to the English East India Company to consolidate its power in Bengal and south India. Nor did the Afghans benefit from their victory . . . In fact, the [battle] did not decide who was to rule India but rather who was not. The way was, therefore, cleared for the rise of the British power in India.”
Also on this day:
1926 — Mahasweta Devi, writer and social activist, was born
1965 — Seema Biswas, Indian film and theatre actress, was born
1977 — Narain Karthikeyan, Formula One driver, was born | 1,136 | ENGLISH | 1 |
1411 (22nd September)
Richard Duke of York was born the son of Richard of Conisburgh and Anne Mortimer. His father was the grandson of King Edward III
. Richard was the couple’s second child, his sister Isabel had been born in 1409. Richard’s mother died shortly after his birth.
1415 (31st July)
This plot to depose King Henry V
and replace him with Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, was uncovered. Richard’s father had been one of the conspirators.
1415 (5th August)
Richard’s father was executed for his part in the Southampton Plot. This meant Richard became a ward of the King.
1415 (25th October)
Richard became 3rd Duke of York after his uncle, Edward, 2nd Duke of York, was killed at the Battle of Agincourt.
Sir Robert Waterton was appointed guardian for Richard.
Richard was made a ward of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland. Neville betrothed Richard to his daughter, Cecily.
1425 (18th January)
Edmund Mortimer, Richard’s uncle, died and Richard inherited the title Earl of March and Earl of Ulster as well as the Mortimer estates.
1425 (21st October)
Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, died. Richard became the ward of Neville’s widow, Joan Beaufort.
1426 (19th May)
Richard was knighted at Leicester by the King’s younger brother, John, Duke of Bedford.
Richard Duke of York married Cecily Neville.
1429 (6th November)
The Duke of York attended the coronation of King Henry VI
at Westminster Abbey.
1430 (20th January)
York acted as Constable of England for a brief time.
1431 (16th December)
Richard was in Paris for the coronation of Henry VI as King of France.
1432 (12th May)
York came of age and took control of his vast estates.
1433 (22nd April)
Richard Duke of York was made a Knight of the Garter.
Richard attended a meeting of Henry VI’s uncles, John Duke of Bedford and Humphrey Duke of Gloucester which sought to find agreement regarding the ongoing Hundred Years’ War with France.
1435 (14th September)
John Duke of Bedford, uncle of King Henry VI and regent in France, died.
1435 (21st September)
Treaty of Arras
This treaty, signed by France and Burgundy, recognised Charles VII as King of France and left England isolated.
Richard was appointed commander of the English army in France.
York managed to recover lost areas in Normandy.
Richard Duke of York’s tenure in France ended and he returned to England.
1439 (10th August)
A daughter, Anne, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire.
1440 (2nd July)
York was appointed Lieutenant of France. He was given an annual income and also power to properly control the army.
1441 (10th February)
A son, Henry, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Hatfield. He died at a young age.
Having successfully kept the French at bay, the English army were defeated by the French at Pontoise.
1442 (28th April)
A son, Edward
, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville in Rouen, Normandy.
Henry VI gave John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, control of an army of 8000 men in France. Richard was aggrieved because this move by the King weakened his position. He felt the men would have been better joining his army.
1443 (23rd April)
Richard agreed a truce with Burgundy at Dijon.
1443 (17th May)
A son, Edmund, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville in Rouen, Normandy.
1444 (22nd April)
A daughter, Elizabeth, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville in Rouen, Normandy.
1445 (28th April)
1445 (20th October)
The Duke of York returned to England from France. As a member of the senior nobility he hoped to be given a position on the King’s Council but it was not immediately forthcoming.
1446 (3rd May)
A daughter, Margaret, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire.
1447 (7th July)
A son William, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire. He died at a young age.
1447 (30th July)
Richard Duke of York was appointed Lieutenant of Ireland for ten years. As Earl of Ulster and a landowner in Ireland he was a natural choice for the position. At the same time Henry VI removed him from playing a part in English politics.
1448 (10th August)
A son John, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville in Ireland. He died young.
Richard finally left England for Ireland. He was accompanied by his wife and family as well as a force of around 600.
1449 (21st October)
A son, George
, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Dublin Castle, Ireland.
There was a revolt against the crown by the people of Kent and Sussex led by Jack Cade using the name Mortimer. They soon took London and killed the Lord High Treasurer.
Normandy fell to the French. Those Englishmen that had been in Normandy returned to England full of grievance against the Crown.
1450 (7th September)
York found it impossible to continue his tenure in Ireland. He had not received sufficient funding from the crown and he was owed a considerable sum of money having funded the defence of English possessions himself. He and his family returned to England landing at Angelsey. Richard soon became a figurehead for mounting dissatisfaction with the rule of King Henry VI.
1450 (27th September)
Richard Duke of York arrived back in London. Along the way he had been joined by people that shared his discontent with the King. York demanded better government of the country. He also hoped to effect the removal of the Duke of Somerset, favourite of the King and Margaret Beaufort. Somerset took up residence in the Tower of London for his own safety.
1450 (late September)
Amid growing pressure, King Henry VI appointed York as Justice of the Forest south of the river Trent. However, this position did not give him any real power.
A son, Thomas, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville. He died at a young age.
The Duke of Somerset was appointed Captain of Calais.
A proposal that Richard Duke of York be recognised as heir to the throne was not well received by the King.
Richard tried to persuade King Henry VI to recognise him as heir to the throne.
1452 (2nd October)
A son, Richard
, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire.
Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick
fell out with Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, after the King granted Somerset control of Glamorgan which had been held by Warwick as part of his Despenser heritage.
As a result of his continued opposition to the King, Richard was stripped of his appointments as Lieutenant of Ireland and Justice of the Forest.
King Henry VI
suffered a mental breakdown and was considered unfit to rule. The Duke of Somerset took control of government.
Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick was annoyed that his enemy, Somerset, had control of the country. He turned his favour to Richard Duke of York. As a result Richard was included as a member of the Great Council that governed the country while the King was incapacitated.
1453 (13th October)
A son, Edward, was born to King Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou at the Palace of Westminster. As heir to the throne he was created Duke of Cornwall.
1454 (27th March)
A group of royal councillors unhappy with the way the Duke of Somerset was handling government, nominated Richard Duke of York as Protector in his stead.
1454 (late March)
Richard appointed his father-in-law, Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, as Lord Chancellor of England.
Henry VI regained his mental capacity. He put Somerset back in control of government. The Earl of Salisbury resigned as Chancellor in protest.
Richard Duke of York, the Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Salisbury began raising troops against King Henry and Somerset.
1455 (22nd May)
Wars of the Roses
First Battle of St Albans
This battle saw the forces of Richard Duke of York, Warwick and Salisbury defeat the Lancastrians led by Somerset and Northumberland. Somerset was killed in the battle and King Henry was captured. The battle marked the beginning of the conflict between the Lancastrians and Yorkists called the Wars of the Roses.
1455 (3rd May)
With the King under his control, Richard Duke of York became Protector of the realm again.
Warwick was appointed Captain of Calais as a reward for his support of Richard of York.
1455 (22nd July)
A daughter, Ursula, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire. She died at a young age.
Richard Duke of York was dismissed as regent when Henry VI resumed personal rule supported by Queen Margaret.
Richard was sent north to defend the border against a possible invasion by King James II of Scotland. His position as Lieutenant of Ireland was also restored.
Parliament was summoned but Richard and his father-in-law were not summoned. This meant it was likely that they were to be charged with treason.
1459 (23rd September)
Battle of Blore Heath
Richard Duke of York supported by Salisbury fought off a Lancastrian attack that was supported by the Percy family.
1459 (late September)
The Earl of Warwick who had exiled himself to France now crossed the Channel to join Richard and the Earl of Salisbury.
1459 (12th – 13th October)
Rout of Ludlow
Richard of York, Warwick and the Nevilles mustered their supporters at Ludlow but when the main Lancastrian army appeared their men deserted. York fled to Ireland and Warwick and Salisbury fled back to Calais taking the Duke of York’s son, Edward
, with them. Richard’s wife, Cecily and their sons, George and Richard were captured and imprisoned at Coventry.
Richard Duke of York, Richard Neville Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Salisbury were attained and their titles and lands confiscated by the King.
Warwick travelled from Calais to Ireland to meet with Richard of York.
1460 (26th June)
Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, his father Earl of Salisbury and Richard Duke of York’s son, Edward, Earl of March
landed at Sandwich at the head of an army and marched towards London.
1460 (2nd July)
Richard’s father, Earl of Salisbury, was left in charge of a force that lay siege to the Tower of London. Warwick and the Earl of March rode north.
1460 (10th July)
Battle of Northampton
Warwick and Edward, Earl of March defeated a Lancastrian force led by Humphrey, Stafford and Buckingham. They captured King Henry VI. Margaret of Anjou and Prince Edward fled to Harlech Castle.
1460 (14th July)
The Earl of Warwick and Edward Earl of March returned to London with Henry VI in captivity.
1460 (19th July)
Warwick and Edward Earl of March used their forces to defeat the Lancastrians in the Tower of London.
1460 (9th September)
Richard of York claimed the English throne but the landowners refused to accept him as anything other than heir to the throne.
1460 (25th October)
Act of Accord
Richard Duke of York was named successor to the throne over Henry VI’s son, Edward.
1460 (30th December)
Battle of Wakefield
, unwilling to accept the disinheritance of her son Edward, raised an army in the north. Richard of York was forced to march north where he was defeated and killed by the Lancastrian army. | <urn:uuid:18769d83-b893-4616-a4dd-2b701120d8e4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.totallytimelines.com/richard-3rd-duke-of-york-1411-1460/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00032.warc.gz | en | 0.985905 | 2,673 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.4670700430870056,
0.3925982713699341,
-0.031785085797309875,
-0.17273283004760742,
-0.1546810269355774,
-0.471658855676651,
0.5333622694015503,
-0.24597108364105225,
0.23225349187850952,
-0.24079295992851257,
-0.05934911221265793,
-0.2929469347000122,
0.21384315192699432,
0.402790665626... | 8 | 1411 (22nd September)
Richard Duke of York was born the son of Richard of Conisburgh and Anne Mortimer. His father was the grandson of King Edward III
. Richard was the couple’s second child, his sister Isabel had been born in 1409. Richard’s mother died shortly after his birth.
1415 (31st July)
This plot to depose King Henry V
and replace him with Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, was uncovered. Richard’s father had been one of the conspirators.
1415 (5th August)
Richard’s father was executed for his part in the Southampton Plot. This meant Richard became a ward of the King.
1415 (25th October)
Richard became 3rd Duke of York after his uncle, Edward, 2nd Duke of York, was killed at the Battle of Agincourt.
Sir Robert Waterton was appointed guardian for Richard.
Richard was made a ward of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland. Neville betrothed Richard to his daughter, Cecily.
1425 (18th January)
Edmund Mortimer, Richard’s uncle, died and Richard inherited the title Earl of March and Earl of Ulster as well as the Mortimer estates.
1425 (21st October)
Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, died. Richard became the ward of Neville’s widow, Joan Beaufort.
1426 (19th May)
Richard was knighted at Leicester by the King’s younger brother, John, Duke of Bedford.
Richard Duke of York married Cecily Neville.
1429 (6th November)
The Duke of York attended the coronation of King Henry VI
at Westminster Abbey.
1430 (20th January)
York acted as Constable of England for a brief time.
1431 (16th December)
Richard was in Paris for the coronation of Henry VI as King of France.
1432 (12th May)
York came of age and took control of his vast estates.
1433 (22nd April)
Richard Duke of York was made a Knight of the Garter.
Richard attended a meeting of Henry VI’s uncles, John Duke of Bedford and Humphrey Duke of Gloucester which sought to find agreement regarding the ongoing Hundred Years’ War with France.
1435 (14th September)
John Duke of Bedford, uncle of King Henry VI and regent in France, died.
1435 (21st September)
Treaty of Arras
This treaty, signed by France and Burgundy, recognised Charles VII as King of France and left England isolated.
Richard was appointed commander of the English army in France.
York managed to recover lost areas in Normandy.
Richard Duke of York’s tenure in France ended and he returned to England.
1439 (10th August)
A daughter, Anne, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire.
1440 (2nd July)
York was appointed Lieutenant of France. He was given an annual income and also power to properly control the army.
1441 (10th February)
A son, Henry, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Hatfield. He died at a young age.
Having successfully kept the French at bay, the English army were defeated by the French at Pontoise.
1442 (28th April)
A son, Edward
, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville in Rouen, Normandy.
Henry VI gave John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, control of an army of 8000 men in France. Richard was aggrieved because this move by the King weakened his position. He felt the men would have been better joining his army.
1443 (23rd April)
Richard agreed a truce with Burgundy at Dijon.
1443 (17th May)
A son, Edmund, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville in Rouen, Normandy.
1444 (22nd April)
A daughter, Elizabeth, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville in Rouen, Normandy.
1445 (28th April)
1445 (20th October)
The Duke of York returned to England from France. As a member of the senior nobility he hoped to be given a position on the King’s Council but it was not immediately forthcoming.
1446 (3rd May)
A daughter, Margaret, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire.
1447 (7th July)
A son William, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire. He died at a young age.
1447 (30th July)
Richard Duke of York was appointed Lieutenant of Ireland for ten years. As Earl of Ulster and a landowner in Ireland he was a natural choice for the position. At the same time Henry VI removed him from playing a part in English politics.
1448 (10th August)
A son John, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville in Ireland. He died young.
Richard finally left England for Ireland. He was accompanied by his wife and family as well as a force of around 600.
1449 (21st October)
A son, George
, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Dublin Castle, Ireland.
There was a revolt against the crown by the people of Kent and Sussex led by Jack Cade using the name Mortimer. They soon took London and killed the Lord High Treasurer.
Normandy fell to the French. Those Englishmen that had been in Normandy returned to England full of grievance against the Crown.
1450 (7th September)
York found it impossible to continue his tenure in Ireland. He had not received sufficient funding from the crown and he was owed a considerable sum of money having funded the defence of English possessions himself. He and his family returned to England landing at Angelsey. Richard soon became a figurehead for mounting dissatisfaction with the rule of King Henry VI.
1450 (27th September)
Richard Duke of York arrived back in London. Along the way he had been joined by people that shared his discontent with the King. York demanded better government of the country. He also hoped to effect the removal of the Duke of Somerset, favourite of the King and Margaret Beaufort. Somerset took up residence in the Tower of London for his own safety.
1450 (late September)
Amid growing pressure, King Henry VI appointed York as Justice of the Forest south of the river Trent. However, this position did not give him any real power.
A son, Thomas, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville. He died at a young age.
The Duke of Somerset was appointed Captain of Calais.
A proposal that Richard Duke of York be recognised as heir to the throne was not well received by the King.
Richard tried to persuade King Henry VI to recognise him as heir to the throne.
1452 (2nd October)
A son, Richard
, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire.
Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick
fell out with Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, after the King granted Somerset control of Glamorgan which had been held by Warwick as part of his Despenser heritage.
As a result of his continued opposition to the King, Richard was stripped of his appointments as Lieutenant of Ireland and Justice of the Forest.
King Henry VI
suffered a mental breakdown and was considered unfit to rule. The Duke of Somerset took control of government.
Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick was annoyed that his enemy, Somerset, had control of the country. He turned his favour to Richard Duke of York. As a result Richard was included as a member of the Great Council that governed the country while the King was incapacitated.
1453 (13th October)
A son, Edward, was born to King Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou at the Palace of Westminster. As heir to the throne he was created Duke of Cornwall.
1454 (27th March)
A group of royal councillors unhappy with the way the Duke of Somerset was handling government, nominated Richard Duke of York as Protector in his stead.
1454 (late March)
Richard appointed his father-in-law, Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, as Lord Chancellor of England.
Henry VI regained his mental capacity. He put Somerset back in control of government. The Earl of Salisbury resigned as Chancellor in protest.
Richard Duke of York, the Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Salisbury began raising troops against King Henry and Somerset.
1455 (22nd May)
Wars of the Roses
First Battle of St Albans
This battle saw the forces of Richard Duke of York, Warwick and Salisbury defeat the Lancastrians led by Somerset and Northumberland. Somerset was killed in the battle and King Henry was captured. The battle marked the beginning of the conflict between the Lancastrians and Yorkists called the Wars of the Roses.
1455 (3rd May)
With the King under his control, Richard Duke of York became Protector of the realm again.
Warwick was appointed Captain of Calais as a reward for his support of Richard of York.
1455 (22nd July)
A daughter, Ursula, was born to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville at Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire. She died at a young age.
Richard Duke of York was dismissed as regent when Henry VI resumed personal rule supported by Queen Margaret.
Richard was sent north to defend the border against a possible invasion by King James II of Scotland. His position as Lieutenant of Ireland was also restored.
Parliament was summoned but Richard and his father-in-law were not summoned. This meant it was likely that they were to be charged with treason.
1459 (23rd September)
Battle of Blore Heath
Richard Duke of York supported by Salisbury fought off a Lancastrian attack that was supported by the Percy family.
1459 (late September)
The Earl of Warwick who had exiled himself to France now crossed the Channel to join Richard and the Earl of Salisbury.
1459 (12th – 13th October)
Rout of Ludlow
Richard of York, Warwick and the Nevilles mustered their supporters at Ludlow but when the main Lancastrian army appeared their men deserted. York fled to Ireland and Warwick and Salisbury fled back to Calais taking the Duke of York’s son, Edward
, with them. Richard’s wife, Cecily and their sons, George and Richard were captured and imprisoned at Coventry.
Richard Duke of York, Richard Neville Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Salisbury were attained and their titles and lands confiscated by the King.
Warwick travelled from Calais to Ireland to meet with Richard of York.
1460 (26th June)
Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, his father Earl of Salisbury and Richard Duke of York’s son, Edward, Earl of March
landed at Sandwich at the head of an army and marched towards London.
1460 (2nd July)
Richard’s father, Earl of Salisbury, was left in charge of a force that lay siege to the Tower of London. Warwick and the Earl of March rode north.
1460 (10th July)
Battle of Northampton
Warwick and Edward, Earl of March defeated a Lancastrian force led by Humphrey, Stafford and Buckingham. They captured King Henry VI. Margaret of Anjou and Prince Edward fled to Harlech Castle.
1460 (14th July)
The Earl of Warwick and Edward Earl of March returned to London with Henry VI in captivity.
1460 (19th July)
Warwick and Edward Earl of March used their forces to defeat the Lancastrians in the Tower of London.
1460 (9th September)
Richard of York claimed the English throne but the landowners refused to accept him as anything other than heir to the throne.
1460 (25th October)
Act of Accord
Richard Duke of York was named successor to the throne over Henry VI’s son, Edward.
1460 (30th December)
Battle of Wakefield
, unwilling to accept the disinheritance of her son Edward, raised an army in the north. Richard of York was forced to march north where he was defeated and killed by the Lancastrian army. | 2,657 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Cities are built in different ways and one Question I have always wanted to know is what is the design of roman cities. This paper will tell you the answer to this question in form of three other questions. How did they build their cities? Why did they build them this way? and Do we still build cities this way?
When the Romans built their cities they always added aqueducts. They also made almost everything out of concrete and started using over 2100 years ago. They built lots of fountains all around the city in different sizes, shapes, and designs. They also had amphitheatres which were very big and they mostly only had one amphitheatres per city near the edge of the city. (“10 Innovations That Built Ancient Rome”, 2013)
More things they did when they built their cities were. They built walls around their major cities. The markets were in the middle of the city selling various items. Also they put two main roads in their cities. One heading north-south and the other heading east-west intersecting at the middle of the city called the forum. (“Roman Cities”, 2013)
The reason They built their cities this way was for function, protection, looks, and entertainment. here are some specific reasons for the certain things. They put aqueducts in their cities so they could have running water and be able to have public bathrooms and public baths. Their public baths had four stages. The first is the room where they get undressed, the second is where they stretched and put on oil ( they didn’t use soap), the third where they got in a super hot bath, and the last where they got in a super cold bath to cool down from the super hot one. ("Roman Technology.", 2013)
They used concrete in the building of their buildings because it was super durable and lasted for a long time. Some of their buildings have been standing for hundreds of years. The reason they built so many fountains was they all have different uses. Some of the fountains were made to honor certain gods others were for washing close in and some were for the extra water from the aqueducts. They made amphitheatres so they could give plays in them and they also... | <urn:uuid:ace58101-6201-46b7-b4ed-32fc8a6066ae> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/what-s-the-design-of-roman-cities | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00290.warc.gz | en | 0.991428 | 469 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.06576461344957352,
0.048979613929986954,
0.5550340414047241,
0.18502254784107208,
-0.4171938896179199,
0.06425986438989639,
-0.3525286912918091,
0.1635051965713501,
-0.03907107189297676,
-0.2602691054344177,
-0.15755754709243774,
-0.2693499028682709,
-0.273224413394928,
-0.1919985711574... | 1 | Cities are built in different ways and one Question I have always wanted to know is what is the design of roman cities. This paper will tell you the answer to this question in form of three other questions. How did they build their cities? Why did they build them this way? and Do we still build cities this way?
When the Romans built their cities they always added aqueducts. They also made almost everything out of concrete and started using over 2100 years ago. They built lots of fountains all around the city in different sizes, shapes, and designs. They also had amphitheatres which were very big and they mostly only had one amphitheatres per city near the edge of the city. (“10 Innovations That Built Ancient Rome”, 2013)
More things they did when they built their cities were. They built walls around their major cities. The markets were in the middle of the city selling various items. Also they put two main roads in their cities. One heading north-south and the other heading east-west intersecting at the middle of the city called the forum. (“Roman Cities”, 2013)
The reason They built their cities this way was for function, protection, looks, and entertainment. here are some specific reasons for the certain things. They put aqueducts in their cities so they could have running water and be able to have public bathrooms and public baths. Their public baths had four stages. The first is the room where they get undressed, the second is where they stretched and put on oil ( they didn’t use soap), the third where they got in a super hot bath, and the last where they got in a super cold bath to cool down from the super hot one. ("Roman Technology.", 2013)
They used concrete in the building of their buildings because it was super durable and lasted for a long time. Some of their buildings have been standing for hundreds of years. The reason they built so many fountains was they all have different uses. Some of the fountains were made to honor certain gods others were for washing close in and some were for the extra water from the aqueducts. They made amphitheatres so they could give plays in them and they also... | 463 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In this essay I will explore to what degree the Salem witch trials in 1692 were the result of a gender based prejudice against women in general. I will be using three books which show the reasons people accused, people who accused, and everyone else involved in the trials as well as explanations. The books are written by female authors, all of which agree that the witch trials were sexist towards women in one way or another. Were women accused more because of existing beliefs in those times of the fallibility of the female sex to succumb to temptations? Because of apprehensions and fears of the changing role of women in society and the strict religious views of the Puritan population at that time? Were the witch hunts a manifestation of social, economics, demographic and psychological conflicts within the community? Was this caused by a mass hysteria at the time? The community of Salem had endured some harsh realities prior to and during the witch trials of 1692-1693. There was a changing government both at the colonial level as well as in England. They had endured harsh winters, fear of attacks from Indian Tribes as well as a growing divide between Salem Village and Salem Town.The reasons behind the witch accusations are merely subjective. In this investigation, the facts will be presented in order to help shape the readers idea and opinion based on the records and conclusions historians have produced. I will postulate that gender players a very significant role but was not the only factor that influenced the accusations, trials and executions of significantly more women than men.The Salem witch trials started early in 1692, after some young girls in Salem were said to be possessed by the devil and accused several locals of witchcraft. As a consequence of these accusations a special court was brought to Salem in order to hear the cases.Salem Village, where the witch hunt took place, was a little town in Massachusetts with no more than 600 residents. There was a political impasse between the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the English authorities, there were also economic tensions between Salem Town (who had 1400 residents) and Salem Village about the agricultural and commercial interests.Background information- the political and economic situation and the position of the female:Salem Village was a farming community which had the desire to become independent from Salem Town. The town had developed into an urban center where the port and businesses were an important part of the economy, unlike in the village. The villagers felt that the township’s people were losing their dedication to god and puritan ways and beliefs.Having your own church and parish minister was a very important step in gaining independence. Salem Village was eventually successful and so came Preacher Samuel Parris. The town had both religious and political authority over the Village, but about half of the residents in the village felt they shouldn’t be ruled by anyone other than themselves and Parris was the leader they had hoped for; he too wanted independence from Salem Town.The villagers who favored the independence surrounded and gathered around Parris and his friends, the Putnams, who owned most of the land used for farming in the village. The Putnams were entangled in a bitter feud with the Porter family. Thomas Putnam was left out of his family’s inheritance which had passed to his brother who then married into the rival Porter family. The Porter family became an important political and economic family in the town. Thomas Putnam himself made 43 accusations of witchcraft and his daughter Ann Putnam Jr. made 62 accusations.To what degree did gender play a role?Throughout history witchcraft has always been more typically associated with women. From the very earliest bible story of Adam and Eve women were portrayed to be more susceptible to surrender to temptation. Of the several hundred thousand people accused of witchcraft in Europe 85% of the accused were women. In New England between 1620 and 1725 of the 342 people that can be identified by sex 78% were female. The remaining percent that were men were usually “suspect by association”, in other words husbands, sons or even men who spoke out against the witch trials. A female accused in this period in New England was far more likely to be brought to trial (roughly 37% of women accused who brought to trial in contrast to 17% of the men accused). Throughout the Salem witch trials in Massachusetts, during the 17th century, 20 people were prosecuted and executed after being accused of witchcraft – 14 of those were women.Being female meant you were more susceptible to being considered a witch as the Puritans believed Satan was male and he assaulted the body through sexual transgressions, therefore eliminating the possibility that men could be assaulted by Satan. The witches’ familiars were thought to have “sucked at the breasts” which provided nourishment for their familiars and their imps. As women breastfed their infants, this reinforced the idea that there was a relationship between witches and females.Women tended to be surrounded by tasks that dealt with the survival of the community such as delivering babies, or being a healer. A witch was thought to interfere with the natural process of life and death, in some cases being by preventing conception, causing miscarriages, or delivering deformed babies. Midwives who delivered dead or unhealthy babies were also thought to be related to witchcraft in some way. On the other hand, women were also accused if they cured or relived people that were thought to be a lost cause and that couldn’t be cured by other doctors, as well as safely delivering infants that were not expected to survive. The medical knowledge of the time was reserved for learned and elite members of society making it impossible for women to achieve a medical degree. It was purely a man’s profession and only men were allowed access to this knowledge. The fact that women understood much more about the woman’s body, menstrual cycle and child birth ostracized and frightened the men who considered this knowledge by women as sinister. According to Mark C. Wallace, if a man had a grudge he would take action, whereas women didn’t have the ability and were restricted by their political and marital aspirations to act out on their feelings. Therefore, the assumption is that they had to take covert action which can be led to believe they participated in witchcraft. A case that can relate to this reason is Martha Corey, who, after disagreeing with her husband who was going to see one of the trials, was imprisoned and eventually accused of being a witch.In 1486, Dominicans Jacob Sprenger and Heinrich Kraemer released a book called Malleus Malificarum (translated as Hammer of the Witch). It re-enforced the concept of male superiority and prejudices against women as well as spread misogynistic ideas to the public. Historian Selma Williams examined the book and found multiple sexist statements in it: “A greater number of witches is found in the fragile feminine sex than among men”; “There are more women than men found infected with the heresy of witchcraft . . . blessed be the highest who has preserved the male sex from so great a crime”; “A woman is by her nature more quicker to waver in her faith and consequently quicker to abjure the faith, which is the root of witchcraft”. This spread fear and hatred against women and witches across the land. “If a woman dare to cure without having studied than she is a witch and must die”, according to Malleus Malificarum.As well as the fear and hatred against women, a slightly different attitude towards women in that period were expressed in two papers published nearly simultaneously by Cotton Mathers (one of the religious leaders of the Boston Colony), in 1692. In his first paper “Ornaments for the Daughters of Zion” The preface states that his purpose was to “…promote a fear of God in the female sex” (ed. The Devil in the shape of a woman p. 179). In his follow up paper where he referenced several testimonies from the Salem witch trials “Wonders of the Invisible World” he focuses on “Women’s complicity in Satan’s attempts to overthrow the churches of New England”.Why were people accused of witchcraft? Being financially independent as a woman during that time was dangerous. You were more susceptible to being accused than other women. The men in Bridget Bishop’s life weren’t always there; they were transitory, money, on the other hand, wasn’t. One day, a woman name Whatford, accused her of stealing a spoon in which Bridget scorned at her as she hadn’t in fact stolen anything. As retaliation, Whatford claimed that Bridget had taken her down to the beach and tried to drown her – another false accusation. She was the first woman to stand trial. The witnesses were mostly men who had come with complaints with erotic overtones: claiming she had snuck into their bedrooms late at night and tried to strangle them or, inserting things into their mouths, causing the death of their children and many more accusations. She was hung June tenth.According to records, the witch hunt started in the home of Reverend Samuel Parris, when his two young daughters suffered breakdowns, seizures and fits. The local doctor couldn’t come up with a medical explanation so he came to the conclusion that their condition was “The evil hand is upon them”, caused by witchcraft. Studies of the time have suggested that the reason for the girl’s behavior could have been caused by the virus Encephalitis Lethargica, however DNA testing of the remains of some of the population have disproven this theory. The surrounding neighbors, after hearing the news that the Reverends daughters were conditioned to witchcraft, started panicking, and unfortunately before eleven months had passed, twenty people were executed. The first accused during the Salem Witch Trials was Tituba Indian, a slave in the Parris household. Tituba was also the first to confess to witchcraft, and to admit to being part of a coven, in order to delay her sentence, this way there was a precedent pattern that would run the course of the trials – accused witches would confess and accuse another, therefore, validating the previous accusation and allowing the court to investigate further as they desire. It could be said that the trials only happened as a consequence of Tituba’s confession confirming the colonist’s underlying fears and giving them reason to investigate further.Some of the young women of Salem would practice fortune-telling which involved breaking an egg onto a plate and reading meaning into the shapes. This act was forbidden and if you were caught you would have to face punishment at home and occasionally humiliation at the church. In 1692 however, a physician cleared the young girls of guilt by proclaiming them the victims of witchcraft and sorcery. Nevertheless, being a victim of sorcery gave them a license to break rules. Girls who hadn’t gotten the attention they wanted now felt important and pitied as they were ‘victims of sorcery’. It is suggested that the reasons why people accused others of witchcraft tended to be because they were struggling with something, whether it be financial problems, marital prospects or other reasons. Abigail Faulkner is one of the many tragic cases that took place in Salem. In 1687 her father-in-law died leaving his son with the inheritance. Soon after, Abigail’s husband became too ill to be able to assume responsibility of his affairs, resulting in Abigail having no choice but to take charge of the family estate. Most men at that time were waiting for that kind of privilege which put a target in Abigail’s back – in 1692 Abi Faulkner was charged with witchcraft along with her two daughters, her sister, Elizabeth Johnson, her sister-in-law, Deliverance Dane, her two nieces and her nephew.It seems she was killed due to her independence and the privilege of taking charge of the family estate.Martha Carrier, whose son’s case will be mentioned further down, exhibited far too much independence for a woman of her status at her time. In 1690, she and her children caught smallpox which ended up spreading to her family and neighbors. 13 people ended up dying after this outbreak, 6 of them being of her family. Martha’s husband was now in line to inherit an estate, which made the villagers question whether the men in her family had died coincidently or if some form of witchcraft was being used by Martha. Once Salem’s afflicted girls caught sight of the situation Martha was in they immediately pounced. When she was brought to trial, she scolded the magistrates for believing the preposterous assertions these girls were making. “It is a shameful thing, that you should mind these folks that are out of their wits.” she cried. The girls started screaming in agony after Martha’s boldness. “All the afflicted fell into most intolerable outcries & agony” Reverend Samuel Parris wrote in his notes. The screeching was so excruciating that guards had to be called in to take Martha out of the courtroom. Between the status she held, the men that had died around her and, the way she objected in court, we’re all factors that led to her execution. “She died well,” said one observer. Another similar case to Martha Carriers was Martha Corey. Martha gave birth to a mulatto son in ’77 and spent ten years raising him while her husband brought up their white child. One night her husband wanted to watch the first witch suspects being question, which Martha criticized him for. Her husband left anyway and told everyone about her flare and on March 12th two church deacons came to her house. Eight days later, at her trial, Abigail Williams, one of the accusers, pointed her finger to the ceiling claiming that she could see Martha’s specter sitting on one of the beams with a yellow bird. She then continued to “follow the bird” with her finger down to the Reverends hat. Martha didn’t confess to anything, in fact, she denied ever being involved in witchcraft and claimed she was innocent over and over again. She was hung the 22nd of September due to her disagreement with her husband and, most likely, the fact that she gave birth to a mulatto son.Richard Carrier, 18, was tortured into confessing after he and his family (especially his mother) were accused of witchcraft. The church used a technique called ‘tied neck & heels’ which consisted in being strung up by the hands and feet, facing down. At first Richard refused to confess but after a while he changed his tune and confessed to signing Satan’s book, attending witch meetings and other dark activities. Not only did he confess, but he also accused several jailed suspects including his mother and aunt. He rapidly joined the accusers thinking that it was his only chance at survival although his plan backfired and he landed himself in prison along with his brother. Within a few weeks his sister and younger brother were also thrown in prison. Richard coached them in what to say in court. All siblings except Andrew, accused their mother. Upon conviction and execution of their mother (Martha Carrier, on August 19th 1692) they were all released from jail in 1693. The reason he was convicted is thought to be because his mother was accused and therefore everyone else believed maybe the family was a coven and they were all witches. Why did people accuse?History has the afflicted girls as selfish fakers who fueled the witchcraft trials out of boredom. This doesn’t seem to be the case for everyone, Ann Putman Jr., 12, was brought into the Salem witch hunt as her parents’ pawn. Her parents believed they were cursed as they were cheated out of their rightful inheritances and they endured the loss of seven new born children which, as a consequence, made them channel their frustrations into the witch hunt. Her parents and the minister fed her names. She appears in over 400 court documents in which she is listed as one of the “afflicted girls.”Taking into account the cases described above, there’s a similar pattern in all of them that drove the accusers to do what they did. They were discontent with something in their life and/or afraid. The reasons behind the accusations, as you can see and as in the examples mentioned above, are subjective – there are no reasonable explanations or justifications of the sort.Elizabeth Hubbard was the orphaned maidservant to Dr. William Griggs, who purchased Hubbard from Boston after the death of his son. Her age is unclear as some say she was born in 1674 and others say 1675. Hubbard experienced her first recorded fit on February 1, 1692. By the end of the trial Elizabeth Hubbard had testified against twenty-nine people, seventeen of whom were arrested, thirteen of those were hanged, and two died in jail. Those who were executed during the witch trials were mainly victims that refused to give in to the accusations or questioned the magistrate’s judgment on believing the afflicted. Most of the time they weren’t only accused of witchcraft – they tended to have previous accusations of adultery, fornication, and other sexual related crimes. Such as the case of Susannah Martin, who was accused of infanticide and tormenting people with her specter. The end of the trials:As 1692 passed into 1693, the hysteria began to lose steam. The governor of the colony, upon hearing that his wife was accused of witchcraft ordered an end to the trials. However, in total 20 people and two dogs were executed for the crime of witchcraft in Salem.It wasn’t until January 1697 that the General Court of Massachusetts would admit it’s mistake and mourn over the tragic losses that took place at the hand of the people of Salem. The court claimed the trials unlawful and judge Samuel Sewall apologized for the role he played throughout the arraignments. Massachusetts passed legislation to reestablish the names of the people condemned and provided financial help to their inheritors in 1711 in an attempt to heal the damage the Salem Witch Trials had caused throughout the colony.Conclusions: The Salem Witch Trials were the most controversial trials which prompted the incarceration and detainment of over 150 people, 19 of which were executed for witchcraft and one pressed to death because he refused to confess. Neither age, fortune, gender or church membership offered immunity from the accusations of witchcraft. According to the information and cases presented above, there is no single factor that led people to accuse, be accused, or be executed. The general prejudice towards women at the time is the reason that there were more women than men being accused and executed. The role that biased judgements against women played however can’t be disregarded.The general prejudice against women definitely was the main reason that there were more women than men being accused and executed. The social process that led to women being accused of being witches required that the townspeople as well as the religious authorities believed that women were more of a threat to society than men. To the clergy it was subversion of Creation and to the people it was a subversion of the sexual order. Accused women were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t: If they confessed to the witchcraft charges the confessions were used to prove the case against them; if they denied the charges it was seen as a refusal to admit sin which could mark them as sinners and allies of the devil.Religion also played an almost equally important role during the accusations and trials.The fear of the devil that filled the colony reflected itself on the way the magistrates and tribunals reacted and handled the witch situation. The Puritans goal was to purify the organization of the church and rid it of the devil. In this regard the deferred to the bible with regards to witch craft, ¨Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live¨(book of Exodus). As mentioned before, the puritans wanted to rid the church of the devil, this can be related to the fact that they see females to be the more susceptible, fragile sex and more likely to fall under the Devils temptation. The reason behind this can be because of Eve, who fell under the temptation in the garden of Eden and ate the forbidden fruit. Economic factors also played a role, as women tended to rely on the male for financial help, in the cases that they were financially independent they became a target for the witch trials, such as the cases of Karlsen, who had no male heirs; Abigail Faulkner, who took charge of the family estate when her husband became ill and; Susannah Martin, who had an ongoing court dispute over her father’s will. It was uncommon for women to be able to survive by themselves, let alone take care of a family. It wasn’t so much the economic class of the women accused as it was their economic independence.The political situation Salem Village was suffering during that time which also influenced a large amount in the trials, especially in the early stages of it all as it began in the house of the new minister Samuel Parris. He was instrumental in the village’s drive towards independence from the township. Parris was a failed merchant who had lost his family inheritance through mismanagement. His position of some importance in Salem village was his last chance at dignity and financial security. The trials were fueled by jealousy, hatred, and boredom. People turned against each other, family members turned on each other, marriages were torn apart and people lost their lives – those were the consequences of the Salem Witch Trials.In order to gather information for this investigation, I investigated multiple sources online as well as three books in order to get a wider grasp and more perspectives of the situation to try and understand all visions. And, although, I thought it would be easy to find reliable information in books and articles, I have found limitations that have made my investigation harder than I expected. The limitations, not only for my investigation but for everyone relying on another source, depends mostly on the fact that no-one will ever know with absolute certainty the exact happenings of the past, which is why it’s difficult to get reliable information for investigations without it being biased or influenced in some way. Another limitation I found is that archived-based history may lack certain specific data available, that would be useful for an analysis, that no longer can be collected which creates a challenge in the reliability and accuracy of the investigation. The reliability of a source will depend on the author, the time the source came about and the region, as well as its acceptance among scholars as well as academic publications.In my opinion, nothing is unbiased whether we like it or not. People remember things how they want to which as a consequence makes historical events biased. All versions of history are viable but not 100% accurate. | <urn:uuid:ec162881-eded-4edc-a0a8-c34574fd469e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://firstnightdanbury.org/in-of-witchcraft-as-a-consequence-of/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251728207.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127205148-20200127235148-00327.warc.gz | en | 0.988926 | 4,701 | 3.625 | 4 | [
0.07377315312623978,
0.341192364692688,
0.10119480639696121,
0.23120732605457306,
0.15938884019851685,
0.2861821949481964,
0.24275457859039307,
-0.009535588324069977,
-0.26978594064712524,
0.0798344761133194,
-0.14313307404518127,
0.04850546643137932,
-0.6168839931488037,
0.220391407608985... | 2 | In this essay I will explore to what degree the Salem witch trials in 1692 were the result of a gender based prejudice against women in general. I will be using three books which show the reasons people accused, people who accused, and everyone else involved in the trials as well as explanations. The books are written by female authors, all of which agree that the witch trials were sexist towards women in one way or another. Were women accused more because of existing beliefs in those times of the fallibility of the female sex to succumb to temptations? Because of apprehensions and fears of the changing role of women in society and the strict religious views of the Puritan population at that time? Were the witch hunts a manifestation of social, economics, demographic and psychological conflicts within the community? Was this caused by a mass hysteria at the time? The community of Salem had endured some harsh realities prior to and during the witch trials of 1692-1693. There was a changing government both at the colonial level as well as in England. They had endured harsh winters, fear of attacks from Indian Tribes as well as a growing divide between Salem Village and Salem Town.The reasons behind the witch accusations are merely subjective. In this investigation, the facts will be presented in order to help shape the readers idea and opinion based on the records and conclusions historians have produced. I will postulate that gender players a very significant role but was not the only factor that influenced the accusations, trials and executions of significantly more women than men.The Salem witch trials started early in 1692, after some young girls in Salem were said to be possessed by the devil and accused several locals of witchcraft. As a consequence of these accusations a special court was brought to Salem in order to hear the cases.Salem Village, where the witch hunt took place, was a little town in Massachusetts with no more than 600 residents. There was a political impasse between the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the English authorities, there were also economic tensions between Salem Town (who had 1400 residents) and Salem Village about the agricultural and commercial interests.Background information- the political and economic situation and the position of the female:Salem Village was a farming community which had the desire to become independent from Salem Town. The town had developed into an urban center where the port and businesses were an important part of the economy, unlike in the village. The villagers felt that the township’s people were losing their dedication to god and puritan ways and beliefs.Having your own church and parish minister was a very important step in gaining independence. Salem Village was eventually successful and so came Preacher Samuel Parris. The town had both religious and political authority over the Village, but about half of the residents in the village felt they shouldn’t be ruled by anyone other than themselves and Parris was the leader they had hoped for; he too wanted independence from Salem Town.The villagers who favored the independence surrounded and gathered around Parris and his friends, the Putnams, who owned most of the land used for farming in the village. The Putnams were entangled in a bitter feud with the Porter family. Thomas Putnam was left out of his family’s inheritance which had passed to his brother who then married into the rival Porter family. The Porter family became an important political and economic family in the town. Thomas Putnam himself made 43 accusations of witchcraft and his daughter Ann Putnam Jr. made 62 accusations.To what degree did gender play a role?Throughout history witchcraft has always been more typically associated with women. From the very earliest bible story of Adam and Eve women were portrayed to be more susceptible to surrender to temptation. Of the several hundred thousand people accused of witchcraft in Europe 85% of the accused were women. In New England between 1620 and 1725 of the 342 people that can be identified by sex 78% were female. The remaining percent that were men were usually “suspect by association”, in other words husbands, sons or even men who spoke out against the witch trials. A female accused in this period in New England was far more likely to be brought to trial (roughly 37% of women accused who brought to trial in contrast to 17% of the men accused). Throughout the Salem witch trials in Massachusetts, during the 17th century, 20 people were prosecuted and executed after being accused of witchcraft – 14 of those were women.Being female meant you were more susceptible to being considered a witch as the Puritans believed Satan was male and he assaulted the body through sexual transgressions, therefore eliminating the possibility that men could be assaulted by Satan. The witches’ familiars were thought to have “sucked at the breasts” which provided nourishment for their familiars and their imps. As women breastfed their infants, this reinforced the idea that there was a relationship between witches and females.Women tended to be surrounded by tasks that dealt with the survival of the community such as delivering babies, or being a healer. A witch was thought to interfere with the natural process of life and death, in some cases being by preventing conception, causing miscarriages, or delivering deformed babies. Midwives who delivered dead or unhealthy babies were also thought to be related to witchcraft in some way. On the other hand, women were also accused if they cured or relived people that were thought to be a lost cause and that couldn’t be cured by other doctors, as well as safely delivering infants that were not expected to survive. The medical knowledge of the time was reserved for learned and elite members of society making it impossible for women to achieve a medical degree. It was purely a man’s profession and only men were allowed access to this knowledge. The fact that women understood much more about the woman’s body, menstrual cycle and child birth ostracized and frightened the men who considered this knowledge by women as sinister. According to Mark C. Wallace, if a man had a grudge he would take action, whereas women didn’t have the ability and were restricted by their political and marital aspirations to act out on their feelings. Therefore, the assumption is that they had to take covert action which can be led to believe they participated in witchcraft. A case that can relate to this reason is Martha Corey, who, after disagreeing with her husband who was going to see one of the trials, was imprisoned and eventually accused of being a witch.In 1486, Dominicans Jacob Sprenger and Heinrich Kraemer released a book called Malleus Malificarum (translated as Hammer of the Witch). It re-enforced the concept of male superiority and prejudices against women as well as spread misogynistic ideas to the public. Historian Selma Williams examined the book and found multiple sexist statements in it: “A greater number of witches is found in the fragile feminine sex than among men”; “There are more women than men found infected with the heresy of witchcraft . . . blessed be the highest who has preserved the male sex from so great a crime”; “A woman is by her nature more quicker to waver in her faith and consequently quicker to abjure the faith, which is the root of witchcraft”. This spread fear and hatred against women and witches across the land. “If a woman dare to cure without having studied than she is a witch and must die”, according to Malleus Malificarum.As well as the fear and hatred against women, a slightly different attitude towards women in that period were expressed in two papers published nearly simultaneously by Cotton Mathers (one of the religious leaders of the Boston Colony), in 1692. In his first paper “Ornaments for the Daughters of Zion” The preface states that his purpose was to “…promote a fear of God in the female sex” (ed. The Devil in the shape of a woman p. 179). In his follow up paper where he referenced several testimonies from the Salem witch trials “Wonders of the Invisible World” he focuses on “Women’s complicity in Satan’s attempts to overthrow the churches of New England”.Why were people accused of witchcraft? Being financially independent as a woman during that time was dangerous. You were more susceptible to being accused than other women. The men in Bridget Bishop’s life weren’t always there; they were transitory, money, on the other hand, wasn’t. One day, a woman name Whatford, accused her of stealing a spoon in which Bridget scorned at her as she hadn’t in fact stolen anything. As retaliation, Whatford claimed that Bridget had taken her down to the beach and tried to drown her – another false accusation. She was the first woman to stand trial. The witnesses were mostly men who had come with complaints with erotic overtones: claiming she had snuck into their bedrooms late at night and tried to strangle them or, inserting things into their mouths, causing the death of their children and many more accusations. She was hung June tenth.According to records, the witch hunt started in the home of Reverend Samuel Parris, when his two young daughters suffered breakdowns, seizures and fits. The local doctor couldn’t come up with a medical explanation so he came to the conclusion that their condition was “The evil hand is upon them”, caused by witchcraft. Studies of the time have suggested that the reason for the girl’s behavior could have been caused by the virus Encephalitis Lethargica, however DNA testing of the remains of some of the population have disproven this theory. The surrounding neighbors, after hearing the news that the Reverends daughters were conditioned to witchcraft, started panicking, and unfortunately before eleven months had passed, twenty people were executed. The first accused during the Salem Witch Trials was Tituba Indian, a slave in the Parris household. Tituba was also the first to confess to witchcraft, and to admit to being part of a coven, in order to delay her sentence, this way there was a precedent pattern that would run the course of the trials – accused witches would confess and accuse another, therefore, validating the previous accusation and allowing the court to investigate further as they desire. It could be said that the trials only happened as a consequence of Tituba’s confession confirming the colonist’s underlying fears and giving them reason to investigate further.Some of the young women of Salem would practice fortune-telling which involved breaking an egg onto a plate and reading meaning into the shapes. This act was forbidden and if you were caught you would have to face punishment at home and occasionally humiliation at the church. In 1692 however, a physician cleared the young girls of guilt by proclaiming them the victims of witchcraft and sorcery. Nevertheless, being a victim of sorcery gave them a license to break rules. Girls who hadn’t gotten the attention they wanted now felt important and pitied as they were ‘victims of sorcery’. It is suggested that the reasons why people accused others of witchcraft tended to be because they were struggling with something, whether it be financial problems, marital prospects or other reasons. Abigail Faulkner is one of the many tragic cases that took place in Salem. In 1687 her father-in-law died leaving his son with the inheritance. Soon after, Abigail’s husband became too ill to be able to assume responsibility of his affairs, resulting in Abigail having no choice but to take charge of the family estate. Most men at that time were waiting for that kind of privilege which put a target in Abigail’s back – in 1692 Abi Faulkner was charged with witchcraft along with her two daughters, her sister, Elizabeth Johnson, her sister-in-law, Deliverance Dane, her two nieces and her nephew.It seems she was killed due to her independence and the privilege of taking charge of the family estate.Martha Carrier, whose son’s case will be mentioned further down, exhibited far too much independence for a woman of her status at her time. In 1690, she and her children caught smallpox which ended up spreading to her family and neighbors. 13 people ended up dying after this outbreak, 6 of them being of her family. Martha’s husband was now in line to inherit an estate, which made the villagers question whether the men in her family had died coincidently or if some form of witchcraft was being used by Martha. Once Salem’s afflicted girls caught sight of the situation Martha was in they immediately pounced. When she was brought to trial, she scolded the magistrates for believing the preposterous assertions these girls were making. “It is a shameful thing, that you should mind these folks that are out of their wits.” she cried. The girls started screaming in agony after Martha’s boldness. “All the afflicted fell into most intolerable outcries & agony” Reverend Samuel Parris wrote in his notes. The screeching was so excruciating that guards had to be called in to take Martha out of the courtroom. Between the status she held, the men that had died around her and, the way she objected in court, we’re all factors that led to her execution. “She died well,” said one observer. Another similar case to Martha Carriers was Martha Corey. Martha gave birth to a mulatto son in ’77 and spent ten years raising him while her husband brought up their white child. One night her husband wanted to watch the first witch suspects being question, which Martha criticized him for. Her husband left anyway and told everyone about her flare and on March 12th two church deacons came to her house. Eight days later, at her trial, Abigail Williams, one of the accusers, pointed her finger to the ceiling claiming that she could see Martha’s specter sitting on one of the beams with a yellow bird. She then continued to “follow the bird” with her finger down to the Reverends hat. Martha didn’t confess to anything, in fact, she denied ever being involved in witchcraft and claimed she was innocent over and over again. She was hung the 22nd of September due to her disagreement with her husband and, most likely, the fact that she gave birth to a mulatto son.Richard Carrier, 18, was tortured into confessing after he and his family (especially his mother) were accused of witchcraft. The church used a technique called ‘tied neck & heels’ which consisted in being strung up by the hands and feet, facing down. At first Richard refused to confess but after a while he changed his tune and confessed to signing Satan’s book, attending witch meetings and other dark activities. Not only did he confess, but he also accused several jailed suspects including his mother and aunt. He rapidly joined the accusers thinking that it was his only chance at survival although his plan backfired and he landed himself in prison along with his brother. Within a few weeks his sister and younger brother were also thrown in prison. Richard coached them in what to say in court. All siblings except Andrew, accused their mother. Upon conviction and execution of their mother (Martha Carrier, on August 19th 1692) they were all released from jail in 1693. The reason he was convicted is thought to be because his mother was accused and therefore everyone else believed maybe the family was a coven and they were all witches. Why did people accuse?History has the afflicted girls as selfish fakers who fueled the witchcraft trials out of boredom. This doesn’t seem to be the case for everyone, Ann Putman Jr., 12, was brought into the Salem witch hunt as her parents’ pawn. Her parents believed they were cursed as they were cheated out of their rightful inheritances and they endured the loss of seven new born children which, as a consequence, made them channel their frustrations into the witch hunt. Her parents and the minister fed her names. She appears in over 400 court documents in which she is listed as one of the “afflicted girls.”Taking into account the cases described above, there’s a similar pattern in all of them that drove the accusers to do what they did. They were discontent with something in their life and/or afraid. The reasons behind the accusations, as you can see and as in the examples mentioned above, are subjective – there are no reasonable explanations or justifications of the sort.Elizabeth Hubbard was the orphaned maidservant to Dr. William Griggs, who purchased Hubbard from Boston after the death of his son. Her age is unclear as some say she was born in 1674 and others say 1675. Hubbard experienced her first recorded fit on February 1, 1692. By the end of the trial Elizabeth Hubbard had testified against twenty-nine people, seventeen of whom were arrested, thirteen of those were hanged, and two died in jail. Those who were executed during the witch trials were mainly victims that refused to give in to the accusations or questioned the magistrate’s judgment on believing the afflicted. Most of the time they weren’t only accused of witchcraft – they tended to have previous accusations of adultery, fornication, and other sexual related crimes. Such as the case of Susannah Martin, who was accused of infanticide and tormenting people with her specter. The end of the trials:As 1692 passed into 1693, the hysteria began to lose steam. The governor of the colony, upon hearing that his wife was accused of witchcraft ordered an end to the trials. However, in total 20 people and two dogs were executed for the crime of witchcraft in Salem.It wasn’t until January 1697 that the General Court of Massachusetts would admit it’s mistake and mourn over the tragic losses that took place at the hand of the people of Salem. The court claimed the trials unlawful and judge Samuel Sewall apologized for the role he played throughout the arraignments. Massachusetts passed legislation to reestablish the names of the people condemned and provided financial help to their inheritors in 1711 in an attempt to heal the damage the Salem Witch Trials had caused throughout the colony.Conclusions: The Salem Witch Trials were the most controversial trials which prompted the incarceration and detainment of over 150 people, 19 of which were executed for witchcraft and one pressed to death because he refused to confess. Neither age, fortune, gender or church membership offered immunity from the accusations of witchcraft. According to the information and cases presented above, there is no single factor that led people to accuse, be accused, or be executed. The general prejudice towards women at the time is the reason that there were more women than men being accused and executed. The role that biased judgements against women played however can’t be disregarded.The general prejudice against women definitely was the main reason that there were more women than men being accused and executed. The social process that led to women being accused of being witches required that the townspeople as well as the religious authorities believed that women were more of a threat to society than men. To the clergy it was subversion of Creation and to the people it was a subversion of the sexual order. Accused women were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t: If they confessed to the witchcraft charges the confessions were used to prove the case against them; if they denied the charges it was seen as a refusal to admit sin which could mark them as sinners and allies of the devil.Religion also played an almost equally important role during the accusations and trials.The fear of the devil that filled the colony reflected itself on the way the magistrates and tribunals reacted and handled the witch situation. The Puritans goal was to purify the organization of the church and rid it of the devil. In this regard the deferred to the bible with regards to witch craft, ¨Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live¨(book of Exodus). As mentioned before, the puritans wanted to rid the church of the devil, this can be related to the fact that they see females to be the more susceptible, fragile sex and more likely to fall under the Devils temptation. The reason behind this can be because of Eve, who fell under the temptation in the garden of Eden and ate the forbidden fruit. Economic factors also played a role, as women tended to rely on the male for financial help, in the cases that they were financially independent they became a target for the witch trials, such as the cases of Karlsen, who had no male heirs; Abigail Faulkner, who took charge of the family estate when her husband became ill and; Susannah Martin, who had an ongoing court dispute over her father’s will. It was uncommon for women to be able to survive by themselves, let alone take care of a family. It wasn’t so much the economic class of the women accused as it was their economic independence.The political situation Salem Village was suffering during that time which also influenced a large amount in the trials, especially in the early stages of it all as it began in the house of the new minister Samuel Parris. He was instrumental in the village’s drive towards independence from the township. Parris was a failed merchant who had lost his family inheritance through mismanagement. His position of some importance in Salem village was his last chance at dignity and financial security. The trials were fueled by jealousy, hatred, and boredom. People turned against each other, family members turned on each other, marriages were torn apart and people lost their lives – those were the consequences of the Salem Witch Trials.In order to gather information for this investigation, I investigated multiple sources online as well as three books in order to get a wider grasp and more perspectives of the situation to try and understand all visions. And, although, I thought it would be easy to find reliable information in books and articles, I have found limitations that have made my investigation harder than I expected. The limitations, not only for my investigation but for everyone relying on another source, depends mostly on the fact that no-one will ever know with absolute certainty the exact happenings of the past, which is why it’s difficult to get reliable information for investigations without it being biased or influenced in some way. Another limitation I found is that archived-based history may lack certain specific data available, that would be useful for an analysis, that no longer can be collected which creates a challenge in the reliability and accuracy of the investigation. The reliability of a source will depend on the author, the time the source came about and the region, as well as its acceptance among scholars as well as academic publications.In my opinion, nothing is unbiased whether we like it or not. People remember things how they want to which as a consequence makes historical events biased. All versions of history are viable but not 100% accurate. | 4,700 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Under the provisions, the place of its fifth member was reserved for a law qualified person.
Apart from this, the Act authorized the Governor-General to nominate a President who was to preside over the meetings of the Executive Council in his absence.
The Governor-General was also given the power to make rules and regulations for the conduct of the business of the Executive Council i.e. he was accorded authority to enact rules deemed fit by him.
The Governor-General had the right of increasing the strength of the Council by adding not less than 6 and not more than 12 members.
They were to be nominated by him for purposes of legislation. Half of the additional members were to be non-officials and were to hold office for two years.
The function of the Council was strictly limited to legislation. The Act forebaded the transactions of any other business.
The administrative departments were entrusted to different members, who were answerable to the Viceroy whose advice was sought before taking any decision on the departmental problems.
Indian Councils Act of 1861, provided that the Governments of Bombay and Madras be given power of nominating the Advocate-General and not less than 4 and not more than 8 additional members were to hold office for two years.
According to the Act, there was no distinction between the Central and Provincial subjects. The Central Government dealt with the subjects like Public Debt, Finance, Post Office, Telegraph, Religion etc.
The Act provided for creation of new provinces by the Governor-General. He was also authorized to divide or alter the limits of any presidency, province or territory.
Apart from this he was given the power to appoint Lieutenant Governors. The Act provided for issuance of Ordinances by the Governor and it could remain in force for a maximum of 6 months.
Although the Indian Council Act of 1861 marked an important step in the constitutional history of India it had no relation with the problems of general public.
It greatly helped the Governor-General in enacting legislation and made the Governor-General omnipotent. It brought the whole of India under his control, but the Act had to face opposition from the Indians.
Subsequently, an Amendment Bill was presented in the House of Lords, from the advice of Lord Crop, Secretary of State for India and it was passed in 1892 as the Indian Council Act. | <urn:uuid:76ac3bc5-a5f2-4c61-a603-00f4bfda2195> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://lucasdipasquale.com/indian-council-act-1861-summary/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00078.warc.gz | en | 0.986465 | 478 | 3.984375 | 4 | [
-0.5415497422218323,
0.04408349096775055,
0.361802339553833,
-0.4494260549545288,
-0.47337985038757324,
0.1575048416852951,
0.580522894859314,
-0.2862987816333771,
-0.026087885722517967,
0.03682725131511688,
0.24114784598350525,
0.0874156653881073,
0.22930483520030975,
0.3612268269062042,
... | 2 | Under the provisions, the place of its fifth member was reserved for a law qualified person.
Apart from this, the Act authorized the Governor-General to nominate a President who was to preside over the meetings of the Executive Council in his absence.
The Governor-General was also given the power to make rules and regulations for the conduct of the business of the Executive Council i.e. he was accorded authority to enact rules deemed fit by him.
The Governor-General had the right of increasing the strength of the Council by adding not less than 6 and not more than 12 members.
They were to be nominated by him for purposes of legislation. Half of the additional members were to be non-officials and were to hold office for two years.
The function of the Council was strictly limited to legislation. The Act forebaded the transactions of any other business.
The administrative departments were entrusted to different members, who were answerable to the Viceroy whose advice was sought before taking any decision on the departmental problems.
Indian Councils Act of 1861, provided that the Governments of Bombay and Madras be given power of nominating the Advocate-General and not less than 4 and not more than 8 additional members were to hold office for two years.
According to the Act, there was no distinction between the Central and Provincial subjects. The Central Government dealt with the subjects like Public Debt, Finance, Post Office, Telegraph, Religion etc.
The Act provided for creation of new provinces by the Governor-General. He was also authorized to divide or alter the limits of any presidency, province or territory.
Apart from this he was given the power to appoint Lieutenant Governors. The Act provided for issuance of Ordinances by the Governor and it could remain in force for a maximum of 6 months.
Although the Indian Council Act of 1861 marked an important step in the constitutional history of India it had no relation with the problems of general public.
It greatly helped the Governor-General in enacting legislation and made the Governor-General omnipotent. It brought the whole of India under his control, but the Act had to face opposition from the Indians.
Subsequently, an Amendment Bill was presented in the House of Lords, from the advice of Lord Crop, Secretary of State for India and it was passed in 1892 as the Indian Council Act. | 475 | ENGLISH | 1 |
- Birth of Karl Renner in Unter-Tannowitz, Austria-Hungary (now in the Czech Republic). Renner was the first chancellor of the Austrian Republic after WWI. On September 10, 1919, he signed the Treaty of Saint Germain which specifically prohibited a union with Germany. In 1938, he was a leading supporter of Germany’s annexation of Austria. In 1945, he worked closely with Soviet officials to reestablish an Austrian government and became the first post-war chancellor in April, 1945. On December 20, 1945 he was elected president by the Austrian Reichsrat.
- Birth of Kurt von Schuschnigg in Riva del Garda, Austria-Hungary (now in Italy). Von Schuschnigg was the Austrian chancellor at the time of the annexation by Germany. He had struggled against the growing Nazi influence in Austria and the coming annexation but ultimately failed. He was forced to resign on March 11, 1938 as Germany entered the country and was imprisoned until the end of WWII. | <urn:uuid:65e7917a-4a4b-41fd-a1f4-e4729fb0bd90> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://historicalsocietyofgermanmilitaryhistory.com/14-december-today-in-german-history/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594705.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119180644-20200119204644-00532.warc.gz | en | 0.984589 | 208 | 3.71875 | 4 | [
-0.05647934228181839,
0.719916045665741,
-0.2072380930185318,
-0.22920861840248108,
-0.05827988311648369,
0.043072089552879333,
-0.16489623486995697,
0.0969698578119278,
0.05681043863296509,
0.336791455745697,
0.27584215998649597,
-0.4512259066104889,
0.21508605778217316,
0.351747006177902... | 2 | - Birth of Karl Renner in Unter-Tannowitz, Austria-Hungary (now in the Czech Republic). Renner was the first chancellor of the Austrian Republic after WWI. On September 10, 1919, he signed the Treaty of Saint Germain which specifically prohibited a union with Germany. In 1938, he was a leading supporter of Germany’s annexation of Austria. In 1945, he worked closely with Soviet officials to reestablish an Austrian government and became the first post-war chancellor in April, 1945. On December 20, 1945 he was elected president by the Austrian Reichsrat.
- Birth of Kurt von Schuschnigg in Riva del Garda, Austria-Hungary (now in Italy). Von Schuschnigg was the Austrian chancellor at the time of the annexation by Germany. He had struggled against the growing Nazi influence in Austria and the coming annexation but ultimately failed. He was forced to resign on March 11, 1938 as Germany entered the country and was imprisoned until the end of WWII. | 235 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Benito Mussolini was an Italian politician, journalist, and leader of the National Fascist Party who is commonly recognized as the founding figure of Italian Fascism. Mussolini was one of the dictators in 20th century Europe who left a lasting legacy. He enjoyed power as the nation’s Prime Minister from 1922 until his decline in 1945 during the Second World War.
Benito Mussolini was born on July 29, 1883, to Alessandro Mussolini and Rosa Maltoni. His father practiced as a blacksmith and was a Socialist while his mother was a Catholic school teacher. His birthplace is Dovia di Predappio in Romagna, Italy. He grew up helping his father in his craft and was influenced by his father’s admiration for Italian nationalist figures such as Giuseppe Garibaldi and Carlo Pisacane. Benito recorded high grades while studying at a boarding school operated by Salesian Monks and became a qualified elementary schoolmaster in 1901. After moving to Switzerland in 1902, he worked briefly as a stonemason. During this time, Mussolini became exposed to the works of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the ideas of syndicalists such as Georges Sorel and Hubert Lagardelle. He mingled with Italian Socialists but was deported in 1903 for encouraging a general strike. Mussolini returned to Switzerland and took classes at the University of Lausanne in the Department of Social Sciences. Mussolini came back to Italy to take advantage of amnesty for desertion, because he had been convicted in absentia. The condition of being pardoned was to serve in the army, and on December, 1904, he joined the military and served for two years before returning to teaching.
Rise to Power
Mussolini left for Trento, an Italian-speaking city which was part of Austria-Hungary. He got involved with the local Socialist Party and edited its newspaper. After spending a little time in Milan, he settled in his hometown of Forli and took on an editing job in the weekly ‘Lotta di Classe’ which translates to The Class Struggle. He immersed himself in political philosophy written in German and French and published several works. Mussolini established himself as one of the most prominent socialists in the country and even took part in a riot organized by socialists protesting the Italian war in Libya, for which he got a five-month jail term. The Socialist Party awarded him with the editorship of its newspaper Avanti! after he helped the party expel two ‘revisionists’ who were for the war. Mussolini published Giovanni Hus, il veridico which translates to Jan Hus, the true prophet. During World War I, he became at loggerheads with socialists who opposed the war and was subsequently expelled from the party. In 1914, Mussolini established an independent newspaper called Popolo d’Italia and a political movement named the Autonomous Fascists. He warmed up to the extreme middle-class youth and the new breed in Italian politics. He formed the Revolutionary Fascists movement in 1917, but his political career stagnated after World War I. He was elected to Parliament in 1921 after which the National Fascist Party was founded with Mussolini at its helm. Mussolini marched into Rome on October 1922 with the support of key demographics such as farmers and industrial workers as well as the church and military. He worked to consolidate his power as the new Prime Minister.
The elections of April 6, 1924, sparked criticism from Giacomo Matteotti, who suggested that the results be annulled due to irregularities. Matteotti was subsequently assassinated, and the event triggered a crisis in Mussolini’s government. Amerigo Dumini served a two-year jail term and upon getting out, said Mussolini had ordered the assassination. Dumini was imprisoned again, but his declaration led to many moderates, socialists, and liberals boycotting Parliament in the hope that Victor Emmanuel would dismiss Mussolini. Mussolini’s economic reforms did little to improve the country’s economic situation.
As Prime Minister, Mussolini geared up to acquire territories and make Italy the most dominant power in the region. He spearheaded numerous government reforms to improve the country’s economy such as establishing new farms and agricultural towns and reclaiming lands. Mussolini made alliances with the Catholic Church after decades of alienation. He signed the Lateran Treaty in 1929 which affirmed the Vatican’s status as an independent state. He also developed cordial relations with Adolf Hitler which culminated in the 1939 Pact of Steel military alliance between the two nations.
Death and Legacy
Mussolini’s decline came during the Second World War as the Allies were making gains in the invasion of Italy, Mussolini was summoned by King Victor Emmanuel, under whose orders he was arrested. He was rescued by German forces and created a new regime called the Italian Social Republic. Mussolini, in the company of his mistress Clara Petacci, was captured by communist partisans on April 27, 1945, while advancing to Switzerland. He was shot the following day, and his remains lie in San Cassiano Cemetery in Predappio. Alessandra Mussolini is an active politician from the Mussolini family, being the daughter of Benito Mussolini’s fourth son, Romano Mussolini. Several neo-fascist parties have been formed since Mussolini’s death including the Italian Social Movement and the People of Freedom, both of which no longer exist.
Where Was Mussolini Born?
Benito Mussolini was born on July 29, 1883, to Alessandro Mussolini and Rosa Maltoni. His father practiced as a blacksmith and was a Socialist while his mother was a Catholic school teacher. His birthplace is Dovia di Predappio in Romagna, Italy.
About the Author
Benjamin Elisha Sawe holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Statistics and an MBA in Strategic Management. He is a frequent World Atlas contributor.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | <urn:uuid:35406c4c-6d96-45d1-8dbb-6ea44fee360c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/benito-mussolini-people-in-history.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00555.warc.gz | en | 0.98312 | 1,248 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
-0.4181290864944458,
0.7774943709373474,
-0.01594221219420433,
-0.25913071632385254,
-0.4632300138473511,
0.1982763111591339,
0.46856653690338135,
0.06778636574745178,
-0.15998125076293945,
-0.09320588409900665,
0.1854655146598816,
0.037454865872859955,
0.5275578498840332,
0.74842166900634... | 2 | Benito Mussolini was an Italian politician, journalist, and leader of the National Fascist Party who is commonly recognized as the founding figure of Italian Fascism. Mussolini was one of the dictators in 20th century Europe who left a lasting legacy. He enjoyed power as the nation’s Prime Minister from 1922 until his decline in 1945 during the Second World War.
Benito Mussolini was born on July 29, 1883, to Alessandro Mussolini and Rosa Maltoni. His father practiced as a blacksmith and was a Socialist while his mother was a Catholic school teacher. His birthplace is Dovia di Predappio in Romagna, Italy. He grew up helping his father in his craft and was influenced by his father’s admiration for Italian nationalist figures such as Giuseppe Garibaldi and Carlo Pisacane. Benito recorded high grades while studying at a boarding school operated by Salesian Monks and became a qualified elementary schoolmaster in 1901. After moving to Switzerland in 1902, he worked briefly as a stonemason. During this time, Mussolini became exposed to the works of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the ideas of syndicalists such as Georges Sorel and Hubert Lagardelle. He mingled with Italian Socialists but was deported in 1903 for encouraging a general strike. Mussolini returned to Switzerland and took classes at the University of Lausanne in the Department of Social Sciences. Mussolini came back to Italy to take advantage of amnesty for desertion, because he had been convicted in absentia. The condition of being pardoned was to serve in the army, and on December, 1904, he joined the military and served for two years before returning to teaching.
Rise to Power
Mussolini left for Trento, an Italian-speaking city which was part of Austria-Hungary. He got involved with the local Socialist Party and edited its newspaper. After spending a little time in Milan, he settled in his hometown of Forli and took on an editing job in the weekly ‘Lotta di Classe’ which translates to The Class Struggle. He immersed himself in political philosophy written in German and French and published several works. Mussolini established himself as one of the most prominent socialists in the country and even took part in a riot organized by socialists protesting the Italian war in Libya, for which he got a five-month jail term. The Socialist Party awarded him with the editorship of its newspaper Avanti! after he helped the party expel two ‘revisionists’ who were for the war. Mussolini published Giovanni Hus, il veridico which translates to Jan Hus, the true prophet. During World War I, he became at loggerheads with socialists who opposed the war and was subsequently expelled from the party. In 1914, Mussolini established an independent newspaper called Popolo d’Italia and a political movement named the Autonomous Fascists. He warmed up to the extreme middle-class youth and the new breed in Italian politics. He formed the Revolutionary Fascists movement in 1917, but his political career stagnated after World War I. He was elected to Parliament in 1921 after which the National Fascist Party was founded with Mussolini at its helm. Mussolini marched into Rome on October 1922 with the support of key demographics such as farmers and industrial workers as well as the church and military. He worked to consolidate his power as the new Prime Minister.
The elections of April 6, 1924, sparked criticism from Giacomo Matteotti, who suggested that the results be annulled due to irregularities. Matteotti was subsequently assassinated, and the event triggered a crisis in Mussolini’s government. Amerigo Dumini served a two-year jail term and upon getting out, said Mussolini had ordered the assassination. Dumini was imprisoned again, but his declaration led to many moderates, socialists, and liberals boycotting Parliament in the hope that Victor Emmanuel would dismiss Mussolini. Mussolini’s economic reforms did little to improve the country’s economic situation.
As Prime Minister, Mussolini geared up to acquire territories and make Italy the most dominant power in the region. He spearheaded numerous government reforms to improve the country’s economy such as establishing new farms and agricultural towns and reclaiming lands. Mussolini made alliances with the Catholic Church after decades of alienation. He signed the Lateran Treaty in 1929 which affirmed the Vatican’s status as an independent state. He also developed cordial relations with Adolf Hitler which culminated in the 1939 Pact of Steel military alliance between the two nations.
Death and Legacy
Mussolini’s decline came during the Second World War as the Allies were making gains in the invasion of Italy, Mussolini was summoned by King Victor Emmanuel, under whose orders he was arrested. He was rescued by German forces and created a new regime called the Italian Social Republic. Mussolini, in the company of his mistress Clara Petacci, was captured by communist partisans on April 27, 1945, while advancing to Switzerland. He was shot the following day, and his remains lie in San Cassiano Cemetery in Predappio. Alessandra Mussolini is an active politician from the Mussolini family, being the daughter of Benito Mussolini’s fourth son, Romano Mussolini. Several neo-fascist parties have been formed since Mussolini’s death including the Italian Social Movement and the People of Freedom, both of which no longer exist.
Where Was Mussolini Born?
Benito Mussolini was born on July 29, 1883, to Alessandro Mussolini and Rosa Maltoni. His father practiced as a blacksmith and was a Socialist while his mother was a Catholic school teacher. His birthplace is Dovia di Predappio in Romagna, Italy.
About the Author
Benjamin Elisha Sawe holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Statistics and an MBA in Strategic Management. He is a frequent World Atlas contributor.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | 1,290 | ENGLISH | 1 |
George Washington Carver was born near Diamond Grove, Missouri in 1864 on a plantation owned by a slave owner. His father, Moses Carver, and his mother, Susan Carver, were slaves on that plantation. As a young infant, George along with his mother was kidnapped by Confederate night raiders and was taken to Arkansas to be sold into slavery. Moses Carver‘s owner searched for George and finally found him and reclaimed him, but his mother was already sold. The man who owned George at the time didn’t want to give George back, so Moses’ owner traded a horse for the boy. George was given back to his father suffering from a terrible case of whooping cough, and ended up with a noticeable stutter.
Back on his father’s owner’s plantation, George was now too sick to work out in the fields, so he mainly worked indoors. He helped around the kitchen and in a small garden. It was the garden that George came to love the most. He was often called “The Plant Doctor” because of his love of plants.
After the Civil War, George was set free at the age of 10. Once he was free, George set out to get an education. While trying to overcome many frustrating and bitter obstacles, George finally made his way through high school. George went to school until the age of 30, but his age didn’t stop him from finding more education. George tried applying to many colleges and all of those attempts failed. George almost gave up until Simpson College in Indianola, Iowa finally accepted him as a freshman.
To support himself through college, George had odd jobs such as ironing and washing the clothes of his fellow and more fortunate classmates. In 1891, George was transferred to Iowa State College of Agriculture, which is now Iowa State University. It was there that George became the first African American to get a Bachelor’s Degree and a Masters Degree in bacterial botany and agriculture. After his graduation, George started teaching classes about agriculture and chemurgy. In 1897, Booker T. Washington, the founder of the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute for Negro’s, convinced George to come there and serve as the director of agriculture. It was at this Institute that George made many discoveries that led to many of his inventions. He would grow plants such as sweet potatoes, peanuts, and soybeans and then do experiments with them. These experiments led to inventions such as: certain beverages, pickles, sauces, meal, bleach, wood filler, washing powder, metal polish, paper, ink, plastics, shaving cream, rubbing oil, linoleum, shampoo, axle grease, synthetic rubber, adhesives, buttermilk, chili sauce, fuel briquettes, instant coffee, mayonnaise, meat tenderizer, pavement, shoe polish, talcum powder, wood stain, and of course, peanut butter.
George also discovered the miracle of crop rotation at the Tuskegee Institute. George worked there until he died in 1943. It kind of makes you wonder, what would our world be like with out all his inventions? How would life be different for us all if he had been kept as a slave, not given his freedom and the opportunity to share his talents with the world? And, how many George Washington Carvers has the world lost because they weren’t able to have his opportunities?
–“It is not the style of clothes one wears, neither the kind of automobile one drives, nor the amount of money one has in the bank, that counts. These mean nothing. It is simply service that measures success.” – George Washington Carver | <urn:uuid:e9b3e72b-f0d2-4ee1-8bd6-19df12a67f9b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://pennsylvaniaangerclass.com/george-washington-carver/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592636.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118135205-20200118163205-00224.warc.gz | en | 0.988175 | 752 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.12123007327318192,
0.6814143657684326,
0.6452882289886475,
-0.08173386752605438,
-0.6446292400360107,
-0.16140206158161163,
0.16043606400489807,
0.089788056910038,
-0.6120587587356567,
0.272091805934906,
0.31324344873428345,
-0.2557840347290039,
-0.04662500321865082,
0.42397838830947876... | 1 | George Washington Carver was born near Diamond Grove, Missouri in 1864 on a plantation owned by a slave owner. His father, Moses Carver, and his mother, Susan Carver, were slaves on that plantation. As a young infant, George along with his mother was kidnapped by Confederate night raiders and was taken to Arkansas to be sold into slavery. Moses Carver‘s owner searched for George and finally found him and reclaimed him, but his mother was already sold. The man who owned George at the time didn’t want to give George back, so Moses’ owner traded a horse for the boy. George was given back to his father suffering from a terrible case of whooping cough, and ended up with a noticeable stutter.
Back on his father’s owner’s plantation, George was now too sick to work out in the fields, so he mainly worked indoors. He helped around the kitchen and in a small garden. It was the garden that George came to love the most. He was often called “The Plant Doctor” because of his love of plants.
After the Civil War, George was set free at the age of 10. Once he was free, George set out to get an education. While trying to overcome many frustrating and bitter obstacles, George finally made his way through high school. George went to school until the age of 30, but his age didn’t stop him from finding more education. George tried applying to many colleges and all of those attempts failed. George almost gave up until Simpson College in Indianola, Iowa finally accepted him as a freshman.
To support himself through college, George had odd jobs such as ironing and washing the clothes of his fellow and more fortunate classmates. In 1891, George was transferred to Iowa State College of Agriculture, which is now Iowa State University. It was there that George became the first African American to get a Bachelor’s Degree and a Masters Degree in bacterial botany and agriculture. After his graduation, George started teaching classes about agriculture and chemurgy. In 1897, Booker T. Washington, the founder of the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute for Negro’s, convinced George to come there and serve as the director of agriculture. It was at this Institute that George made many discoveries that led to many of his inventions. He would grow plants such as sweet potatoes, peanuts, and soybeans and then do experiments with them. These experiments led to inventions such as: certain beverages, pickles, sauces, meal, bleach, wood filler, washing powder, metal polish, paper, ink, plastics, shaving cream, rubbing oil, linoleum, shampoo, axle grease, synthetic rubber, adhesives, buttermilk, chili sauce, fuel briquettes, instant coffee, mayonnaise, meat tenderizer, pavement, shoe polish, talcum powder, wood stain, and of course, peanut butter.
George also discovered the miracle of crop rotation at the Tuskegee Institute. George worked there until he died in 1943. It kind of makes you wonder, what would our world be like with out all his inventions? How would life be different for us all if he had been kept as a slave, not given his freedom and the opportunity to share his talents with the world? And, how many George Washington Carvers has the world lost because they weren’t able to have his opportunities?
–“It is not the style of clothes one wears, neither the kind of automobile one drives, nor the amount of money one has in the bank, that counts. These mean nothing. It is simply service that measures success.” – George Washington Carver | 742 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Dinosaurs lived 150 million years ago. They were very interesting and dangerous animals. Dinosaurs were many species, like a Compsognathus, Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor or a Pteranodon. They lived everywhere: all over the world except in Antarctica. Dinosaurs ate meat, fish, and small animals. Bigger dinosaurs, like a Tyrannosaurus, ate other big dinosaurs. Every species was very different. A Pteranodon was very small and light, with a very long beak. Compsognathus was small too, just 16 cm tall and 5.5 kilos weight. He was a very fast runner.A Velociraptor was strong, fast runner, he had a large claws. And the biggest dinosaurs-Tyrannosaurs were 6 meters tall and very heavy. He has a strong legs, long tail and very sharp teeth.
Now dinosaurs are disappeared (about 65 million years ago). Why they disappeared are three theories. I think, that the realest theory is this: climate changed a lot, because the continents were moving around. Summers got hotter, winters -colder. Dinosaurs had such big problems with these changes that they died.
In my opinion, that dinosaurs was appeared is good, because they are very dangerous not just for animals, but and for peoples. | <urn:uuid:f3838860-a4b6-4ece-8943-3fc918fe0396> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://mediapro.lt/dinosaurs/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00143.warc.gz | en | 0.986239 | 274 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.19484439492225647,
0.0036594176199287176,
0.5838561058044434,
0.09658996760845184,
-0.11329562216997147,
-0.3061509430408478,
0.16624799370765686,
0.5854254364967346,
-0.2281867116689682,
0.08252087235450745,
0.305262953042984,
-0.2524547576904297,
0.15565350651741028,
0.123311996459960... | 3 | Dinosaurs lived 150 million years ago. They were very interesting and dangerous animals. Dinosaurs were many species, like a Compsognathus, Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor or a Pteranodon. They lived everywhere: all over the world except in Antarctica. Dinosaurs ate meat, fish, and small animals. Bigger dinosaurs, like a Tyrannosaurus, ate other big dinosaurs. Every species was very different. A Pteranodon was very small and light, with a very long beak. Compsognathus was small too, just 16 cm tall and 5.5 kilos weight. He was a very fast runner.A Velociraptor was strong, fast runner, he had a large claws. And the biggest dinosaurs-Tyrannosaurs were 6 meters tall and very heavy. He has a strong legs, long tail and very sharp teeth.
Now dinosaurs are disappeared (about 65 million years ago). Why they disappeared are three theories. I think, that the realest theory is this: climate changed a lot, because the continents were moving around. Summers got hotter, winters -colder. Dinosaurs had such big problems with these changes that they died.
In my opinion, that dinosaurs was appeared is good, because they are very dangerous not just for animals, but and for peoples. | 282 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Human Nature and Society presented through Huckleberry Finn
Mark Twain opposed many of the ideologies of his time. Through his novel Huckleberry Finn, he explored human nature and the society. He made apparent his dislike for them. The book focus’s on the general treatment of black people during this time. Specifically, the author criticizes morality, slavery and racism.
The characters encountered in Huckleberry Finn do not have very high moral standards. Many of them think and act very irrationally. In Chapter six, the newly appointed judge in town denied the widow and Judge Thatcher custody of Huck, despite Pap’s abusive, alcohol dependant history. Here the author criticized the knowledge and decisions of society’s authority figures.
Throughout the book Twain attempts to portray the inhumane society he observed. People were treated very differently according to wealth, race or social stature. In Chapter eleven, Ms. Loftus sympathizes with Huck, a runaway and aids him in his travels, providing food and comfort. Ironically when the runaway was a black slave, her only concern was turning him in for a reward.
As Huck travels further with Jim, their bond grows stronger. He realizes how Jim and others are being mistreated and taken advantage of. Despite this, Huck was still bombarded with the idealisms proposing slavery. When faced with the options of turning Jim in or not, it was a difficult choice for him to make. With his decision to assist Jim in his escape, he was overcome by guilt and remorse, when in fact, morally this was the honorable and right choice. Unfortunately Huck only came to this conclusion from his feelings of guilt towards Jim. “Dah you goes, de ole true Huck; de on’y white genleman dat ever kep ’his promises to ole Jim.” (page 124). Jim’s loyalty to Huck was infinite and he put so much faith in Huck that he could not bear to betray Jim like that.
In chapter seventeen, Huck encounters the Grangerford family. They are very hospitable towards a complete stranger and treat him like a son. The Grangerford’s like most other families kept black slaves. While treating Huck with great respect, the families hatred and rivalries towards others were the cause of some very untimely deaths in their own family. Here Twain illustrates the underlying consequences of people’s foolish actions and their disgraceful beliefs in oppression and discrimination against others.
Huckleberry Finn extensively travels the United States. In every town he visited, owning a slave or slaves was typical for most families. Slaves were not exclusive to the rich, most common households had them. Slaves were used to carry out menial and degrading tasks... | <urn:uuid:b6838de3-c6ca-4dfa-841b-f350f30d73f0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/human-nature-and-society-presented-through-huckleberry-finn | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00087.warc.gz | en | 0.981761 | 560 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.09044349193572998,
0.4650419056415558,
-0.08890117704868317,
0.14224176108837128,
-0.24463455379009247,
0.0856451541185379,
0.6414750814437866,
-0.11202236264944077,
-0.2620515823364258,
0.1349116712808609,
0.2157118320465088,
-0.22730346024036407,
0.23429256677627563,
0.265223383903503... | 1 | Human Nature and Society presented through Huckleberry Finn
Mark Twain opposed many of the ideologies of his time. Through his novel Huckleberry Finn, he explored human nature and the society. He made apparent his dislike for them. The book focus’s on the general treatment of black people during this time. Specifically, the author criticizes morality, slavery and racism.
The characters encountered in Huckleberry Finn do not have very high moral standards. Many of them think and act very irrationally. In Chapter six, the newly appointed judge in town denied the widow and Judge Thatcher custody of Huck, despite Pap’s abusive, alcohol dependant history. Here the author criticized the knowledge and decisions of society’s authority figures.
Throughout the book Twain attempts to portray the inhumane society he observed. People were treated very differently according to wealth, race or social stature. In Chapter eleven, Ms. Loftus sympathizes with Huck, a runaway and aids him in his travels, providing food and comfort. Ironically when the runaway was a black slave, her only concern was turning him in for a reward.
As Huck travels further with Jim, their bond grows stronger. He realizes how Jim and others are being mistreated and taken advantage of. Despite this, Huck was still bombarded with the idealisms proposing slavery. When faced with the options of turning Jim in or not, it was a difficult choice for him to make. With his decision to assist Jim in his escape, he was overcome by guilt and remorse, when in fact, morally this was the honorable and right choice. Unfortunately Huck only came to this conclusion from his feelings of guilt towards Jim. “Dah you goes, de ole true Huck; de on’y white genleman dat ever kep ’his promises to ole Jim.” (page 124). Jim’s loyalty to Huck was infinite and he put so much faith in Huck that he could not bear to betray Jim like that.
In chapter seventeen, Huck encounters the Grangerford family. They are very hospitable towards a complete stranger and treat him like a son. The Grangerford’s like most other families kept black slaves. While treating Huck with great respect, the families hatred and rivalries towards others were the cause of some very untimely deaths in their own family. Here Twain illustrates the underlying consequences of people’s foolish actions and their disgraceful beliefs in oppression and discrimination against others.
Huckleberry Finn extensively travels the United States. In every town he visited, owning a slave or slaves was typical for most families. Slaves were not exclusive to the rich, most common households had them. Slaves were used to carry out menial and degrading tasks... | 544 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The year 2015 marked the 100th birthday of the nation's oldest law enforcement union, the Fraternal Order of Police. In 1915, the life of a policeman was bleak. In many communities they were forced to work 12 or more hours a day, 365 days a year with little if any time off, for very little pay and no voice in their profession.
Police officers didn't like it, but there was little they could do to change their working conditions. There were no organizations available to make their voices heard; no other means to make their grievances known. They had no voice.
This soon changed thanks to the courage and wisdom of two Pittsburgh patrol officers. Pittsburgh Officers Martin Toole and Delbert Nagle knew that in order to be heard police officers must first organize. Like other labor interests, if they were to be successful in making life better for themselves and their fellow police officers, they had to become a union. Officers Toole and Nagle began secret meetings with individual officers that shared their beliefs. They managed to enlist 21 others who were willing to take the risk of participating. They met in secret on May 14, 1915, which was declared to be the first meeting of the Fraternal Order of Police.
In that meeting, with their jobs at risk, these courageous officers formed Fort Pitt FOP Lodge #1. They decided to use the name "Fraternal Order" and “Lodge” instead of “Union” and “Local” because of the strong anti-union sentiment prevalent in the country at that time. Prior attempts at forming police unions in several major cities at that time were met with heavy-handed government suppression. So Toole, Nagle, and the others had to come up with a plan, a name, and an organizational structure that provided cover for the true work ahead.
In 1915 the phrase “Fraternal Order” was common terminology for trade organizations, social clubs, or gathering of individuals with a benevolent common interest. The founding name Fraternal Order of Police and its structure was the key to survival. Regardless of the name they chose, there was no mistaking their intentions, and what the FOP truly was. Those officers were forming a union intent on changing and improving the working conditions of Pittsburgh's police officers. A common and unified voice of the workers. They told their city mayor, Joe Armstrong, the FOP would be the means to bring grievances before the Mayor or Council and address problems that they were unable to address in any other way. They would also be able to work with the legislature on matters that the Council would not, or could not give them. Their work with Mayor Armstrong became a relationship of respect and common purpose.
And so it began, a tradition of police officers representing police officers. The Fraternal Order of Police was given life by two courageous police officers who were determined to better their profession and the working conditions of those who choose to protect and serve our communities, our states, and our country. The FOP became the first police union in the country and used that success to promote both the labor and fraternal sides of the organization. It was not many years after establishing the organization that Pittsburgh Mayor Armstrong was congratulating the Fraternal Order of Police for their "strong influence in the legislatures in various states,...their considerate and charitable efforts" on behalf of the officers in need and for the FOP's "efforts at increasing the public confidence toward the police to the benefit of the peace, as well as the public."
In 1917 the success of the FOP in Pittsburgh had spread to police officers in other cities and states. Just two years after the formation and success of the Pittsburgh FOP Lodge, the idea of the Fraternal Order of Police becoming a national organization of police officers was born. From our small beginning in 1915 – 1917 the Fraternal Order of Police grew steadily. Today, the tradition that was first envisioned over 100 years ago lives on with more than 2,200 local lodges and over 350,000 members in the United States, and in Maryland over 20,900 members in 77 lodges across our state.
In Anne Arundel County, we are proud to report that every full time sworn law enforcement officer below the rank of Sergeant is a member of our union and our lodge. Most officers at every other rank retain their membership with the FOP due to the benefits we provide outside of collective bargaining and at the State and National levels.
It is hard to imagine that when our Anne Arundel County Police Department was first created in 1937 we had a Chief, 3 Sergeants, and 17 Patrolmen. The work schedule was 12-hour days, 6 days a week and the starting salary was $1,200 a year. The Chief received $1,800 a year. They were not represented.
It wasn't until 1951 that our police officers first joined together as the Anne Arundel County Police Association. There was no collective bargaining at that time but one of the first thingsn on the agenda for the Association was to meet with the County Commissioners about better working conditions, life insurance, and a rise in salaries which they received. It was not much, reportedly $300 and $1,000 in life insurance, but they fought for it, and they got it.
In 1965 our County formally adopted home rule and the County Charter form of government. Five years later, the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #70 was formed. Our Lodge played an integral part in helping to improve wages, equipment, and working conditions from that time forward and that battle continues still today. The first president of the lodge, appointed before election was Lt. George Mandris. The first elected president was Lt. Les Bates.
At that time, the Fraternal Order of Police was the largest professional police organization in the country. There were no others that even came close to the number of members nationwide; or the work we did on behalf of the profession; or the resources we offered our members. We are proud of our name, our heritage, our daily work on behalf of our profession & our members, and our tradition. The FOP is both a trade union and a Fraternal Organization, having both Labor Lodges & Fraternal Lodges. But make no mistake we are union first. As important as that fact is we are also a "full service member representation organization" involving benevolence, legal support, community involvement, and fraternalism. That has been the formula for success from the beginning.
Our first contract was negotiated in 1970 when Police officers worked impossible schedules for very little money and very few benefits.
Today, we have better equipment than ever before. We have health care. We have pensions. Our families are more secure because of the FOP. We are safer because of the FOP. The families of our fallen are more protected now because of our union, the FOP!
The FOP continues to grow because we have been true to the tradition and continued to build on it. The Fraternal Order of Police leadership are all proud professionals working on behalf of law enforcement officers from all ranks and levels of government. We work hard to improve the working conditions of law enforcement officers and the safety of those they serve through education, legislation, information, community involvement, and employee representation.
The FOP lobbies Congress and regulatory agencies on behalf of all law enforcement officers, provides labor representation, promotes legal defense for officers, and offers resources such as legal research. We also sponsor many important charities and foundations. The FOP supports and is very involved in establishing memorials for fallen officers, and strongly supports programs for spouses and family members of police officers. We have been doing this longer and better than anyone else. It is who we are.
The National Organization has three offices: the Labor Services Division in Columbus, Ohio, the Steve Young Law Enforcement Legislative Advocacy Center in Washington, D.C., and the Grand Lodge "Atnip-Orms Center" National Headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee. | <urn:uuid:86da3878-49d7-4d52-a8ea-56927650d1d5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.fop70.org/?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=768510&page=History20of20the20FOP | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594662.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119151736-20200119175736-00048.warc.gz | en | 0.981225 | 1,632 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.83063805103302,
0.13218620419502258,
0.08125235140323639,
-0.3502437174320221,
0.13718345761299133,
0.012001576833426952,
0.13633593916893005,
0.1760636419057846,
0.09032061696052551,
-0.09541027992963791,
0.39783674478530884,
0.18706506490707397,
-0.14173486828804016,
0.135208904743194... | 13 | The year 2015 marked the 100th birthday of the nation's oldest law enforcement union, the Fraternal Order of Police. In 1915, the life of a policeman was bleak. In many communities they were forced to work 12 or more hours a day, 365 days a year with little if any time off, for very little pay and no voice in their profession.
Police officers didn't like it, but there was little they could do to change their working conditions. There were no organizations available to make their voices heard; no other means to make their grievances known. They had no voice.
This soon changed thanks to the courage and wisdom of two Pittsburgh patrol officers. Pittsburgh Officers Martin Toole and Delbert Nagle knew that in order to be heard police officers must first organize. Like other labor interests, if they were to be successful in making life better for themselves and their fellow police officers, they had to become a union. Officers Toole and Nagle began secret meetings with individual officers that shared their beliefs. They managed to enlist 21 others who were willing to take the risk of participating. They met in secret on May 14, 1915, which was declared to be the first meeting of the Fraternal Order of Police.
In that meeting, with their jobs at risk, these courageous officers formed Fort Pitt FOP Lodge #1. They decided to use the name "Fraternal Order" and “Lodge” instead of “Union” and “Local” because of the strong anti-union sentiment prevalent in the country at that time. Prior attempts at forming police unions in several major cities at that time were met with heavy-handed government suppression. So Toole, Nagle, and the others had to come up with a plan, a name, and an organizational structure that provided cover for the true work ahead.
In 1915 the phrase “Fraternal Order” was common terminology for trade organizations, social clubs, or gathering of individuals with a benevolent common interest. The founding name Fraternal Order of Police and its structure was the key to survival. Regardless of the name they chose, there was no mistaking their intentions, and what the FOP truly was. Those officers were forming a union intent on changing and improving the working conditions of Pittsburgh's police officers. A common and unified voice of the workers. They told their city mayor, Joe Armstrong, the FOP would be the means to bring grievances before the Mayor or Council and address problems that they were unable to address in any other way. They would also be able to work with the legislature on matters that the Council would not, or could not give them. Their work with Mayor Armstrong became a relationship of respect and common purpose.
And so it began, a tradition of police officers representing police officers. The Fraternal Order of Police was given life by two courageous police officers who were determined to better their profession and the working conditions of those who choose to protect and serve our communities, our states, and our country. The FOP became the first police union in the country and used that success to promote both the labor and fraternal sides of the organization. It was not many years after establishing the organization that Pittsburgh Mayor Armstrong was congratulating the Fraternal Order of Police for their "strong influence in the legislatures in various states,...their considerate and charitable efforts" on behalf of the officers in need and for the FOP's "efforts at increasing the public confidence toward the police to the benefit of the peace, as well as the public."
In 1917 the success of the FOP in Pittsburgh had spread to police officers in other cities and states. Just two years after the formation and success of the Pittsburgh FOP Lodge, the idea of the Fraternal Order of Police becoming a national organization of police officers was born. From our small beginning in 1915 – 1917 the Fraternal Order of Police grew steadily. Today, the tradition that was first envisioned over 100 years ago lives on with more than 2,200 local lodges and over 350,000 members in the United States, and in Maryland over 20,900 members in 77 lodges across our state.
In Anne Arundel County, we are proud to report that every full time sworn law enforcement officer below the rank of Sergeant is a member of our union and our lodge. Most officers at every other rank retain their membership with the FOP due to the benefits we provide outside of collective bargaining and at the State and National levels.
It is hard to imagine that when our Anne Arundel County Police Department was first created in 1937 we had a Chief, 3 Sergeants, and 17 Patrolmen. The work schedule was 12-hour days, 6 days a week and the starting salary was $1,200 a year. The Chief received $1,800 a year. They were not represented.
It wasn't until 1951 that our police officers first joined together as the Anne Arundel County Police Association. There was no collective bargaining at that time but one of the first thingsn on the agenda for the Association was to meet with the County Commissioners about better working conditions, life insurance, and a rise in salaries which they received. It was not much, reportedly $300 and $1,000 in life insurance, but they fought for it, and they got it.
In 1965 our County formally adopted home rule and the County Charter form of government. Five years later, the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #70 was formed. Our Lodge played an integral part in helping to improve wages, equipment, and working conditions from that time forward and that battle continues still today. The first president of the lodge, appointed before election was Lt. George Mandris. The first elected president was Lt. Les Bates.
At that time, the Fraternal Order of Police was the largest professional police organization in the country. There were no others that even came close to the number of members nationwide; or the work we did on behalf of the profession; or the resources we offered our members. We are proud of our name, our heritage, our daily work on behalf of our profession & our members, and our tradition. The FOP is both a trade union and a Fraternal Organization, having both Labor Lodges & Fraternal Lodges. But make no mistake we are union first. As important as that fact is we are also a "full service member representation organization" involving benevolence, legal support, community involvement, and fraternalism. That has been the formula for success from the beginning.
Our first contract was negotiated in 1970 when Police officers worked impossible schedules for very little money and very few benefits.
Today, we have better equipment than ever before. We have health care. We have pensions. Our families are more secure because of the FOP. We are safer because of the FOP. The families of our fallen are more protected now because of our union, the FOP!
The FOP continues to grow because we have been true to the tradition and continued to build on it. The Fraternal Order of Police leadership are all proud professionals working on behalf of law enforcement officers from all ranks and levels of government. We work hard to improve the working conditions of law enforcement officers and the safety of those they serve through education, legislation, information, community involvement, and employee representation.
The FOP lobbies Congress and regulatory agencies on behalf of all law enforcement officers, provides labor representation, promotes legal defense for officers, and offers resources such as legal research. We also sponsor many important charities and foundations. The FOP supports and is very involved in establishing memorials for fallen officers, and strongly supports programs for spouses and family members of police officers. We have been doing this longer and better than anyone else. It is who we are.
The National Organization has three offices: the Labor Services Division in Columbus, Ohio, the Steve Young Law Enforcement Legislative Advocacy Center in Washington, D.C., and the Grand Lodge "Atnip-Orms Center" National Headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee. | 1,706 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Friedrich Muckermann joined the Jesuit Order in Bleyenbeck (The Netherlands) at the age of 16. He studied philosophy, German language and literature and theology and was ordained as a priest in 1914. Aside from serving as a preacher and in the mission, he also worked as a journalist and writer. He was editor of the Catholic literary journal Der Gral (“The Grail”) between 1926 and 1931. Muckermann became one of the best-known figures in German Catholicism. He adopted a position against the anti-Christian nature of National Socialism early on. In 1934 he fled to the Netherlands, where he published Der deutsche Weg (“The German Way”), a magazine for German exiles; a few copies were smuggled into Germany. In 1935 Muckermann was appointed as a professor at the Institute of Oriental Studies in Rome. In 1937 he went to Vienna and in 1938 to Paris. Until the city was occupied by German troops, he spoke regularly on Radio Paris, pursuing his fight against the National Socialist regime and its claim to authority over belief and ideology. In June 1940 he fled from the advancing German troops to the part of France that was not yet under occupation, and in 1943 he went to Switzerland, where he survived the war. | <urn:uuid:c54a3fd4-f643-4cea-8079-891a0d0ea39a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.gdw-berlin.de/en/recess/biographies/index_of_persons/biographie/view-bio/friedrich-muckermann/?no_cache=1 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610004.56/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123101110-20200123130110-00302.warc.gz | en | 0.985785 | 263 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
0.46405452489852905,
0.6069198250770569,
0.0016586390556767583,
0.05958456173539162,
0.3015925884246826,
-0.019524162635207176,
-0.690231204032898,
0.12663908302783966,
-0.24020490050315857,
-0.0872361958026886,
-0.08327373117208481,
-0.27463385462760925,
-0.12383990734815598,
0.3420294523... | 5 | Friedrich Muckermann joined the Jesuit Order in Bleyenbeck (The Netherlands) at the age of 16. He studied philosophy, German language and literature and theology and was ordained as a priest in 1914. Aside from serving as a preacher and in the mission, he also worked as a journalist and writer. He was editor of the Catholic literary journal Der Gral (“The Grail”) between 1926 and 1931. Muckermann became one of the best-known figures in German Catholicism. He adopted a position against the anti-Christian nature of National Socialism early on. In 1934 he fled to the Netherlands, where he published Der deutsche Weg (“The German Way”), a magazine for German exiles; a few copies were smuggled into Germany. In 1935 Muckermann was appointed as a professor at the Institute of Oriental Studies in Rome. In 1937 he went to Vienna and in 1938 to Paris. Until the city was occupied by German troops, he spoke regularly on Radio Paris, pursuing his fight against the National Socialist regime and its claim to authority over belief and ideology. In June 1940 he fled from the advancing German troops to the part of France that was not yet under occupation, and in 1943 he went to Switzerland, where he survived the war. | 291 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The British Rail Class 55 locomotive was one of the great pieces of British Engineering. It combined elegant styling with ground breaking technology.
At the heart of the Class 55 was the Napier Deltic Engine. Originally commissioned by the Royal Navy in 1944, it had its roots in the German Aircraft industry.
That Sinking Feeling
Most of the world's navies had fleets of small attack boats. These motor torpedo boats were fast and manoeuvrable, and could be used for patrols or attacking enemy shipping. Germany had diesel powered E-boats and the Royal Navy had petrol-powered MTBs. While the petrol engine was probably lighter and more powerful, they had the minor problem of petrol vapour exploding on ignition. British diesel engines were big, slow and heavy, totally unsuitable for the boats. The Admiralty asked Napier and Sons, who had been working on copies of a German fast-revving diesel before the war, to come up with a design.
The Opposed Diesel Engine
In your average diesel engine, a piston compresses the air/fuel mixture to a temperature at which it explodes. The sequence of Intake, Compression, Injection and Exhaust is a four-stroke cycle. In an opposed engine1 there are two pistons per cylinder. One piston covers the inlet valve, one covers the exhaust.
The two pistons are geared slightly out of phase, so the inlet is uncovered; fuel comes in and is compressed in between both pistons. As it expands, the exhaust is uncovered first allowing the gases to escape. In essence this is a two-stroke engine and can be revved much faster.
Another advantage is that the engine is flat and could in theory be mounted inside a plane's wing if necessary. The Junkers Jumo 205 was an engine of around 600 horsepower and was used in some bombers and seaplanes. As the war progressed, more powerful variations were built, culminating in the Jumo 224 which generated 4,500 horsepower.
Napier's version of this was called the Culverin.
The Deltic Engine
The Culverin was not powerful enough for the Royal Navy. Not constrained by the space requirements of a plane, they tried to make a bigger engine by bolting Culverins together.
If you look at a V-8 or flat six car engine, they basically consist of two banks of cylinders joined together along a single crankshaft. Whether the engine is in Vee form or a boxer just depends on the angle between the blocks: anything between 0 and 180 degrees is a Vee, 180 degrees is a boxer. Taking it a step further, Volkswagen have made W-12 engines by bolting two V6s together.
Since they have crankshafts at both ends, the ideal arrangement for opposed engines would have two cylinders on each crankshaft. The Deltic arrangement was a triangle with three crankshafts at the corners and the cylinders as the sides of the triangle. Napier's big breakthrough was realising that one crankshaft had to be geared in reverse to allow the engine to function.
The Deltic engine could have three, six, nine, 12, or more cylinders in blocks of three. The first 18-cylinder engines were being made by 1950.
One big problem with the Deltic was its complexity. The engine was designed to be easily removed and replaced so that the whole engine could be returned to base rather than be repaired in place. Some components were also designed for easy replacement. The other concern was the stress that the pistons would be under. The two-stroke Deltic engine idles at 700rpm2, a speed most big four-stroke engines would not reach even at maximum. As well as generating much more power than a four-stroke, this also meant that the components were under much more stress and generated much more heat. Napier had included some interesting innovations such as oil cooled pistons that helped avoid the overheating problem associated with two-stroke diesels.
Like most big diesel engines, it was turbocharged.
When the navy tested an 18-cylinder engine in an old German E-boat they were pleased with the compact design's performance. The Deltic had similar power (around 3100 horsepower) to the original engine but was only half the size. Engines were commissioned and went on to power small military boats for many of the world's navies.
The engine had a capacity of 88 litres (5384 cu.in), was 317cm (125 inches) long, 176cm (69 inches) wide and 239cm (94 inches) tall. It weighed in at well over five tons.
The DELTIC DP1
The English Electric Company had bought Napier and wanted to use the company's Deltic engine to power a railway locomotive. 1955 saw the DP1 prototype introduced. This diesel-electric3 locomotive was built at the Dick Kerr works in Preston.
The loco was designed to look vaguely like a large American locomotive. With sleek high sides and a set back cab, the DP1 was an impressive and elegant sight. It ran two 18-cylinder Deltic engines rated at 1650hp (they were restricted to reduce stress) powering 12 wheels4, via electric motors.
The DP1 was initially going to be called Enterprise, but everybody referred to it as Deltic, so the name stuck. Deltic was made to look more American by being painted bright blue, having a large single headlight built into the top of its nose and having three curved chevrons painted there too. Its teardrop-shaped windows added to the impression of a fast locomotive. The curved roof, nose and lower sides led to the locomotive being surprisingly aerodynamic.
One of the Deltic's most famous characteristics was its sound. The sounds of the fast revving cylinders and phasing gears were like nothing else on the railway. At high speeds, the drone of the engine led to it and its brethren being nicknamed 'Lancaster Bombers'. Its other famous characteristic was that it released two massive clouds of smoke as it set off. Two-stroke engines drink their way through oil, and when idling, a fair amount of oil collects in the exhaust drum. When starting off, this oil was expelled half-burnt as blue smoke.
Deltic weighed over 100 tons5 and was almost 70 feet (21 meters) long. It could reach 100 mph and was the pinnacle of diesel locomotive design. It was originally planned for use on the Midland region; however, plans to electrify it meant that DP1 was introduced to the Eastern Region to replace some of the Gresley Pacific6 steam trains. The Gresley steam locos were some of the most sophisticated and elegant examples of steam locomotives in the world. The express locomotives, which included the A4 class, of which Mallard was a member, could easily top 100mph.
As well as offering the speed to be able to replace the steam trains, Deltic was probably the only locomotive elegant enough to replace the A4. Besides, the locomotive could generate a cloud of smoke that even a big steam engine would be proud of.
Deltic was withdrawn from service in 1961 after a power plant failure.
BR Class 55
Pleased with Deltic, British Rail ordered 22 further units. These, numbered D9000 to D9021, were meant to replace over 40 A4 locomotives. The locomotives were introduced in 1961 and painted in two-tone green. The locomotives based in Gateshead and Edinburgh were named after regiments of the British Army and the ones in Finsbury Park, London, were named after racehorses.
The locomotives were built at the English Electric Vulcan Foundry works in Newton Le Willows.
These served along the East Coast Mainline, from London to Edinburgh via York and Newcastle. They also pulled the legendary Flying Scotsman train. Their reign on the line lasted only until the 1970s when HSTs were introduced onto the East Coast Main Line. Deltics were moved onto secondary services; however, it was too expensive for BR to maintain such a small fleet of non-standard locos, especially as they were really too powerful for the duties they were assigned. Deltics were withdrawn from the end of the 1970s, the last serving in 1981.
Most Deltics were repainted the standard BR blue with a yellow nose. Most engines had either nameplates or headcode boxes7 on their nose.
Despite the complexity and the newness of the design, the Deltic was as reliable as a normal four-stroke diesel. Because the engine was made for the quick replacement of parts, the Class 55s racked up miles very quickly.
Looking back, the Class 55 should be judged as a success. It was an outstanding application of a remarkable piece of technology. At 100 tons and with over 3300 horsepower, the locomotive had a quite exceptional power to weight ratio for a large unit. The impressive performance was combined with decent reliability and a design that was one of the best combinations of form and function in the post-steam era.
Due to its elegant style and unique engineering it developed a large following. Deltic and six of the 22 class 55s have found their way into the hands of museums and enthusiasts. The class 55s have been repainted with their traditional two-tone green livery.
Deltic was donated to the Science Museum in London, and is currently at a National Railway Museum exhibition at Shildon in County Durham.
The Deltic Preservation Society owns three: D9009 (55 009) Alycidon, D9015 (55 015) Tulyar and D9019 (55 019) Royal Highland Fusilier. Deltic 9000 Fund8 bought D9000 (55 022) Royal Scots Grey for preservation. They also bought Gordon Highlander for spares, but like all good railway buffs, they couldn't face dismantling it, so rebuilt it for use instead. The National Railway Museum owns D9002 (55 002) The King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry.
While the 1990s privatisation of British Rail may not have been a triumph, it has allowed Deltics back onto the tracks. Under BR, privately-owned diesel locomotives were not allowed onto the network, however under Railtrack and National Rail, anybody can use it. This has led to the owners running private trains and excursions that have been Deltic-powered.
All six Class 55s have been certified for use on the rail network or are in the process of being converted.
The Not Quite Deltics
While Deltic and the Class 55s have attracted the attention, there are a few other locomotives that used similar technology or had a similar design.
Class 23 Baby Deltics
Ten class 23 locos were introduced in 1959 for working trains around London. Built in Doncaster, these Bo-Bo locos were powered by two 1100 hp 9-cylinder Deltics. Their years in service were not a success.
First off they were too heavy for their original routes so were moved onto the outer suburban services from Kings Cross and Moorgate towards Cambridge. They were then banned from Moorgate because like their big brothers, they generated a lot of smoke, which didn't go down well in the tunnels!
Then they just started breaking. Shafts out of the engine were breaking and damaging equipment, pistons were seizing and cylinder linings were cracking. English Electric refitted the engines with new parts in 1963 and the class re-entered service. Aside from cooling problems, the trains did reasonably well.
The trains looked like smaller Deltics; shorter bodies with much shorter snouts. After refurbishment they were repainted with two-tone green livery like their bigger brothers.
By the late 1960s, with BR looking to cut costs, an obvious target was the little fleet of non-standard Class 23s. The locos were withdrawn by 1971, with just one remaining in works service, before it was replaced in 1974, then cut up in 1977.
Deltic look-a-likes. Classes 37, 40 and the Peaks
Five classes of BR diesel locomotive looked vaguely like the Deltics. They all had the same snout and set-back cab, however they tended to lack the curves and simplicity of the Class 55.
Mechanically, these locomotives were conventional, with big four-stroke diesel engines. They were introduced from the late 1950s onwards. The largest of these, the 1Co-Co19 class 45 weighed in at over 135 tons but at 2500hp were far less powerful than the Deltic.
These are the classes that look similar to the Deltics.
- Class 37
This was the smallest of the Deltic-alikes, but was still heavier than the Deltic. Of these, 309 were produced and were used to pull anything from freight to passenger trains. After refurbishment in the 1980s, many were still in service into the 21st century. Quite a few are being held by various companies as reserves, many have been preserved and some have been exported. If you see a locomotive that looks like a Deltic in service, is not green or pulling an excursion train, it will most likly be a Class 37.
- Class 40
These were used on many of the express services on the West Coast and in East Anglia before being used on freight services in their later days. Weighing 132 tons and having 2000hp they could hit 90mph. 200 locos were produced and seven are in preservation. The most infamous of these locos was D326 which was involved in the Great Train Robbery.
- The Peaks - Classes 44, 45 and 46
Under the original BR numbering scheme, the three classes were all lumped together. Under the newer numbering scheme, they were split into the three classes. These were slightly shorter than the class 40s, but were even heavier. There were ten class 44s, 127 class 45s and 56 class 46s. The Class 44 was the 75 mph prototype, the classes 45 and 46 can reach 90 mph. All of these were withdrawn from service in the 1980s. They got the nickname 'Peaks' because they tended to be named after mountain peaks. There are a few examples of each class in preservation. | <urn:uuid:8f85c522-e602-4ce5-81ad-b1a66b80d07e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/ptop/alabaster/A11815175 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00130.warc.gz | en | 0.986141 | 3,004 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
-0.24820111691951752,
0.18454474210739136,
0.16962051391601562,
-0.39979296922683716,
-0.06863528490066528,
-0.15663915872573853,
0.009172624908387661,
0.1459735929965973,
-0.5890029668807983,
-0.20498353242874146,
-0.12469099462032318,
-0.5977410078048706,
0.04906566068530083,
0.225670367... | 1 | The British Rail Class 55 locomotive was one of the great pieces of British Engineering. It combined elegant styling with ground breaking technology.
At the heart of the Class 55 was the Napier Deltic Engine. Originally commissioned by the Royal Navy in 1944, it had its roots in the German Aircraft industry.
That Sinking Feeling
Most of the world's navies had fleets of small attack boats. These motor torpedo boats were fast and manoeuvrable, and could be used for patrols or attacking enemy shipping. Germany had diesel powered E-boats and the Royal Navy had petrol-powered MTBs. While the petrol engine was probably lighter and more powerful, they had the minor problem of petrol vapour exploding on ignition. British diesel engines were big, slow and heavy, totally unsuitable for the boats. The Admiralty asked Napier and Sons, who had been working on copies of a German fast-revving diesel before the war, to come up with a design.
The Opposed Diesel Engine
In your average diesel engine, a piston compresses the air/fuel mixture to a temperature at which it explodes. The sequence of Intake, Compression, Injection and Exhaust is a four-stroke cycle. In an opposed engine1 there are two pistons per cylinder. One piston covers the inlet valve, one covers the exhaust.
The two pistons are geared slightly out of phase, so the inlet is uncovered; fuel comes in and is compressed in between both pistons. As it expands, the exhaust is uncovered first allowing the gases to escape. In essence this is a two-stroke engine and can be revved much faster.
Another advantage is that the engine is flat and could in theory be mounted inside a plane's wing if necessary. The Junkers Jumo 205 was an engine of around 600 horsepower and was used in some bombers and seaplanes. As the war progressed, more powerful variations were built, culminating in the Jumo 224 which generated 4,500 horsepower.
Napier's version of this was called the Culverin.
The Deltic Engine
The Culverin was not powerful enough for the Royal Navy. Not constrained by the space requirements of a plane, they tried to make a bigger engine by bolting Culverins together.
If you look at a V-8 or flat six car engine, they basically consist of two banks of cylinders joined together along a single crankshaft. Whether the engine is in Vee form or a boxer just depends on the angle between the blocks: anything between 0 and 180 degrees is a Vee, 180 degrees is a boxer. Taking it a step further, Volkswagen have made W-12 engines by bolting two V6s together.
Since they have crankshafts at both ends, the ideal arrangement for opposed engines would have two cylinders on each crankshaft. The Deltic arrangement was a triangle with three crankshafts at the corners and the cylinders as the sides of the triangle. Napier's big breakthrough was realising that one crankshaft had to be geared in reverse to allow the engine to function.
The Deltic engine could have three, six, nine, 12, or more cylinders in blocks of three. The first 18-cylinder engines were being made by 1950.
One big problem with the Deltic was its complexity. The engine was designed to be easily removed and replaced so that the whole engine could be returned to base rather than be repaired in place. Some components were also designed for easy replacement. The other concern was the stress that the pistons would be under. The two-stroke Deltic engine idles at 700rpm2, a speed most big four-stroke engines would not reach even at maximum. As well as generating much more power than a four-stroke, this also meant that the components were under much more stress and generated much more heat. Napier had included some interesting innovations such as oil cooled pistons that helped avoid the overheating problem associated with two-stroke diesels.
Like most big diesel engines, it was turbocharged.
When the navy tested an 18-cylinder engine in an old German E-boat they were pleased with the compact design's performance. The Deltic had similar power (around 3100 horsepower) to the original engine but was only half the size. Engines were commissioned and went on to power small military boats for many of the world's navies.
The engine had a capacity of 88 litres (5384 cu.in), was 317cm (125 inches) long, 176cm (69 inches) wide and 239cm (94 inches) tall. It weighed in at well over five tons.
The DELTIC DP1
The English Electric Company had bought Napier and wanted to use the company's Deltic engine to power a railway locomotive. 1955 saw the DP1 prototype introduced. This diesel-electric3 locomotive was built at the Dick Kerr works in Preston.
The loco was designed to look vaguely like a large American locomotive. With sleek high sides and a set back cab, the DP1 was an impressive and elegant sight. It ran two 18-cylinder Deltic engines rated at 1650hp (they were restricted to reduce stress) powering 12 wheels4, via electric motors.
The DP1 was initially going to be called Enterprise, but everybody referred to it as Deltic, so the name stuck. Deltic was made to look more American by being painted bright blue, having a large single headlight built into the top of its nose and having three curved chevrons painted there too. Its teardrop-shaped windows added to the impression of a fast locomotive. The curved roof, nose and lower sides led to the locomotive being surprisingly aerodynamic.
One of the Deltic's most famous characteristics was its sound. The sounds of the fast revving cylinders and phasing gears were like nothing else on the railway. At high speeds, the drone of the engine led to it and its brethren being nicknamed 'Lancaster Bombers'. Its other famous characteristic was that it released two massive clouds of smoke as it set off. Two-stroke engines drink their way through oil, and when idling, a fair amount of oil collects in the exhaust drum. When starting off, this oil was expelled half-burnt as blue smoke.
Deltic weighed over 100 tons5 and was almost 70 feet (21 meters) long. It could reach 100 mph and was the pinnacle of diesel locomotive design. It was originally planned for use on the Midland region; however, plans to electrify it meant that DP1 was introduced to the Eastern Region to replace some of the Gresley Pacific6 steam trains. The Gresley steam locos were some of the most sophisticated and elegant examples of steam locomotives in the world. The express locomotives, which included the A4 class, of which Mallard was a member, could easily top 100mph.
As well as offering the speed to be able to replace the steam trains, Deltic was probably the only locomotive elegant enough to replace the A4. Besides, the locomotive could generate a cloud of smoke that even a big steam engine would be proud of.
Deltic was withdrawn from service in 1961 after a power plant failure.
BR Class 55
Pleased with Deltic, British Rail ordered 22 further units. These, numbered D9000 to D9021, were meant to replace over 40 A4 locomotives. The locomotives were introduced in 1961 and painted in two-tone green. The locomotives based in Gateshead and Edinburgh were named after regiments of the British Army and the ones in Finsbury Park, London, were named after racehorses.
The locomotives were built at the English Electric Vulcan Foundry works in Newton Le Willows.
These served along the East Coast Mainline, from London to Edinburgh via York and Newcastle. They also pulled the legendary Flying Scotsman train. Their reign on the line lasted only until the 1970s when HSTs were introduced onto the East Coast Main Line. Deltics were moved onto secondary services; however, it was too expensive for BR to maintain such a small fleet of non-standard locos, especially as they were really too powerful for the duties they were assigned. Deltics were withdrawn from the end of the 1970s, the last serving in 1981.
Most Deltics were repainted the standard BR blue with a yellow nose. Most engines had either nameplates or headcode boxes7 on their nose.
Despite the complexity and the newness of the design, the Deltic was as reliable as a normal four-stroke diesel. Because the engine was made for the quick replacement of parts, the Class 55s racked up miles very quickly.
Looking back, the Class 55 should be judged as a success. It was an outstanding application of a remarkable piece of technology. At 100 tons and with over 3300 horsepower, the locomotive had a quite exceptional power to weight ratio for a large unit. The impressive performance was combined with decent reliability and a design that was one of the best combinations of form and function in the post-steam era.
Due to its elegant style and unique engineering it developed a large following. Deltic and six of the 22 class 55s have found their way into the hands of museums and enthusiasts. The class 55s have been repainted with their traditional two-tone green livery.
Deltic was donated to the Science Museum in London, and is currently at a National Railway Museum exhibition at Shildon in County Durham.
The Deltic Preservation Society owns three: D9009 (55 009) Alycidon, D9015 (55 015) Tulyar and D9019 (55 019) Royal Highland Fusilier. Deltic 9000 Fund8 bought D9000 (55 022) Royal Scots Grey for preservation. They also bought Gordon Highlander for spares, but like all good railway buffs, they couldn't face dismantling it, so rebuilt it for use instead. The National Railway Museum owns D9002 (55 002) The King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry.
While the 1990s privatisation of British Rail may not have been a triumph, it has allowed Deltics back onto the tracks. Under BR, privately-owned diesel locomotives were not allowed onto the network, however under Railtrack and National Rail, anybody can use it. This has led to the owners running private trains and excursions that have been Deltic-powered.
All six Class 55s have been certified for use on the rail network or are in the process of being converted.
The Not Quite Deltics
While Deltic and the Class 55s have attracted the attention, there are a few other locomotives that used similar technology or had a similar design.
Class 23 Baby Deltics
Ten class 23 locos were introduced in 1959 for working trains around London. Built in Doncaster, these Bo-Bo locos were powered by two 1100 hp 9-cylinder Deltics. Their years in service were not a success.
First off they were too heavy for their original routes so were moved onto the outer suburban services from Kings Cross and Moorgate towards Cambridge. They were then banned from Moorgate because like their big brothers, they generated a lot of smoke, which didn't go down well in the tunnels!
Then they just started breaking. Shafts out of the engine were breaking and damaging equipment, pistons were seizing and cylinder linings were cracking. English Electric refitted the engines with new parts in 1963 and the class re-entered service. Aside from cooling problems, the trains did reasonably well.
The trains looked like smaller Deltics; shorter bodies with much shorter snouts. After refurbishment they were repainted with two-tone green livery like their bigger brothers.
By the late 1960s, with BR looking to cut costs, an obvious target was the little fleet of non-standard Class 23s. The locos were withdrawn by 1971, with just one remaining in works service, before it was replaced in 1974, then cut up in 1977.
Deltic look-a-likes. Classes 37, 40 and the Peaks
Five classes of BR diesel locomotive looked vaguely like the Deltics. They all had the same snout and set-back cab, however they tended to lack the curves and simplicity of the Class 55.
Mechanically, these locomotives were conventional, with big four-stroke diesel engines. They were introduced from the late 1950s onwards. The largest of these, the 1Co-Co19 class 45 weighed in at over 135 tons but at 2500hp were far less powerful than the Deltic.
These are the classes that look similar to the Deltics.
- Class 37
This was the smallest of the Deltic-alikes, but was still heavier than the Deltic. Of these, 309 were produced and were used to pull anything from freight to passenger trains. After refurbishment in the 1980s, many were still in service into the 21st century. Quite a few are being held by various companies as reserves, many have been preserved and some have been exported. If you see a locomotive that looks like a Deltic in service, is not green or pulling an excursion train, it will most likly be a Class 37.
- Class 40
These were used on many of the express services on the West Coast and in East Anglia before being used on freight services in their later days. Weighing 132 tons and having 2000hp they could hit 90mph. 200 locos were produced and seven are in preservation. The most infamous of these locos was D326 which was involved in the Great Train Robbery.
- The Peaks - Classes 44, 45 and 46
Under the original BR numbering scheme, the three classes were all lumped together. Under the newer numbering scheme, they were split into the three classes. These were slightly shorter than the class 40s, but were even heavier. There were ten class 44s, 127 class 45s and 56 class 46s. The Class 44 was the 75 mph prototype, the classes 45 and 46 can reach 90 mph. All of these were withdrawn from service in the 1980s. They got the nickname 'Peaks' because they tended to be named after mountain peaks. There are a few examples of each class in preservation. | 3,215 | ENGLISH | 1 |
'Romeo and Juliet' was written in 1595 by William Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy and love story about two children from rival families, who fall in love. Their misunderstandings lead to them both dying. Shakespeare uses an oxymoron in the play, love and hate. Shakespeare presents love and hate is many different ways, through language, context and some characters. In the times when Shakespeare was alive and his productions were first being shown, Juliet had to be played by a boy/man, this was because women weren't allowed on stage in those days. In this essay I will be talking about the ways Shakespeare presents love and hate.
In 'Romeo and Juliet' there are two rival families, the Capulets and the Montagues. Juliet is a part of the Capulet family while Romeo is a part of the Montague family. Both families live in Verona, Italy and both families hate each other. Shakespeare has presented hate in this way to show a major division between the two families who lives on separate sides of Verona. He shows hate in this way because he wants to show how Romeo and Juliet cannot be happily married like a normal couple as they both have to hide their marriage from their families. Shakespeare shows that love cannot heal hate. The play opens with a fight between the two families including Gregory and Sampson, the Capulet servants, and Abram and Benvolio, members of the Montagues. Benvolio is being the peacemaker between the two families. “Part, fools! Put up your swords, you know not what you do.” This shows that Benvolio tries to stop the fighting but everyone ignores him and fights anyway. Later on in the play, a fight occurs between Mercutio and Tybalt which turns very violent and Mercutio is stabbed by Tybalt, but Romeo steps in and kills Tybalt. This fight is representing hate between Capulets, a Montague and a member of royalty. Shakespeare uses a fight to show hate because it shows the conflict between two main families and someone who had nothing to do with the argument between Benvolio and Tybalt. Tybalt uses negative words by using alliteration which are snake sounds. “A villain that is hither come in spite, to scorn at our solemnity this night.” This scene is at the Capulet party in which Romeo and Juliet first meet and fall in love as the Montagues turn up at the party unexpected. Tybalt sees the Montague at their party and tells his uncle Lord Capulet and names Romeo as a villain. Later on the play, Romeo says that life must hate him because he has fallen in love with someone he is meant to hate. “Is she a Capulet? O dear account! my life is my foe's debt.” This shows that Romeo is surprised when he finds out Juliet is actually a Capulet.
Shakespeare shows love in many different ways in this play but the most important way of showing it is Romeo and Juliet's love. Shakespeare even starts the play off with a way of showing love by using a Sonnet. At the start of the play, Romeo is said to have been in love with Rosaline but she did not love him back, this is an example of unrequited love. Romeo is not happy about his love for Rosaline, instead he acts grumpy and sad but Benvolio gives him advice to forget about her and look for some more women to fall in love with. “Be ruled by me, forget to think of her. By giving liberty unto thine eyes, Examine other beauties.” This shows that Benvolio is tired of Romeo being sad about being in love so he gives him advice to forget about her and move on. This is showing love because while Romeo and Benvolio are looking for other women, Romeo meets and also falls in love with Juliet. Another example of requited love is between Paris and Juliet, this is shown later on in the play. As Lord and Lady Capulet are arranging their daughter's wedding, Friar Lawrence and Juliet are thinking of a way for her to get out of the wedding she does not want to take part in as she is already married to Romeo. Paris tells Lord Capulet that he wants to speed up the wedding but looks silly as Lord Capulet wants Juliet to be ready. Paris thinks there is no reason for Juliet to not marry him. “And in his wisdom hastes our marriage, To stop the inundation of her tears.” This shows that Paris thinks Juliet is still upset about Tybalt's death when in fact she is upset about Romeo being banished. “I will confess to you that I love him” This quote shows that Juliet tells Paris that she is in love with 'him', here she is referring to Romeo but Paris thinks she is talking about him, throughout this scene Paris and Juliet's exchanges have a double meaning. Juliet does not want to give away that she is already married to Romeo. Benvolio appears as the peacemaker in the play as he represents love. He does not want to fight with the Capulet's. “I do but keep the peace” This shows Benvolio does always keep the peace between the two families. Romeo and Juliet's love is the main part of the play and is shown in a lot of ways. Juliet has fallen in love with someone she is supposed to hate and she also says that Romeo's name does not matter as she still loves him. “'Tis by thy name that is my enemy; Thou art myself, though not a Montague” Juliet wonders why their names make a difference to who they are and if Romeo's name was different he would still be the same person. She also says that their names are keeping them apart. Mercutio is a person who makes jokes, most of them are about sex, which entertain the audience. He enjoys winding Romeo and Juliet up about their love. “O Romeo, that she were, O that she were An open-arse, thou a pop'rin pear!” Mercutio is energetic and full of life and makes a lot of puns. Shakespeare makes him like this to add some comedy to the play. Mercutio talks about sex and lust between Romeo and Juliet which highlights their love for each other.
Fated love is very important in the play because in the Sonnet at the start of the play, it sets out the scene and talks about fated love. “A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life; Whose misadventured piteous overthrows” This part of the Prologue says that Romeo and Juliet's fate was written in the stars and their misunderstandings lead to them both dying. Shakespeare shows in the play that fate brings Romeo and Juliet together, as they have both fallen for someone they are supposed to hate. Juliet can imagine what is going to happen to her and Romeo, while Romeo has a dream. In Romeo's dream, he talks about the stars and death. “Some consequence yet hanging in the stars. Shall bitterly begin his fearful date. By some vile forfeit of untimely death.” Romeo looks into the future and has a premonition of death. He believes that dreams come true and must mean something and have a purpose behind them while Mercutio thinks the total opposite. Mercutio believes that dreams are false and do not mean anything.
Juliet's “death” has a high impact on most characters in the play, especially Romeo and Paris. They are both grieving for her and are both in love with her. While Paris shows up to Juliet's tomb with flowers and mourns for her, Romeo shows up with poison and is planning on killing himself. Romeo is genuinely devastated of Juliet's death and cannot stop thinking of how he is going to carry out his death. Paris on the other hand, does not show much emotion, he stays calm and says he will cry every night even though he didn't know Juliet that well, but he feels sadness and pain for losing her. “Sweet flower, with flowers thy bridal bed I strew- Nightly shall be to strew thy grave and weep.” This shows Paris is mourning for Juliet unlike Romeo who just wants to know how Juliet died and wants to see her body so he can say goodbye. As Romeo tries to enter the tomb, Paris challenges Romeo to a fight, as Paris thinks Romeo killed Juliet because of Tybalt. “This is that banished haughty Montague, That murdered my love's cousin, with which grief.” This shows that Paris is trying to stop Romeo getting into the tomb. After Paris challenges Romeo to a fight, he is killed by Romeo. He tells Romeo he wants to be buried next to his love, Juliet, and as he did not mean to kill Paris, Romeo agrees and lays him next to Juliet's body and does not feel jealous. “Open the tomb lay me with Juliet.” Paris challenged Romeo because he wants to protect the Capulets and is getting involved with the family feud between the Montagues and Capulets. While Romeo is laying Paris next to Juliet's body, he finds Tybalt's body and asks him for forgiveness as he feels sorry for killing him. “Tybalt, liest thou there in thy bloody sheet? O, what more favour can I do to thee.” This shows Romeo wants to apologise to Tybalt before he dies. Romeo is also shocked that Juliet was due to marry Paris and he has killed for love. Romeo is more aggressive than sad towards Juliet's death as he does not mourn for her very much. Romeo thought his marriage was going to end the family feud. As Romeo takes one last look at Juliet's body, he still talks about her beauty. “Hath had no power yet upon thy beauty: Thou art not conquered, beauty's ensign yet. Is crimson in thy lips and in thy cheeks, And Death's pale flag is not advancèd there.” Romeo says here that Juliet looks as if she is still alive, he can tell this by the colour of her cheeks. Romeo then declares his love for her and drinks the poison unaware of Juliet soon to be awakening. “Here's to my love! [Drinks] O true apothecary! Thy drugs are quick. Thus with a kiss I die. [Dies]” This is the point in the play where Romeo dies as Juliet awakes from her “death”. Juliet's fake death also has an effect on the Nurse and Lord and Lady Capulet. The Nurse arrives in Juliet's room excited for her and her wedding to Paris, this then changes as she begins to realise something is wrong. “Alas, alas! Help, help! my lady's dead! My lord! My lady!” This shows the Nurse trying to wake Juliet for her wedding and finds that she is dressed and will not wake up. Lady Capulet then enters and grieves for her daughter but also seems upset that there will not be a marriage. “O me, O me, my child, my only life!” This shows that the Nurse's grief seems much more real and extreme. Lord Capulet then enters and cannot believe the death of his daughter either. “O child, O child! my soul and not my child!” This shows that Lord Capulet does not believe that it is his child that has died. Altogether this shows that the Nurse reacted worse to the death of Juliet, while Lady Capulet did not seem too upset.
In Shakespeare's time, young girls were to be married at a very young age such as 13 years old. This is how old Juliet was when she met Romeo and the age when her mother starts talking to her about marriage. Juliet's father, Lord Capulet, believes Juliet is too young to be married but would like her to get married if Juliet agrees to it. But then later on in the play after he meets Paris, Lord Capulet decides he wants Juliet to be married as soon as possible, even though he does not know she is already married to Romeo. Lord Capulet believes Paris would be the perfect husband for Juliet because he is royalty and related to the Prince. “She shall be married to this noble earl.” This shows Lord Capulet wants Juliet to be married to Paris straight away rather than let her get to know or fall in love with Paris. Lord Capulet then organises the wedding himself without consoling Juliet because she cannot accept she has to be married. Juliet's parents think that her getting married will cheer her up after the death of Tybalt. “But for the sunset of my brother's son It rains downright. How now, a conduit, girl? What, still in tears?” This shows Lord Capulet thinks that Juliet is still grieving for Tybalt when she is actually upset that Romeo has been banished.
Shakespeare shows that Juliet and the Nurse have a strong bond, almost like a mother and daughter bond. The Nurse is more like a mother to Juliet than Lady Capulet because Juliet and her mother have a distant relationship as she has been bought up by the Nurse. She knows more about Juliet than Lady Capulet does for example, her age and her opinion on marriage. The Nurse treats Juliet like a daughter because she had a daughter, Susan who is mentioned in the play, but died. “Susan and she- God rest all Christian souls!- Were of an age. Well, Susan is with God” This shows that the Nurse is telling Juliet and Lady Capulet about the death of her daughter. This is the reason why the Nurse has stayed around looking after Juliet for so long, because she misses her own daughter. Lady Capulet is so distant from her daughter, she needs the Nurse in the room when she speaks to Juliet. “Nurse, give leave a while, We must talk in secret. Nurse, come back again, I have remembered me,” This shows that Lady Capulet cannot be left alone with her daughter as she barely knows her that well and needs the Nurse's company. The Nurse is relaxed, informal and feels comfortable and speaks freely around Juliet and her mother. Juliet is a lot closer to the Nurse than her own mother but she respects her mother a lot, although they are very distant, she can be a bit afraid of her mother. Juliet is not bothered about being married as she is not interested. “Tell me, daughter Juliet, How stands your dispositions to be married?” “It is an honour that I dream not of.” This is showing Lady Capulet starting to speak about marriage to her daughter and she tries to convince Juliet to get married and starts to speak of her own experience of getting married at a young age.
Shakespeare also shows that Romeo and Friar Lawrence have a close relationship. After Romeo returns from Capulet mansion, the Friar fears that Romeo has spent the night with Rosaline, but then he learns Romeo has fallen in love with someone else and is asked if he could marry him and Juliet. Friar Lawrence agrees to carry out the ceremony because he thinks their marriage will end the feuding of the Montagues and Capulets. “For this alliance may so happy prove To turn your households' rancour to pure love.” This quotation shows that Friar Lawrence will do anything to stop the families feuding, and he is taking a big risk by marrying a member of the Montague family and a member of the Capulet family. If a family member of either Romeo or Juliet found out Friar Lawrence married them, the Friar could be banished. Shakespeare also shows that Juliet and the Friar have a close relationship. This may be because the Friar helps Juliet think of a plan to get out of the marriage to Paris. He acts like a father to Juliet as she is not close to her father either. “Hold, daughter, I do spy a kind of hope, Which craves as desperate an execution.” This shows that Friar Lawrence call Juliet 'daughter' which shows that they obviously have a close relationship. Shakespeare shows Romeo and Juliet close to the Nurse and Friar Lawrence because they are both distant from their parents. They are also very close to them because the Nurse and Friar Lawrence are the only people that know about Romeo and Juliet's relationship and that they got married.
The end of the play is very important because it shows where the Montagues and Capulets finally forget about their feud and make peace with each other. The Prince starts to talk about Romeo and Juliet's relationship and how it strengthens love, but still talks about the hate that they have caused for their children to die. The Prince advises them to end the feud for they have both lost children. Their hate for each other has caused some deaths and loosing family members from each family. “Where be these enemies? Capulet, Montague? See what a scourge is laid upon your hate, That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love!” This shows that the Prince is showing the Montagues and Capulets what their argument has caused. The two families then agree to settle their differences as they realise what damage they have done to their family and themselves. “O brother Montague, give me thy hand. This is my daughter's jointure, for no more Can I demand.” This shows Lord Capulet making an effort. The families also promise to make a golden statue of Romeo and Juliet. “But I can give thee more, For I will raise her statue in pure gold, That whiles Verona by that name is known, There shall no figure at such rate be set As that of true and faithful Juliet.” This shows Lord Montague then making an effort by saying he will let everyone know in Verona about Juliet. “As rich shall Romeo's by his lady's lie, Poor sacrifices of our enmity!” This then shows Capulet saying he will also put up a statue of Romeo and tell everyone in Verona about him too. The Prince then ends the play with a speech, saying some will receive punishment and some will be pardoned. “Some shall be pardoned, and some punished: For never was a story of more woe Than this of Juliet and her Romeo.” This quote shows the play ending with a Sonnet which sums up what happens at the end of the play. At the beginning of the play, which starts with a Sonnet, Shakespeare warns us that the only way the feud would end is if their children die, which is exactly what happens.
In conclusion, Shakespeare has shown love and hate in many ways. He has shown love through Romeo and Juliet and Romeo and Rosaline. He shows true love through Romeo and Juliet, who are willing to die for each other, and unrequited love through him and Rosaline. Shakespeare shows in the balcony scene that Romeo and Juliet have fallen in love with each other even though they have only just met. This play shows the couple taking a lot of risks in being together despite of their feuding families. Shakespeare also shows hate through Benvolio and Tybalt and the Montague family and the Capulet family. He also shows what hate can do by showing the death of Mercutio, Tybalt, Paris, Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet are supposed to hate each other but they accidentally fall in love. Shakespeare also shows hate with a lot of fights between members of the families. Overall, Shakespeare shows love and hate in lots of different ways which are shown throughout the play. They are shown in this way because Shakespeare wants to show the division between the two families and the love for Romeo and Juliet. | <urn:uuid:2139b8a9-6b78-4b96-b681-8bf41c7eefa2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://writing-help.org/blog/love-and-hate-in-romeo-and-juliet-essay | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00192.warc.gz | en | 0.981437 | 4,085 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
0.03798066824674606,
-0.09866190701723099,
0.27105551958084106,
0.02176802232861519,
-0.6208044290542603,
0.1923576444387436,
0.2833925485610962,
0.4520642161369324,
0.05301784723997116,
-0.3273853361606598,
0.1452701985836029,
-0.27695152163505554,
0.13777373731136322,
0.06110954284667969... | 1 | 'Romeo and Juliet' was written in 1595 by William Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy and love story about two children from rival families, who fall in love. Their misunderstandings lead to them both dying. Shakespeare uses an oxymoron in the play, love and hate. Shakespeare presents love and hate is many different ways, through language, context and some characters. In the times when Shakespeare was alive and his productions were first being shown, Juliet had to be played by a boy/man, this was because women weren't allowed on stage in those days. In this essay I will be talking about the ways Shakespeare presents love and hate.
In 'Romeo and Juliet' there are two rival families, the Capulets and the Montagues. Juliet is a part of the Capulet family while Romeo is a part of the Montague family. Both families live in Verona, Italy and both families hate each other. Shakespeare has presented hate in this way to show a major division between the two families who lives on separate sides of Verona. He shows hate in this way because he wants to show how Romeo and Juliet cannot be happily married like a normal couple as they both have to hide their marriage from their families. Shakespeare shows that love cannot heal hate. The play opens with a fight between the two families including Gregory and Sampson, the Capulet servants, and Abram and Benvolio, members of the Montagues. Benvolio is being the peacemaker between the two families. “Part, fools! Put up your swords, you know not what you do.” This shows that Benvolio tries to stop the fighting but everyone ignores him and fights anyway. Later on in the play, a fight occurs between Mercutio and Tybalt which turns very violent and Mercutio is stabbed by Tybalt, but Romeo steps in and kills Tybalt. This fight is representing hate between Capulets, a Montague and a member of royalty. Shakespeare uses a fight to show hate because it shows the conflict between two main families and someone who had nothing to do with the argument between Benvolio and Tybalt. Tybalt uses negative words by using alliteration which are snake sounds. “A villain that is hither come in spite, to scorn at our solemnity this night.” This scene is at the Capulet party in which Romeo and Juliet first meet and fall in love as the Montagues turn up at the party unexpected. Tybalt sees the Montague at their party and tells his uncle Lord Capulet and names Romeo as a villain. Later on the play, Romeo says that life must hate him because he has fallen in love with someone he is meant to hate. “Is she a Capulet? O dear account! my life is my foe's debt.” This shows that Romeo is surprised when he finds out Juliet is actually a Capulet.
Shakespeare shows love in many different ways in this play but the most important way of showing it is Romeo and Juliet's love. Shakespeare even starts the play off with a way of showing love by using a Sonnet. At the start of the play, Romeo is said to have been in love with Rosaline but she did not love him back, this is an example of unrequited love. Romeo is not happy about his love for Rosaline, instead he acts grumpy and sad but Benvolio gives him advice to forget about her and look for some more women to fall in love with. “Be ruled by me, forget to think of her. By giving liberty unto thine eyes, Examine other beauties.” This shows that Benvolio is tired of Romeo being sad about being in love so he gives him advice to forget about her and move on. This is showing love because while Romeo and Benvolio are looking for other women, Romeo meets and also falls in love with Juliet. Another example of requited love is between Paris and Juliet, this is shown later on in the play. As Lord and Lady Capulet are arranging their daughter's wedding, Friar Lawrence and Juliet are thinking of a way for her to get out of the wedding she does not want to take part in as she is already married to Romeo. Paris tells Lord Capulet that he wants to speed up the wedding but looks silly as Lord Capulet wants Juliet to be ready. Paris thinks there is no reason for Juliet to not marry him. “And in his wisdom hastes our marriage, To stop the inundation of her tears.” This shows that Paris thinks Juliet is still upset about Tybalt's death when in fact she is upset about Romeo being banished. “I will confess to you that I love him” This quote shows that Juliet tells Paris that she is in love with 'him', here she is referring to Romeo but Paris thinks she is talking about him, throughout this scene Paris and Juliet's exchanges have a double meaning. Juliet does not want to give away that she is already married to Romeo. Benvolio appears as the peacemaker in the play as he represents love. He does not want to fight with the Capulet's. “I do but keep the peace” This shows Benvolio does always keep the peace between the two families. Romeo and Juliet's love is the main part of the play and is shown in a lot of ways. Juliet has fallen in love with someone she is supposed to hate and she also says that Romeo's name does not matter as she still loves him. “'Tis by thy name that is my enemy; Thou art myself, though not a Montague” Juliet wonders why their names make a difference to who they are and if Romeo's name was different he would still be the same person. She also says that their names are keeping them apart. Mercutio is a person who makes jokes, most of them are about sex, which entertain the audience. He enjoys winding Romeo and Juliet up about their love. “O Romeo, that she were, O that she were An open-arse, thou a pop'rin pear!” Mercutio is energetic and full of life and makes a lot of puns. Shakespeare makes him like this to add some comedy to the play. Mercutio talks about sex and lust between Romeo and Juliet which highlights their love for each other.
Fated love is very important in the play because in the Sonnet at the start of the play, it sets out the scene and talks about fated love. “A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life; Whose misadventured piteous overthrows” This part of the Prologue says that Romeo and Juliet's fate was written in the stars and their misunderstandings lead to them both dying. Shakespeare shows in the play that fate brings Romeo and Juliet together, as they have both fallen for someone they are supposed to hate. Juliet can imagine what is going to happen to her and Romeo, while Romeo has a dream. In Romeo's dream, he talks about the stars and death. “Some consequence yet hanging in the stars. Shall bitterly begin his fearful date. By some vile forfeit of untimely death.” Romeo looks into the future and has a premonition of death. He believes that dreams come true and must mean something and have a purpose behind them while Mercutio thinks the total opposite. Mercutio believes that dreams are false and do not mean anything.
Juliet's “death” has a high impact on most characters in the play, especially Romeo and Paris. They are both grieving for her and are both in love with her. While Paris shows up to Juliet's tomb with flowers and mourns for her, Romeo shows up with poison and is planning on killing himself. Romeo is genuinely devastated of Juliet's death and cannot stop thinking of how he is going to carry out his death. Paris on the other hand, does not show much emotion, he stays calm and says he will cry every night even though he didn't know Juliet that well, but he feels sadness and pain for losing her. “Sweet flower, with flowers thy bridal bed I strew- Nightly shall be to strew thy grave and weep.” This shows Paris is mourning for Juliet unlike Romeo who just wants to know how Juliet died and wants to see her body so he can say goodbye. As Romeo tries to enter the tomb, Paris challenges Romeo to a fight, as Paris thinks Romeo killed Juliet because of Tybalt. “This is that banished haughty Montague, That murdered my love's cousin, with which grief.” This shows that Paris is trying to stop Romeo getting into the tomb. After Paris challenges Romeo to a fight, he is killed by Romeo. He tells Romeo he wants to be buried next to his love, Juliet, and as he did not mean to kill Paris, Romeo agrees and lays him next to Juliet's body and does not feel jealous. “Open the tomb lay me with Juliet.” Paris challenged Romeo because he wants to protect the Capulets and is getting involved with the family feud between the Montagues and Capulets. While Romeo is laying Paris next to Juliet's body, he finds Tybalt's body and asks him for forgiveness as he feels sorry for killing him. “Tybalt, liest thou there in thy bloody sheet? O, what more favour can I do to thee.” This shows Romeo wants to apologise to Tybalt before he dies. Romeo is also shocked that Juliet was due to marry Paris and he has killed for love. Romeo is more aggressive than sad towards Juliet's death as he does not mourn for her very much. Romeo thought his marriage was going to end the family feud. As Romeo takes one last look at Juliet's body, he still talks about her beauty. “Hath had no power yet upon thy beauty: Thou art not conquered, beauty's ensign yet. Is crimson in thy lips and in thy cheeks, And Death's pale flag is not advancèd there.” Romeo says here that Juliet looks as if she is still alive, he can tell this by the colour of her cheeks. Romeo then declares his love for her and drinks the poison unaware of Juliet soon to be awakening. “Here's to my love! [Drinks] O true apothecary! Thy drugs are quick. Thus with a kiss I die. [Dies]” This is the point in the play where Romeo dies as Juliet awakes from her “death”. Juliet's fake death also has an effect on the Nurse and Lord and Lady Capulet. The Nurse arrives in Juliet's room excited for her and her wedding to Paris, this then changes as she begins to realise something is wrong. “Alas, alas! Help, help! my lady's dead! My lord! My lady!” This shows the Nurse trying to wake Juliet for her wedding and finds that she is dressed and will not wake up. Lady Capulet then enters and grieves for her daughter but also seems upset that there will not be a marriage. “O me, O me, my child, my only life!” This shows that the Nurse's grief seems much more real and extreme. Lord Capulet then enters and cannot believe the death of his daughter either. “O child, O child! my soul and not my child!” This shows that Lord Capulet does not believe that it is his child that has died. Altogether this shows that the Nurse reacted worse to the death of Juliet, while Lady Capulet did not seem too upset.
In Shakespeare's time, young girls were to be married at a very young age such as 13 years old. This is how old Juliet was when she met Romeo and the age when her mother starts talking to her about marriage. Juliet's father, Lord Capulet, believes Juliet is too young to be married but would like her to get married if Juliet agrees to it. But then later on in the play after he meets Paris, Lord Capulet decides he wants Juliet to be married as soon as possible, even though he does not know she is already married to Romeo. Lord Capulet believes Paris would be the perfect husband for Juliet because he is royalty and related to the Prince. “She shall be married to this noble earl.” This shows Lord Capulet wants Juliet to be married to Paris straight away rather than let her get to know or fall in love with Paris. Lord Capulet then organises the wedding himself without consoling Juliet because she cannot accept she has to be married. Juliet's parents think that her getting married will cheer her up after the death of Tybalt. “But for the sunset of my brother's son It rains downright. How now, a conduit, girl? What, still in tears?” This shows Lord Capulet thinks that Juliet is still grieving for Tybalt when she is actually upset that Romeo has been banished.
Shakespeare shows that Juliet and the Nurse have a strong bond, almost like a mother and daughter bond. The Nurse is more like a mother to Juliet than Lady Capulet because Juliet and her mother have a distant relationship as she has been bought up by the Nurse. She knows more about Juliet than Lady Capulet does for example, her age and her opinion on marriage. The Nurse treats Juliet like a daughter because she had a daughter, Susan who is mentioned in the play, but died. “Susan and she- God rest all Christian souls!- Were of an age. Well, Susan is with God” This shows that the Nurse is telling Juliet and Lady Capulet about the death of her daughter. This is the reason why the Nurse has stayed around looking after Juliet for so long, because she misses her own daughter. Lady Capulet is so distant from her daughter, she needs the Nurse in the room when she speaks to Juliet. “Nurse, give leave a while, We must talk in secret. Nurse, come back again, I have remembered me,” This shows that Lady Capulet cannot be left alone with her daughter as she barely knows her that well and needs the Nurse's company. The Nurse is relaxed, informal and feels comfortable and speaks freely around Juliet and her mother. Juliet is a lot closer to the Nurse than her own mother but she respects her mother a lot, although they are very distant, she can be a bit afraid of her mother. Juliet is not bothered about being married as she is not interested. “Tell me, daughter Juliet, How stands your dispositions to be married?” “It is an honour that I dream not of.” This is showing Lady Capulet starting to speak about marriage to her daughter and she tries to convince Juliet to get married and starts to speak of her own experience of getting married at a young age.
Shakespeare also shows that Romeo and Friar Lawrence have a close relationship. After Romeo returns from Capulet mansion, the Friar fears that Romeo has spent the night with Rosaline, but then he learns Romeo has fallen in love with someone else and is asked if he could marry him and Juliet. Friar Lawrence agrees to carry out the ceremony because he thinks their marriage will end the feuding of the Montagues and Capulets. “For this alliance may so happy prove To turn your households' rancour to pure love.” This quotation shows that Friar Lawrence will do anything to stop the families feuding, and he is taking a big risk by marrying a member of the Montague family and a member of the Capulet family. If a family member of either Romeo or Juliet found out Friar Lawrence married them, the Friar could be banished. Shakespeare also shows that Juliet and the Friar have a close relationship. This may be because the Friar helps Juliet think of a plan to get out of the marriage to Paris. He acts like a father to Juliet as she is not close to her father either. “Hold, daughter, I do spy a kind of hope, Which craves as desperate an execution.” This shows that Friar Lawrence call Juliet 'daughter' which shows that they obviously have a close relationship. Shakespeare shows Romeo and Juliet close to the Nurse and Friar Lawrence because they are both distant from their parents. They are also very close to them because the Nurse and Friar Lawrence are the only people that know about Romeo and Juliet's relationship and that they got married.
The end of the play is very important because it shows where the Montagues and Capulets finally forget about their feud and make peace with each other. The Prince starts to talk about Romeo and Juliet's relationship and how it strengthens love, but still talks about the hate that they have caused for their children to die. The Prince advises them to end the feud for they have both lost children. Their hate for each other has caused some deaths and loosing family members from each family. “Where be these enemies? Capulet, Montague? See what a scourge is laid upon your hate, That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love!” This shows that the Prince is showing the Montagues and Capulets what their argument has caused. The two families then agree to settle their differences as they realise what damage they have done to their family and themselves. “O brother Montague, give me thy hand. This is my daughter's jointure, for no more Can I demand.” This shows Lord Capulet making an effort. The families also promise to make a golden statue of Romeo and Juliet. “But I can give thee more, For I will raise her statue in pure gold, That whiles Verona by that name is known, There shall no figure at such rate be set As that of true and faithful Juliet.” This shows Lord Montague then making an effort by saying he will let everyone know in Verona about Juliet. “As rich shall Romeo's by his lady's lie, Poor sacrifices of our enmity!” This then shows Capulet saying he will also put up a statue of Romeo and tell everyone in Verona about him too. The Prince then ends the play with a speech, saying some will receive punishment and some will be pardoned. “Some shall be pardoned, and some punished: For never was a story of more woe Than this of Juliet and her Romeo.” This quote shows the play ending with a Sonnet which sums up what happens at the end of the play. At the beginning of the play, which starts with a Sonnet, Shakespeare warns us that the only way the feud would end is if their children die, which is exactly what happens.
In conclusion, Shakespeare has shown love and hate in many ways. He has shown love through Romeo and Juliet and Romeo and Rosaline. He shows true love through Romeo and Juliet, who are willing to die for each other, and unrequited love through him and Rosaline. Shakespeare shows in the balcony scene that Romeo and Juliet have fallen in love with each other even though they have only just met. This play shows the couple taking a lot of risks in being together despite of their feuding families. Shakespeare also shows hate through Benvolio and Tybalt and the Montague family and the Capulet family. He also shows what hate can do by showing the death of Mercutio, Tybalt, Paris, Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet are supposed to hate each other but they accidentally fall in love. Shakespeare also shows hate with a lot of fights between members of the families. Overall, Shakespeare shows love and hate in lots of different ways which are shown throughout the play. They are shown in this way because Shakespeare wants to show the division between the two families and the love for Romeo and Juliet. | 3,991 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Early Aboriginal Culture
Early Aboriginal Australians were hunter-gatherers who practiced no farming techniques and kept no domestic animals. They had limited weapons, mostly made of wood and stone, to help them acquire their food. As in many other communities around the world, the men were the predominant hunters, killing large and small animals such as wallabies, emus and kangaroos. Women made an equal contribution by gathering vegetables, fruits, roots and small game like snakes.
In coastal areas, both men and women dove for shellfish. They also used fibers and ropes to make baskets to catch fish. Coastal indigenous people developed a type of boat that looked like a flattened canoe. Because they were made of brush and bark, these boats would become waterlogged after a period of time. After only a few miles, they would begin to disintegrate altogether.
As we discussed in the last section, the ancient Aboriginal people worshipped their land, and they did everything they could to protect it. In order to preserve the land and its resources, most tribes slept on the ground with no shelter. They hunted only what they needed to eat and gathered only the plants and roots they needed to sustain themselves. According to Aboriginal beliefs, the spirits assigned the land itself to the various tribes. Because of this, there were no territorial wars – if people were on land that didn't belong to their tribe, they would begin to feel the spirits' angry energy, and bad things would begin to happen.
For most of their existence, Aboriginal people also wore no clothes, which is amazing considering how cold parts of the continent can get in the winter. In the colder regions, men and women might keep themselves warm by draping themselves in animal pelts that were sewn together. In other areas, they might use what they could find, like animal fat or a clay called ocher, to protect their skin. Women often made necklaces using materials like shells. Their bodies were often canvasses, with charcoal and ocher used as paint.
Music and dance were a large part of the culture, as was storytelling. Elders used all three to tell the stories of the dreamings, give thanks to the spirits and even ask favors like increased fertility or rain. They also created musical instruments, the most famous being the didgeridoo. The creation of a didgeridoo begins when termites hollow out the inside of a piece of wood, and Aboriginal Australians cut the size down to 5 feet. When played, the didgeridoo produces a low hum caused by vibrations. Various tribes use it in formal ceremonies and events. Aboriginal Australians kept up this peaceful way of life for more then 40,000 years. But that all changed once the Europeans colonized Australia. | <urn:uuid:6877235e-c601-4ebc-8895-4b9b3c0792b7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://people.howstuffworks.com/aborigine1.htm | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250620381.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124130719-20200124155719-00451.warc.gz | en | 0.981626 | 558 | 4.09375 | 4 | [
0.07845960557460785,
0.679269015789032,
0.31726428866386414,
0.21977704763412476,
0.04861612617969513,
-0.0637827217578888,
0.08853036165237427,
-0.002777282614260912,
-0.41053664684295654,
-0.026328276842832565,
0.08008487522602081,
-0.46945250034332275,
0.043982651084661484,
0.2782683372... | 3 | Early Aboriginal Culture
Early Aboriginal Australians were hunter-gatherers who practiced no farming techniques and kept no domestic animals. They had limited weapons, mostly made of wood and stone, to help them acquire their food. As in many other communities around the world, the men were the predominant hunters, killing large and small animals such as wallabies, emus and kangaroos. Women made an equal contribution by gathering vegetables, fruits, roots and small game like snakes.
In coastal areas, both men and women dove for shellfish. They also used fibers and ropes to make baskets to catch fish. Coastal indigenous people developed a type of boat that looked like a flattened canoe. Because they were made of brush and bark, these boats would become waterlogged after a period of time. After only a few miles, they would begin to disintegrate altogether.
As we discussed in the last section, the ancient Aboriginal people worshipped their land, and they did everything they could to protect it. In order to preserve the land and its resources, most tribes slept on the ground with no shelter. They hunted only what they needed to eat and gathered only the plants and roots they needed to sustain themselves. According to Aboriginal beliefs, the spirits assigned the land itself to the various tribes. Because of this, there were no territorial wars – if people were on land that didn't belong to their tribe, they would begin to feel the spirits' angry energy, and bad things would begin to happen.
For most of their existence, Aboriginal people also wore no clothes, which is amazing considering how cold parts of the continent can get in the winter. In the colder regions, men and women might keep themselves warm by draping themselves in animal pelts that were sewn together. In other areas, they might use what they could find, like animal fat or a clay called ocher, to protect their skin. Women often made necklaces using materials like shells. Their bodies were often canvasses, with charcoal and ocher used as paint.
Music and dance were a large part of the culture, as was storytelling. Elders used all three to tell the stories of the dreamings, give thanks to the spirits and even ask favors like increased fertility or rain. They also created musical instruments, the most famous being the didgeridoo. The creation of a didgeridoo begins when termites hollow out the inside of a piece of wood, and Aboriginal Australians cut the size down to 5 feet. When played, the didgeridoo produces a low hum caused by vibrations. Various tribes use it in formal ceremonies and events. Aboriginal Australians kept up this peaceful way of life for more then 40,000 years. But that all changed once the Europeans colonized Australia. | 556 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Bible consists of small units, woven together into ‘books’, which were put together into the two Testaments, which were put together into one Bible. The meaning of the sentences of a unit depends on its context, including who is its author. When a unit is put into a book and the book eventually put into one Bible, the meanings of its sentences change, since the context changes. The meaning of a sentence regarded as a sentence of the whole Bible depends crucially on who is the author of the whole Bible. If God inspired its compilation, then he is its author; and in that case passages of the Bible must be understood to have the meaning they would have if he had written it—for example, all its sentences must be understood in such a way as to be consistent with each other, and with everything else God knows (for example, the truths of science and history). Our only grounds for believing the Bible to contain revealed truth are that the Church declared that God inspired it.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian. | <urn:uuid:3ef5b88e-c643-4963-890a-44795d9a731a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198239688.001.0001/acprof-9780198239680-chapter-11 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597458.22/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120052454-20200120080454-00354.warc.gz | en | 0.980353 | 263 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.20775015652179718,
0.21130989491939545,
0.04889768362045288,
-0.10897263884544373,
-0.10358786582946777,
-0.3521537780761719,
0.10071612894535065,
0.007707525976002216,
0.3658919036388397,
0.1474873274564743,
0.10663112998008728,
-0.49202990531921387,
0.13896562159061432,
-0.221857964992... | 3 | The Bible consists of small units, woven together into ‘books’, which were put together into the two Testaments, which were put together into one Bible. The meaning of the sentences of a unit depends on its context, including who is its author. When a unit is put into a book and the book eventually put into one Bible, the meanings of its sentences change, since the context changes. The meaning of a sentence regarded as a sentence of the whole Bible depends crucially on who is the author of the whole Bible. If God inspired its compilation, then he is its author; and in that case passages of the Bible must be understood to have the meaning they would have if he had written it—for example, all its sentences must be understood in such a way as to be consistent with each other, and with everything else God knows (for example, the truths of science and history). Our only grounds for believing the Bible to contain revealed truth are that the Church declared that God inspired it.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian. | 256 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Straw Hat Riot
The Straw Hat Riot of 1922 was a riot that occurred in New York City. Originating as a series of minor riots, it spread due to men wearing straw hats past the unofficial date that was deemed socially acceptable, September 15. It lasted eight days, and it led to many arrests and some injuries.
Straw hats had appeared in the 19th century as summertime wear usually in connection to summer sporting events such as boating (hence the name boater). Soft Panama hats were likewise derived from tropical attire but began to be worn as informal summer attire. Initially it was not considered good form for men to wear these in big cities even at the height of summer (women's hats were different). By the early 20th century, straw boaters were considered acceptable day attire in North American cities at the height of summer even for businessmen but there was an unwritten rule that one was not supposed to wear a straw hat past September 15.
This date was arbitrary; earlier it had been September 1, but it eventually shifted to mid-month. It was socially acceptable for stockbrokers to destroy each other's hats, due to the fact that they were “companions”, but it was not acceptable for total strangers. If any man was seen wearing a straw hat, he was, at minimum, subjecting himself to ridicule, and it was a tradition for youths to knock straw hats off of wearers' heads and stomp on them. This tradition became well established, and newspapers of the day would often warn people of the impending approach of the fifteenth, when men would have to switch to felt or silk hats. Hat bashing was only socially acceptable after September 15, but there were multiple occasions leading up to the 15th that the police had to intervene and stop teenagers.
The riot itself began on September 13 of 1922, two days before the supposed unspoken date, when a group of youths decided to get an early jump on the tradition. This group began in the former "Mulberry Bend" area of Manhattan by removing and stomping hats worn by factory workers who were employed in the area. The more innocuous stomping turned into a brawl when the youths tried to stomp a group of dock workers' hats, and the dock workers fought back. The brawl soon stopped traffic on the Manhattan Bridge and was eventually broken up by police, leading to some arrests.
Although the initial brawl was broken up by police, the fights continued to escalate the next evening. Gangs of teenagers prowled the streets wielding large sticks, sometimes with a nail driven through the top, looking for pedestrians wearing straw hats and beating those who resisted. One man claimed that his hat was taken and the group who had taken his hat joined a mob of about 1,000 that was snatching hats all along Amsterdam Avenue. Several men were hospitalized from the beatings they received after resisting having their hats taken, and many arrests were made. Police were slow to respond to the riots, although several off-duty police officers found themselves caught up in the brawl when rioters attempted to snatch their hats. Two or three boys were brought in by pedestrians who said that their straw hats got smashed; the boys were locked up. There were a variety of ways that hats were smashed, including jumping on them, kicking them around, beating them with a stick, and beating them with a stick with nails.
Many of those taken to court following arrests related to the hat-snatching frenzy opted to be fined rather than serve time in jail. The longest recorded time one of the teens was sent to jail was three days served by an A. Silverman, who was sentenced by Magistrate Peter A. Hatting during night court.
In one incident, "ten or twelve boys armed with sticks dashed out of doorways near 100th street". Seven of the youths brought to the police station were under 15 and were not arrested; their parents were summoned and the boys "were spanked ignominiously" in the "East 104th Street police station by order of the lieutenant at the desk." After the station dealt with the original riot, all stations were told to keep an eye out for hat-snatching teens. E.C. Jones claimed to see around 1,000 teens in a mob roaming around Amsterdam Avenue. A man, Harry Gerber, was kicked so badly he had to be hospitalized. When Acting Detective Brundizo had his hat knocked off, he chased the kid but was interrupted by policeman Sigmund Cohn. Brundizo then arrested Cohn for "interfering with an officer in the discharge of his duty". Cohn was released that night in night court, where he explained that he didn't know that Brundizo was an officer until he "drew his gun and black-jack".
The tradition of hat smashing continued for some time after the riots of 1922, although they marked the worst occurrence of hat smashing. In 1924, one man was murdered for wearing a straw hat. 1925 saw similar arrests made in New York.
That the activity died out is probably connected with the disappearance of the tradition of the seasonal switch from straw to felt hats. While Panama hats became, if anything, more fashionable during the 1930s, the straw boater became less fashionable. They had started as a fashionable item in the 1890s but by the 1930s comparatively few young men were wearing them (even for boating and other summer activities). They probably seemed dated, quaint and after the Wall Street crash, a symbol of the irresponsible 1920s. Straw hats for men continued to be manufactured but crucially they closely resembled hats such as the Panama, Trilby or Fedora in shape. By the 1950s the classic straw boater was virtually extinct as a garment, except in specialized circumstances such as the uniform of certain English public schools or university and college sportswear.
- "Discard Date for Straw Hats Ignored by President Coolidge". The New York Times. September 20, 1925. pp. 226–27.
- "The Pittsburgh Press - Google News Archive Search". news.google.com. Retrieved 2019-10-17.
- Steinberg, Neil (2004). Hatless Jack. New York: Plume. pp. 226–227. ISBN 0-452-28523-2.
- "Good-bye to the Straw Hat". Magazine section. The New York Times. September 13, 1925. p. 20.
- Humanities, National Endowment for the (1922-09-16). "New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, September 16, 1922, Image 3". p. 3. ISSN 1941-0646. Retrieved 2019-10-17.
- "Straw Hat Smashing Orgy Bares Heads from Battery to Bronx". New York Tribune. September 16, 1922. Page 3, column 3.
- "City Has Wild Night of Straw Hat Riots" (PDF). The New York Times. September 16, 1922. | <urn:uuid:589ec050-e75b-4f79-9dea-9438fc2f2e66> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_Hat_Riot | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00032.warc.gz | en | 0.983805 | 1,434 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.41850805282592773,
-0.19520549476146698,
0.3825158476829529,
-0.4088726043701172,
0.23216164112091064,
0.21571588516235352,
0.40667665004730225,
0.07368624210357666,
-0.2409772276878357,
0.0850101113319397,
0.2066965103149414,
0.2954366207122803,
0.0220489464700222,
0.046432606875896454... | 1 | Straw Hat Riot
The Straw Hat Riot of 1922 was a riot that occurred in New York City. Originating as a series of minor riots, it spread due to men wearing straw hats past the unofficial date that was deemed socially acceptable, September 15. It lasted eight days, and it led to many arrests and some injuries.
Straw hats had appeared in the 19th century as summertime wear usually in connection to summer sporting events such as boating (hence the name boater). Soft Panama hats were likewise derived from tropical attire but began to be worn as informal summer attire. Initially it was not considered good form for men to wear these in big cities even at the height of summer (women's hats were different). By the early 20th century, straw boaters were considered acceptable day attire in North American cities at the height of summer even for businessmen but there was an unwritten rule that one was not supposed to wear a straw hat past September 15.
This date was arbitrary; earlier it had been September 1, but it eventually shifted to mid-month. It was socially acceptable for stockbrokers to destroy each other's hats, due to the fact that they were “companions”, but it was not acceptable for total strangers. If any man was seen wearing a straw hat, he was, at minimum, subjecting himself to ridicule, and it was a tradition for youths to knock straw hats off of wearers' heads and stomp on them. This tradition became well established, and newspapers of the day would often warn people of the impending approach of the fifteenth, when men would have to switch to felt or silk hats. Hat bashing was only socially acceptable after September 15, but there were multiple occasions leading up to the 15th that the police had to intervene and stop teenagers.
The riot itself began on September 13 of 1922, two days before the supposed unspoken date, when a group of youths decided to get an early jump on the tradition. This group began in the former "Mulberry Bend" area of Manhattan by removing and stomping hats worn by factory workers who were employed in the area. The more innocuous stomping turned into a brawl when the youths tried to stomp a group of dock workers' hats, and the dock workers fought back. The brawl soon stopped traffic on the Manhattan Bridge and was eventually broken up by police, leading to some arrests.
Although the initial brawl was broken up by police, the fights continued to escalate the next evening. Gangs of teenagers prowled the streets wielding large sticks, sometimes with a nail driven through the top, looking for pedestrians wearing straw hats and beating those who resisted. One man claimed that his hat was taken and the group who had taken his hat joined a mob of about 1,000 that was snatching hats all along Amsterdam Avenue. Several men were hospitalized from the beatings they received after resisting having their hats taken, and many arrests were made. Police were slow to respond to the riots, although several off-duty police officers found themselves caught up in the brawl when rioters attempted to snatch their hats. Two or three boys were brought in by pedestrians who said that their straw hats got smashed; the boys were locked up. There were a variety of ways that hats were smashed, including jumping on them, kicking them around, beating them with a stick, and beating them with a stick with nails.
Many of those taken to court following arrests related to the hat-snatching frenzy opted to be fined rather than serve time in jail. The longest recorded time one of the teens was sent to jail was three days served by an A. Silverman, who was sentenced by Magistrate Peter A. Hatting during night court.
In one incident, "ten or twelve boys armed with sticks dashed out of doorways near 100th street". Seven of the youths brought to the police station were under 15 and were not arrested; their parents were summoned and the boys "were spanked ignominiously" in the "East 104th Street police station by order of the lieutenant at the desk." After the station dealt with the original riot, all stations were told to keep an eye out for hat-snatching teens. E.C. Jones claimed to see around 1,000 teens in a mob roaming around Amsterdam Avenue. A man, Harry Gerber, was kicked so badly he had to be hospitalized. When Acting Detective Brundizo had his hat knocked off, he chased the kid but was interrupted by policeman Sigmund Cohn. Brundizo then arrested Cohn for "interfering with an officer in the discharge of his duty". Cohn was released that night in night court, where he explained that he didn't know that Brundizo was an officer until he "drew his gun and black-jack".
The tradition of hat smashing continued for some time after the riots of 1922, although they marked the worst occurrence of hat smashing. In 1924, one man was murdered for wearing a straw hat. 1925 saw similar arrests made in New York.
That the activity died out is probably connected with the disappearance of the tradition of the seasonal switch from straw to felt hats. While Panama hats became, if anything, more fashionable during the 1930s, the straw boater became less fashionable. They had started as a fashionable item in the 1890s but by the 1930s comparatively few young men were wearing them (even for boating and other summer activities). They probably seemed dated, quaint and after the Wall Street crash, a symbol of the irresponsible 1920s. Straw hats for men continued to be manufactured but crucially they closely resembled hats such as the Panama, Trilby or Fedora in shape. By the 1950s the classic straw boater was virtually extinct as a garment, except in specialized circumstances such as the uniform of certain English public schools or university and college sportswear.
- "Discard Date for Straw Hats Ignored by President Coolidge". The New York Times. September 20, 1925. pp. 226–27.
- "The Pittsburgh Press - Google News Archive Search". news.google.com. Retrieved 2019-10-17.
- Steinberg, Neil (2004). Hatless Jack. New York: Plume. pp. 226–227. ISBN 0-452-28523-2.
- "Good-bye to the Straw Hat". Magazine section. The New York Times. September 13, 1925. p. 20.
- Humanities, National Endowment for the (1922-09-16). "New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, September 16, 1922, Image 3". p. 3. ISSN 1941-0646. Retrieved 2019-10-17.
- "Straw Hat Smashing Orgy Bares Heads from Battery to Bronx". New York Tribune. September 16, 1922. Page 3, column 3.
- "City Has Wild Night of Straw Hat Riots" (PDF). The New York Times. September 16, 1922. | 1,562 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The celebration of Christopher Columbus will always be a celebration of violence, rape and slavery. At some point, America must find a way to discontinue celebrating a holiday named after a horrific man.
His holiday was initially sponsored by a Catholic organization that convinced President Franklin Roosevelt to sign Columbus Day into law in 1934. Columbus was given credit for discovering America and is viewed as a hero by students who were not given the truth about his atrocious actions.
Here are several reasons celebrating Columbus Day is worse than honoring a member of ISIS.
He enslaved thousands of peaceful people
When arriving in the Bahamas, he wrote about the peaceful people he encountered. In turn, he seized their land for Spain, enslaved them, and forced them to work in his gold mines. Two years after his arrival, over 100,000 of the natives died from Columbus’ men inflicting brutality and disease.
He forced 9-year-old girls into prostitution
Columbus sexually abused native women and children. He also profited from the sale of girls who were as young as 9 years old. In a journal, he revealed how girls from the ages of 9 and 10 were in demand by his men.
He mutilated men and women who resisted his commands
If one of the natives attempted to go against Columbus’ commands, he reacted with fierce brutality. He would cut off their nose or ear and force dogs to tear off their arms and legs. They also burned runaway slaves while they were alive to invoke fear and intimidation in the other natives.
He was arrested for brutality against the natives
Columbus’ crimes eventually became known to the king and queen of Spain. As a result, Columbus and two of his brothers were arrested for the crimes he committed against the natives. But due to Columbus bringing the royals gold from the mines, he was set free.
Columbus should be recognized as the first American terrorist. The destruction and death that he caused are actually worse than the crimes that have been committed by leaders of ISIS. | <urn:uuid:24682b73-e197-48e9-ab5e-b0d8aea4de0f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://rollingout.com/2016/10/10/celebrating-columbus-day-worse-honoring-member-isis/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00552.warc.gz | en | 0.9888 | 406 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.3243606388568878,
0.7039058804512024,
0.21605877578258514,
0.18897074460983276,
-0.35748490691185,
-0.0038421989884227514,
0.33474868535995483,
-0.028917508199810982,
-0.007281884551048279,
0.025157708674669266,
0.2521083652973175,
0.3086910545825958,
-0.38591861724853516,
0.34822887182... | 1 | The celebration of Christopher Columbus will always be a celebration of violence, rape and slavery. At some point, America must find a way to discontinue celebrating a holiday named after a horrific man.
His holiday was initially sponsored by a Catholic organization that convinced President Franklin Roosevelt to sign Columbus Day into law in 1934. Columbus was given credit for discovering America and is viewed as a hero by students who were not given the truth about his atrocious actions.
Here are several reasons celebrating Columbus Day is worse than honoring a member of ISIS.
He enslaved thousands of peaceful people
When arriving in the Bahamas, he wrote about the peaceful people he encountered. In turn, he seized their land for Spain, enslaved them, and forced them to work in his gold mines. Two years after his arrival, over 100,000 of the natives died from Columbus’ men inflicting brutality and disease.
He forced 9-year-old girls into prostitution
Columbus sexually abused native women and children. He also profited from the sale of girls who were as young as 9 years old. In a journal, he revealed how girls from the ages of 9 and 10 were in demand by his men.
He mutilated men and women who resisted his commands
If one of the natives attempted to go against Columbus’ commands, he reacted with fierce brutality. He would cut off their nose or ear and force dogs to tear off their arms and legs. They also burned runaway slaves while they were alive to invoke fear and intimidation in the other natives.
He was arrested for brutality against the natives
Columbus’ crimes eventually became known to the king and queen of Spain. As a result, Columbus and two of his brothers were arrested for the crimes he committed against the natives. But due to Columbus bringing the royals gold from the mines, he was set free.
Columbus should be recognized as the first American terrorist. The destruction and death that he caused are actually worse than the crimes that have been committed by leaders of ISIS. | 412 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Mother Ann Lee Stanley was the founder of the Shakers. She came from England in 1774. She was married to a blacksmith and had 4 children. She was near death for several hours with her 4th child. After recovering, she said that she would never have kids again
The Shakers believed that Jesus would come back to life as a woman. Mother Ann Lee Stanley left and went to America and said that God had chosen people in America. She had many converts in America. She also encouraged separation of the sexes, ownership of good in common, and obedience.
The Puritans and Shakers both work hard, live simple, and warn against pride in appearance and possessions. The Shakers worship in the form of dancing. The men are together at one end, and the women are together at the other end. Both the men and women march or dance towards each other making a circle. The woman would be in the inner part of the circle, while the men were in the outer circle. The Puritans also thought that they were stomping away sin.
The Shakers on the other hand,would write down messages and then they would then me illustrated by the Shaker artists. The Shaker communities were very happy. Visitors were… | <urn:uuid:f7c60e37-bf7a-4b66-bc4c-6c9672f0834b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.majortests.com/essay/Saints-And-Simplicity-545654.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00416.warc.gz | en | 0.991743 | 253 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
-0.17555871605873108,
0.06214001029729843,
0.3138117492198944,
-0.19456429779529572,
-0.4272019863128662,
0.20981374382972717,
0.16368719935417175,
-0.09338916093111038,
0.031600456684827805,
0.04507754370570183,
0.15069083869457245,
-0.32477179169654846,
-0.04955000802874565,
-0.304207444... | 1 | Mother Ann Lee Stanley was the founder of the Shakers. She came from England in 1774. She was married to a blacksmith and had 4 children. She was near death for several hours with her 4th child. After recovering, she said that she would never have kids again
The Shakers believed that Jesus would come back to life as a woman. Mother Ann Lee Stanley left and went to America and said that God had chosen people in America. She had many converts in America. She also encouraged separation of the sexes, ownership of good in common, and obedience.
The Puritans and Shakers both work hard, live simple, and warn against pride in appearance and possessions. The Shakers worship in the form of dancing. The men are together at one end, and the women are together at the other end. Both the men and women march or dance towards each other making a circle. The woman would be in the inner part of the circle, while the men were in the outer circle. The Puritans also thought that they were stomping away sin.
The Shakers on the other hand,would write down messages and then they would then me illustrated by the Shaker artists. The Shaker communities were very happy. Visitors were… | 258 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Essay about Henry David Thoreau
Henry David Thoreau was an American author, poet, abolitionist, naturalist, tax resister, development critic, surveyor, historian , philosopher andtranscendentalist. Henry David Thoreau was a complex man of many talents who worked hard to shape his craft and his life. He is best known for his book Walden, a reflection upon simple living in natural surroundings, and his essay, Civil Disobedience, an argument for individual resistance to civil government in moral opposition to an unjust state.
Henry's books, articles, essays, journals, and poetry total over 20 volumes. Among his lasting contributions were his writings on natural history and philosophy, where he anticipated the methods and findings of …show more content…
The best analysis of Thoreau's character was Emerson's funeral elegy for him. Emerson was well aware of Thoreau's devotion to his principles and said that he "had a perfect probity." Emerson also realized, perhaps better than anyone else, that Thoreau gave an edge to his probity by his willingness to say no, to dispute, to deny. Thoreau was a born protestant: that was Emerson's way of putting it. He went on to observe that Thoreau had "interrogated every custom, and wished to settle all his practice on an ideal foundation."
Emerson characterized Thoreau as a hermit and stoic but added that he had a softer side which showed especially when he was with young people he liked. Furthermore, Thoreau was resourceful and ingenious; he had to be, to live the life he wanted. He was patient | <urn:uuid:e5cfe6e6-eb4c-4506-92fe-b524b6f34551> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.cram.com/essay/Henry-David-Thoreau/PKKESMBYECNY | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601615.66/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121044233-20200121073233-00086.warc.gz | en | 0.988436 | 341 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.2510393261909485,
0.17219926416873932,
-0.2703935205936432,
-0.0034559653140604496,
-0.26298290491104126,
0.23022297024726868,
0.08663623034954071,
0.2557412087917328,
-0.27801045775413513,
-0.16078345477581024,
0.06596281379461288,
-0.40649524331092834,
0.010327180847525597,
0.28697991... | 1 | Essay about Henry David Thoreau
Henry David Thoreau was an American author, poet, abolitionist, naturalist, tax resister, development critic, surveyor, historian , philosopher andtranscendentalist. Henry David Thoreau was a complex man of many talents who worked hard to shape his craft and his life. He is best known for his book Walden, a reflection upon simple living in natural surroundings, and his essay, Civil Disobedience, an argument for individual resistance to civil government in moral opposition to an unjust state.
Henry's books, articles, essays, journals, and poetry total over 20 volumes. Among his lasting contributions were his writings on natural history and philosophy, where he anticipated the methods and findings of …show more content…
The best analysis of Thoreau's character was Emerson's funeral elegy for him. Emerson was well aware of Thoreau's devotion to his principles and said that he "had a perfect probity." Emerson also realized, perhaps better than anyone else, that Thoreau gave an edge to his probity by his willingness to say no, to dispute, to deny. Thoreau was a born protestant: that was Emerson's way of putting it. He went on to observe that Thoreau had "interrogated every custom, and wished to settle all his practice on an ideal foundation."
Emerson characterized Thoreau as a hermit and stoic but added that he had a softer side which showed especially when he was with young people he liked. Furthermore, Thoreau was resourceful and ingenious; he had to be, to live the life he wanted. He was patient | 341 | ENGLISH | 1 |
About AuthorWilliam Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564 - died 23 April 1616) was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard"). His surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. His plays have been translated into every major living language, and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon. At the age of 18 he married Anne Hathaway, who bore him three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Between 1585 and 1592 he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part owner of the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men. He appears to have retired to Stratford around 1613, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, and there has been considerable speculation about such matters as his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1590 and 1613. His early plays were mainly comedies and histories, genres he raised to the peak of sophistication and artistry by the end of the sixteenth century. Next he wrote mainly tragedies until about 1608, including Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth, considered some of the finest examples in the English language. In his last phase, he wrote tragicomedies, also known as romances, and collaborated with other playwrights. Many of his plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime, and in 1623 two of his former theatrical colleagues published the First Folio, a collected edition of his dramatic works that included all but two of the plays now recognised as Shakespeare's.Shakespeare was a respected poet and playwright in his own day, but his reputation did not rise to its present heights until the nineteenth century. The Romantics, in particular, acclaimed Shakespeare's genius, and the Victorians hero-worshipped Shakespeare with a reverence that George Bernard Shaw called "bardolatry". In the twentieth century, his work was repeatedly adopted and rediscovered by new movements in scholarship and performance. His plays remain highly popular today and are consistently performed and reinterpreted in diverse cultural and political contexts throughout the world.Product Description Twelfth Night, Or What You Will is a comedy by William Shakespeare, based on the short story "Of Apolonius and Silla" by Barnabe Rich. It is named after the Twelfth Night holiday of the Christmas season. It was written around 1601 and first published in the First Folio in 1623. The main title is believed to be an afterthought, created after John Marston premiered a play titled What You Will during the course of the writing. | <urn:uuid:0f6fd771-bba0-42ed-8b39-6e933c811b9f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.katybooks.com/book/9781700341228 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250620381.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124130719-20200124155719-00310.warc.gz | en | 0.990717 | 623 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
0.46530306339263916,
-0.10236689448356628,
0.737406849861145,
-0.2016689032316208,
-0.1482657790184021,
-0.1884072721004486,
0.0005938587710261345,
0.12021403014659882,
-0.018929889425635338,
-0.2173250913619995,
-0.2632482051849365,
-0.17331495881080627,
0.2097192406654358,
0.311485409736... | 1 | About AuthorWilliam Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564 - died 23 April 1616) was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard"). His surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. His plays have been translated into every major living language, and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon. At the age of 18 he married Anne Hathaway, who bore him three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Between 1585 and 1592 he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part owner of the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men. He appears to have retired to Stratford around 1613, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, and there has been considerable speculation about such matters as his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1590 and 1613. His early plays were mainly comedies and histories, genres he raised to the peak of sophistication and artistry by the end of the sixteenth century. Next he wrote mainly tragedies until about 1608, including Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth, considered some of the finest examples in the English language. In his last phase, he wrote tragicomedies, also known as romances, and collaborated with other playwrights. Many of his plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime, and in 1623 two of his former theatrical colleagues published the First Folio, a collected edition of his dramatic works that included all but two of the plays now recognised as Shakespeare's.Shakespeare was a respected poet and playwright in his own day, but his reputation did not rise to its present heights until the nineteenth century. The Romantics, in particular, acclaimed Shakespeare's genius, and the Victorians hero-worshipped Shakespeare with a reverence that George Bernard Shaw called "bardolatry". In the twentieth century, his work was repeatedly adopted and rediscovered by new movements in scholarship and performance. His plays remain highly popular today and are consistently performed and reinterpreted in diverse cultural and political contexts throughout the world.Product Description Twelfth Night, Or What You Will is a comedy by William Shakespeare, based on the short story "Of Apolonius and Silla" by Barnabe Rich. It is named after the Twelfth Night holiday of the Christmas season. It was written around 1601 and first published in the First Folio in 1623. The main title is believed to be an afterthought, created after John Marston premiered a play titled What You Will during the course of the writing. | 655 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Why Did Hitler Invade the Soviet Union During WW2
The German invasion of the Soviet Union (code name "Operation Barbarossa") during World War II was the largest invasion ever attempted in history. Over the course of the conflict, over four million axis forces were used. The invasion started on June 22nd, 1941 taking the Soviet Union and Stalin completely by surprise. Despite the early success of this operation, the Germans eventually lost due to the stubborn Russian resistance and the harsh winter conditions.
On August 23, 1939, Hitler and Stalin shocked the world by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. This was a non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union that would ensure peace for the next 10 years. This pact also contained secret details on how to split Eastern Europe. With this treaty, Hitler sealed his Eastern front and could concentrate his efforts on France and Britain.
This meant that unlike WW1 when Germany had to fight a two-front war, they could now concentrate all of their resources on the west. Hitler finally got the breathing space he needed to take Poland and strike France with all his might. Stalin, on the other hand, had just purged his military of all top officials. He needed time to build up his army without the threat of an attack. It was a win-win situation for both dictators.
Mutual Hate and Distrust
Despite the mutual non-aggression pact, the Soviets and the Germans were not on good terms. The Nazis were against the spread of communism, and the Soviets were against Nazi ideologies. During 1939, both of these nations had their reasons for staying neutral, but once those reasons were gone, it was only a matter of time before they clashed with each other. Even while fighting in France, Hitler had his doubts about Stalin and stationed some reserve troops on the Eastern border.
If the war in the west had lasted longer and Germany had grown weaker, it is very likely the Soviets would have invaded them. This is the reason Hitler wanted to finish off France as soon as possible. By doing so, he could secure both of his borders. Hitler also knew that Stalin could not be trusted and wanted to make a preemptive attack to knock out the Soviet superpower before it could recover.
Germany was not self-sufficient in raw materials. This included food as well as oil, essentials for a war effort. These raw materials were imported from the Soviet Union in exchange for technology, but if this trade was stopped, Germany could not continue to fight. This concerned Hitler, as he did not trust Stalin to keep his promise. The only way to secure his supply of raw materials was to attack the Soviet Union and capture its fields and oil reserves.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was building up its army. Before long, they would be able to overpower Germany in terms of numbers and technology. Hitler not only wanted to but needed to neutralize this threat before the Soviets had the time to build up their military strength. Even though France had been defeated, without air superiority the Germans had no way of invading Britain. This goal could not be achieved for various reasons, making it virtually impossible to capture Britain.
What's more, Hitler wanted the vast extent of the Soviet Union as a living space to be repopulated by the German people. He also wanted the resources present in the Soviet Union, especially the oil reserves. He hoped to swiftly capture Moscow before the onset of winter, and he expected the Soviet Union to collapse like it did in the first World War.
What Went Wrong?
Hitler’s plan relied on one major gamble: He predicted that his blitzkrieg attack would take the Soviets by surprise and that they would capture Moscow before the onset of winter. With the capture of their capital, the Soviets would lose their will to fight and surrender to the Germans. But even though there was a major success in the initial stages of the war, the Germans gravely underestimated the resources the Soviets had.
The German mindset toward Operation Barbarossa could be summed up with, “We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down."
The Germans would encircle and destroy entire Soviet armies only to have them replaced immediately, but when large amounts of Germans were killed, they did not have the manpower to do the same. Also, they didn’t expect the Soviets to fight back as much as they did. When they failed to capture Moscow before winter, their army was ill-prepared for the extremely cold conditions, and as luck would have it, the winter of 1941-42 was the coldest of the 20th century.
The Germans planned and prepared for a quick blitzkrieg war. Their army and infrastructure were not built to handle a long, drawn out war. And with the failure of their blitzkrieg attacks, things slowly began to turn in favor of the Soviets. Stalin moved his factories to the far east and with American aid, they started building tanks and planes in the thousands for a counterstrike.
Why is Operation Barbarossa Usually Considered Foolish?
We now know that Hitler’s invasion turned out to be a disaster, raising a lot of criticism at his decision-making as the leader of the German army. There are various reasons for this particular argument. The Soviet Union was too vast for the Germans to conquer, and Hitler hugely underestimated their strength. They also did not finish off Britain before turning to the Soviets, another blunder. Various military decisions made by Hitler were also quite questionable and may have swung the war in the Soviet’s favor. Below are some of the reasons Operation Barbarossa was ill-fated from the start.
The Soviet Union Could Not Be Defeated
The most famous criticism is that the Soviet Union is too vast, and that Germany never had the equipment or personnel needed to complete the invasion. Compared to the Soviet Union, Germany has a very small landmass and population that could never keep up with the manpower and resources of the Soviet Union. The Germans hoped to end the war before winter, and they planned on doing this by capturing the Soviet capital of Moscow. When this failed, they didn’t have a back up plan.
Still, the Germans were a force to be reckoned with, and the initial success of their armies prove this. During WWI, the Russian Tzar was overthrown by his own people. Hitler was hoping for the same would happen this time around. However, it did not, and the Germans did not expect the tenacity and fighting spirit of the Russians to be so strong.
Even the capture of Moscow would not have meant victory for the Germans, but it would have surely been a severe blow. If the Soviets had lost their trust in Stalin, then a coup would have likely occurred. So, the Germans really didn’t have to capture every inch of soil. They just had to break the will of the Soviets. However, that never happened.
The Germans Were Fighting a War on Two Fronts
Experts argue that it was a mistake to start a war with the Soviet Union when Britain was still undefeated on the Western front. Choosing to fight a war on two fronts depleted Germany’s resources and eventually led to its defeat. Hitler should have waited until Britain was captured before thinking of fighting a war with the Soviets, especially since they had a non-aggression pact.
Still, we know that although the Germans and Soviets had a non-aggression pact, they did not trust each other. They were both waiting for the right moment to strike, and there was a lot of tension between the two. Britain, on the other hand, was not much of a threat to the Germans as they did not have much of an army or a means to invade Germany. Likewise, Germany did not have any way of invading Britain, and a stalemate ensued.
With no way of finishing off Britain, Germany needed to secure its resources to prepare for a long war. Capturing the Soviet Union was always on Hitler’s list, as he despised communism and wanted the land for Germans. America’s entry into WW2 changed all this, as now the allies had enough resources to plan an invasion on the Western front.
Hitler’s Many Bad Decisions
It is worth it to go through the biography of Adolf Hitler to understand the thoughts and ideas he had. Many people like to put the blame on Hitler and his various decisions during the war. His insistence on capturing and holding Stalingrad despite the precarious position of the German Sixth Army, redirecting Army Group A to capture the oil fields in the Caucasus instead of concentrating on capturing Stalingrad, and his actions in Moscow are some of them.
It is very easy to comment on things after we know the final outcome, but during the fog of war not much information is made available to the generals making vital decisions. Before the invasion of the Soviet Union, the German intelligence had severely underestimated the strength of the Soviet Red Army. In Stalingrad, Field Marshal Von Manstein had asked Hitler to stop the German Sixth Army from attempting to break out. He promised that he could help them break out given some time. This request was denied.
Also, capturing the cities of Stalingrad and Moscow would not have changed the course of the war. The oil-rich fields of the Caucasus were the ultimate target of the Germans, and after their initial push was halted by the Soviets, it was only a matter of time before they would be defeated no matter what decisions Hitler made.
An Inevitable War
The war with the Soviet Union was inevitable for many reasons. Germany needed raw materials for its war effort, and the only way to secure them was to defeat the Soviets and take them by force. Since the Germans underestimated their strength, they went to war with them without a second thought. The Red Army’s poor performance in its war against Finland also reassured the Germans of the Soviet’s weakness.
If Germany had not declared war on the Soviets, Stalin would have declared war on the Germans at the first sign of a German weakness. There is a widespread belief that Stalin had even devised a plan for invading Germany, and was preparing his forces for an invasion.
The two dictators were after power and glory, and neither of them were on good terms with the other, which added more fuel to the fire. Thus, Operation Barbarossa was nothing more than preemptive strike of the inevitable war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Links and References
- Soviet offensive plans controversy - Wikipedia
- The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between Hitler and Stalin allowed the two powers to carve up Europe and
Seventy-five years ago this week, the world was turned upside down when Hitler and Stalin signed a pact of alliance. Within days Hitler invaded Poland, starting World War II. Roger Moorhouse, a historian, has a new book out on the momentous but often
- Operation Barbarossa | European history | Britannica.com
Operation Barbarossa: Operation Barbarossa, during World War II, code name for the German invasion of the Soviet Union, which was launched on June 22, 1941. The failure of German troops to defeat Soviet forces in the campaign signaled a crucial turni
Questions & Answers
© 2018 Random Thoughts | <urn:uuid:798ab201-23cc-4748-b4ee-1d4a6042ea02> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://owlcation.com/humanities/Why-Did-Hitler-Invade-the-Soviet-Union-During-WW2 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00101.warc.gz | en | 0.984601 | 2,316 | 3.84375 | 4 | [
-0.6198350191116333,
0.14866937696933746,
0.07767539471387863,
0.21348005533218384,
0.044571395963430405,
-0.0701691210269928,
0.1788778454065323,
0.1170160248875618,
-0.2473226636648178,
-0.3230741322040558,
0.3315486013889313,
-0.21770787239074707,
0.5498326420783997,
0.44220030307769775... | 2 | Why Did Hitler Invade the Soviet Union During WW2
The German invasion of the Soviet Union (code name "Operation Barbarossa") during World War II was the largest invasion ever attempted in history. Over the course of the conflict, over four million axis forces were used. The invasion started on June 22nd, 1941 taking the Soviet Union and Stalin completely by surprise. Despite the early success of this operation, the Germans eventually lost due to the stubborn Russian resistance and the harsh winter conditions.
On August 23, 1939, Hitler and Stalin shocked the world by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. This was a non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union that would ensure peace for the next 10 years. This pact also contained secret details on how to split Eastern Europe. With this treaty, Hitler sealed his Eastern front and could concentrate his efforts on France and Britain.
This meant that unlike WW1 when Germany had to fight a two-front war, they could now concentrate all of their resources on the west. Hitler finally got the breathing space he needed to take Poland and strike France with all his might. Stalin, on the other hand, had just purged his military of all top officials. He needed time to build up his army without the threat of an attack. It was a win-win situation for both dictators.
Mutual Hate and Distrust
Despite the mutual non-aggression pact, the Soviets and the Germans were not on good terms. The Nazis were against the spread of communism, and the Soviets were against Nazi ideologies. During 1939, both of these nations had their reasons for staying neutral, but once those reasons were gone, it was only a matter of time before they clashed with each other. Even while fighting in France, Hitler had his doubts about Stalin and stationed some reserve troops on the Eastern border.
If the war in the west had lasted longer and Germany had grown weaker, it is very likely the Soviets would have invaded them. This is the reason Hitler wanted to finish off France as soon as possible. By doing so, he could secure both of his borders. Hitler also knew that Stalin could not be trusted and wanted to make a preemptive attack to knock out the Soviet superpower before it could recover.
Germany was not self-sufficient in raw materials. This included food as well as oil, essentials for a war effort. These raw materials were imported from the Soviet Union in exchange for technology, but if this trade was stopped, Germany could not continue to fight. This concerned Hitler, as he did not trust Stalin to keep his promise. The only way to secure his supply of raw materials was to attack the Soviet Union and capture its fields and oil reserves.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was building up its army. Before long, they would be able to overpower Germany in terms of numbers and technology. Hitler not only wanted to but needed to neutralize this threat before the Soviets had the time to build up their military strength. Even though France had been defeated, without air superiority the Germans had no way of invading Britain. This goal could not be achieved for various reasons, making it virtually impossible to capture Britain.
What's more, Hitler wanted the vast extent of the Soviet Union as a living space to be repopulated by the German people. He also wanted the resources present in the Soviet Union, especially the oil reserves. He hoped to swiftly capture Moscow before the onset of winter, and he expected the Soviet Union to collapse like it did in the first World War.
What Went Wrong?
Hitler’s plan relied on one major gamble: He predicted that his blitzkrieg attack would take the Soviets by surprise and that they would capture Moscow before the onset of winter. With the capture of their capital, the Soviets would lose their will to fight and surrender to the Germans. But even though there was a major success in the initial stages of the war, the Germans gravely underestimated the resources the Soviets had.
The German mindset toward Operation Barbarossa could be summed up with, “We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down."
The Germans would encircle and destroy entire Soviet armies only to have them replaced immediately, but when large amounts of Germans were killed, they did not have the manpower to do the same. Also, they didn’t expect the Soviets to fight back as much as they did. When they failed to capture Moscow before winter, their army was ill-prepared for the extremely cold conditions, and as luck would have it, the winter of 1941-42 was the coldest of the 20th century.
The Germans planned and prepared for a quick blitzkrieg war. Their army and infrastructure were not built to handle a long, drawn out war. And with the failure of their blitzkrieg attacks, things slowly began to turn in favor of the Soviets. Stalin moved his factories to the far east and with American aid, they started building tanks and planes in the thousands for a counterstrike.
Why is Operation Barbarossa Usually Considered Foolish?
We now know that Hitler’s invasion turned out to be a disaster, raising a lot of criticism at his decision-making as the leader of the German army. There are various reasons for this particular argument. The Soviet Union was too vast for the Germans to conquer, and Hitler hugely underestimated their strength. They also did not finish off Britain before turning to the Soviets, another blunder. Various military decisions made by Hitler were also quite questionable and may have swung the war in the Soviet’s favor. Below are some of the reasons Operation Barbarossa was ill-fated from the start.
The Soviet Union Could Not Be Defeated
The most famous criticism is that the Soviet Union is too vast, and that Germany never had the equipment or personnel needed to complete the invasion. Compared to the Soviet Union, Germany has a very small landmass and population that could never keep up with the manpower and resources of the Soviet Union. The Germans hoped to end the war before winter, and they planned on doing this by capturing the Soviet capital of Moscow. When this failed, they didn’t have a back up plan.
Still, the Germans were a force to be reckoned with, and the initial success of their armies prove this. During WWI, the Russian Tzar was overthrown by his own people. Hitler was hoping for the same would happen this time around. However, it did not, and the Germans did not expect the tenacity and fighting spirit of the Russians to be so strong.
Even the capture of Moscow would not have meant victory for the Germans, but it would have surely been a severe blow. If the Soviets had lost their trust in Stalin, then a coup would have likely occurred. So, the Germans really didn’t have to capture every inch of soil. They just had to break the will of the Soviets. However, that never happened.
The Germans Were Fighting a War on Two Fronts
Experts argue that it was a mistake to start a war with the Soviet Union when Britain was still undefeated on the Western front. Choosing to fight a war on two fronts depleted Germany’s resources and eventually led to its defeat. Hitler should have waited until Britain was captured before thinking of fighting a war with the Soviets, especially since they had a non-aggression pact.
Still, we know that although the Germans and Soviets had a non-aggression pact, they did not trust each other. They were both waiting for the right moment to strike, and there was a lot of tension between the two. Britain, on the other hand, was not much of a threat to the Germans as they did not have much of an army or a means to invade Germany. Likewise, Germany did not have any way of invading Britain, and a stalemate ensued.
With no way of finishing off Britain, Germany needed to secure its resources to prepare for a long war. Capturing the Soviet Union was always on Hitler’s list, as he despised communism and wanted the land for Germans. America’s entry into WW2 changed all this, as now the allies had enough resources to plan an invasion on the Western front.
Hitler’s Many Bad Decisions
It is worth it to go through the biography of Adolf Hitler to understand the thoughts and ideas he had. Many people like to put the blame on Hitler and his various decisions during the war. His insistence on capturing and holding Stalingrad despite the precarious position of the German Sixth Army, redirecting Army Group A to capture the oil fields in the Caucasus instead of concentrating on capturing Stalingrad, and his actions in Moscow are some of them.
It is very easy to comment on things after we know the final outcome, but during the fog of war not much information is made available to the generals making vital decisions. Before the invasion of the Soviet Union, the German intelligence had severely underestimated the strength of the Soviet Red Army. In Stalingrad, Field Marshal Von Manstein had asked Hitler to stop the German Sixth Army from attempting to break out. He promised that he could help them break out given some time. This request was denied.
Also, capturing the cities of Stalingrad and Moscow would not have changed the course of the war. The oil-rich fields of the Caucasus were the ultimate target of the Germans, and after their initial push was halted by the Soviets, it was only a matter of time before they would be defeated no matter what decisions Hitler made.
An Inevitable War
The war with the Soviet Union was inevitable for many reasons. Germany needed raw materials for its war effort, and the only way to secure them was to defeat the Soviets and take them by force. Since the Germans underestimated their strength, they went to war with them without a second thought. The Red Army’s poor performance in its war against Finland also reassured the Germans of the Soviet’s weakness.
If Germany had not declared war on the Soviets, Stalin would have declared war on the Germans at the first sign of a German weakness. There is a widespread belief that Stalin had even devised a plan for invading Germany, and was preparing his forces for an invasion.
The two dictators were after power and glory, and neither of them were on good terms with the other, which added more fuel to the fire. Thus, Operation Barbarossa was nothing more than preemptive strike of the inevitable war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Links and References
- Soviet offensive plans controversy - Wikipedia
- The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between Hitler and Stalin allowed the two powers to carve up Europe and
Seventy-five years ago this week, the world was turned upside down when Hitler and Stalin signed a pact of alliance. Within days Hitler invaded Poland, starting World War II. Roger Moorhouse, a historian, has a new book out on the momentous but often
- Operation Barbarossa | European history | Britannica.com
Operation Barbarossa: Operation Barbarossa, during World War II, code name for the German invasion of the Soviet Union, which was launched on June 22, 1941. The failure of German troops to defeat Soviet forces in the campaign signaled a crucial turni
Questions & Answers
© 2018 Random Thoughts | 2,285 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The birth anniversary of freedom fighter Udham Singh, called “Shaheed Udham Singh Jayanti”, is a public holiday in the Indian state of Haryana.
|2020||26 Dec||Sat||Shaheed Udham Singh Jayanti||HR|
|2021||26 Dec||Sun||Shaheed Udham Singh Jayanti||HR|
From the British perspective, Shaheed Udham Singh was an assassin who killed their lieutenant governor of Punjab province on 13 March 1940. He shot Michael O’Dwyer to death at a meeting in London. He did not try to escape and was immediately arrested. In jail, he went on a hunger strike for over 40 days but was force fed to keep him alive until his execution on 31 July, 1940.
In India, he is sometimes called “Shaheed i Azam”, which means “The Great Martyr”. The reason is that Michael O’Dwyer had supported a massacre of over 1,000 people over 20 years before he was assassinated. In 1919, riots broke out against British rule in Punjab, which were ultimately put down by firing on civilians, including women and children. There had been riots a few days before that had killed four Europeans and burned down some British banks, but the crowd fired upon is considered to have been a group of peaceful protesters.
Mahatma Gandhi condemned the assassination, but many others, especially in his native province of Punjab, approved of it. There is a national memorial in the garden of Jallianwala Bagh in the Punjabi city of Amritsar, where the 1919 massacre took place, which mentions him honourably. | <urn:uuid:a8242ffe-34f0-4029-be18-a210aeb368c2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://publicholidays.in/shaheed-udham-singh-jayanti/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251773463.72/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128030221-20200128060221-00140.warc.gz | en | 0.984423 | 351 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.2168494313955307,
0.6967746019363403,
-0.021128753200173378,
-0.1531185358762741,
-0.01309957541525364,
0.11076394468545914,
0.502578616142273,
0.11190679669380188,
0.04435690492391586,
0.18819038569927216,
0.5453638434410095,
-0.267357736825943,
0.05927157774567604,
0.5194414258003235,... | 1 | The birth anniversary of freedom fighter Udham Singh, called “Shaheed Udham Singh Jayanti”, is a public holiday in the Indian state of Haryana.
|2020||26 Dec||Sat||Shaheed Udham Singh Jayanti||HR|
|2021||26 Dec||Sun||Shaheed Udham Singh Jayanti||HR|
From the British perspective, Shaheed Udham Singh was an assassin who killed their lieutenant governor of Punjab province on 13 March 1940. He shot Michael O’Dwyer to death at a meeting in London. He did not try to escape and was immediately arrested. In jail, he went on a hunger strike for over 40 days but was force fed to keep him alive until his execution on 31 July, 1940.
In India, he is sometimes called “Shaheed i Azam”, which means “The Great Martyr”. The reason is that Michael O’Dwyer had supported a massacre of over 1,000 people over 20 years before he was assassinated. In 1919, riots broke out against British rule in Punjab, which were ultimately put down by firing on civilians, including women and children. There had been riots a few days before that had killed four Europeans and burned down some British banks, but the crowd fired upon is considered to have been a group of peaceful protesters.
Mahatma Gandhi condemned the assassination, but many others, especially in his native province of Punjab, approved of it. There is a national memorial in the garden of Jallianwala Bagh in the Punjabi city of Amritsar, where the 1919 massacre took place, which mentions him honourably. | 363 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Mary Edmonia Lewis was an accomplished American Sculptor who spent most of her life in Rome, Italy. She became the first African-American woman of Native American heritage to be internationally recognized as a sculptor in the world of fine arts. Edmonia’s work incorporated themes that related to black and indigenous Americas into the Neoclassical-styled sculpture. Her work began gaining prominence during the American Civil War and the end of the 19th century.
5. Early Life
Edmonia Lewis’ birthday is recorded as July 4, 1844. She was born in Rensselaer, New York, formerly known as Greenbush. Her mother was of African-American origin while the father was Afro-Haitian. Her father died three years after her birth and by the time she turned nine years all her parents had died. Together with her half-brother, they were adopted by their two maternal aunts where they lived near the Niagara Falls. While staying with her aunts, Lewis used her Native American name, Wildfire. She enrolled at a Baptist abolitionist school in 1856 called New York Central College. While at the school, she met several prominent activists who would later influence her artistic career development.
When Lewis completed college, she moved to Boston in 1864. While at Boston, she began pursuing her career as a sculptor. Lewis was introduced to the already established sculptors in the area by William L Garrison, with Edward Augustus Brackett becoming her instructor in the process. Lewis’ work soon gained popularity, attracting some of the prominent abolitionists of the day such as Henry Longfellow and John Brown. Her work was inspired by the lives of the abolitionists and the heroes of the Civil War. Some of her works included sculptures of John Brown and Robert Gould Shaw. Between 1864 and 1871, Lewis was featured in several articles and was interviewed by several personalities. Most of Lewis’ adult career life was spent in Rome. While in Rome, she enjoyed more freedom and continued to express her Native American heritage. In 1876, Lewis participated in the Centennial Expo in Philadelphia. Her work at the expo drawn praise almost world over.
3. Major Contributions
Edmonia Lewis remains one of the most celebrated female sculptors in America. Through her work, she was able to influence and indirectly promote the social standing of the Native Americans and the African-Americans. Lewis also promoted the ideals of the abolitionists by sculpturing the images of some of the prominent abolitionists such as John Brown. She also created a studio while in Rome where she kept her work such as the “Arrow Maker” which attracted tourists from Rome and beyond. Lewis held major exhibitions in Chicago, Illinois, and Rome
Lewis’ childhood was full misfortunes. First, she grew up with no parents since her parents had all died by her 9th birthday. She had to help her aunt Ojibwe sell some items to the tourists who visited Niagara Falls in order to raise money for upkeep. When she moved to Boston, she was unable to find an experienced sculptor as an instructor since most of the male sculptors were skeptical of her. While in Boston, she had to depend on the abolitionists for her work since she did not have the freedom to express herself through her work.
1. Death and Legacy
Edmonia Lewis moved to Hammersmith area in London from Rome. She died on September 17, 1907, from chronic Bright’s disease. Her remains were buried at Saint Mary’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. Lewis will always be remembered for her work as a sculptor. In 2002, she was named among the 100 Greatest African-Americans by scholar Molef Kete Asante.
About the Author
John Misachi is a seasoned writer with 5+ years of experience. His favorite topics include finance, history, geography, agriculture, legal, and sports.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | <urn:uuid:0fe67339-5017-47e4-bb78-6a64cd9794fc> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/edmonia-lewis-important-figures-in-history.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00305.warc.gz | en | 0.987295 | 838 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.3612639904022217,
0.059676967561244965,
0.9372485876083374,
0.3389415144920349,
-0.6686868667602539,
0.05483505502343178,
-0.09671071171760559,
0.010194104164838791,
-0.07255944609642029,
0.41201943159103394,
-0.5317236185073853,
-0.15517109632492065,
-0.4828687906265259,
0.036358129233... | 1 | Mary Edmonia Lewis was an accomplished American Sculptor who spent most of her life in Rome, Italy. She became the first African-American woman of Native American heritage to be internationally recognized as a sculptor in the world of fine arts. Edmonia’s work incorporated themes that related to black and indigenous Americas into the Neoclassical-styled sculpture. Her work began gaining prominence during the American Civil War and the end of the 19th century.
5. Early Life
Edmonia Lewis’ birthday is recorded as July 4, 1844. She was born in Rensselaer, New York, formerly known as Greenbush. Her mother was of African-American origin while the father was Afro-Haitian. Her father died three years after her birth and by the time she turned nine years all her parents had died. Together with her half-brother, they were adopted by their two maternal aunts where they lived near the Niagara Falls. While staying with her aunts, Lewis used her Native American name, Wildfire. She enrolled at a Baptist abolitionist school in 1856 called New York Central College. While at the school, she met several prominent activists who would later influence her artistic career development.
When Lewis completed college, she moved to Boston in 1864. While at Boston, she began pursuing her career as a sculptor. Lewis was introduced to the already established sculptors in the area by William L Garrison, with Edward Augustus Brackett becoming her instructor in the process. Lewis’ work soon gained popularity, attracting some of the prominent abolitionists of the day such as Henry Longfellow and John Brown. Her work was inspired by the lives of the abolitionists and the heroes of the Civil War. Some of her works included sculptures of John Brown and Robert Gould Shaw. Between 1864 and 1871, Lewis was featured in several articles and was interviewed by several personalities. Most of Lewis’ adult career life was spent in Rome. While in Rome, she enjoyed more freedom and continued to express her Native American heritage. In 1876, Lewis participated in the Centennial Expo in Philadelphia. Her work at the expo drawn praise almost world over.
3. Major Contributions
Edmonia Lewis remains one of the most celebrated female sculptors in America. Through her work, she was able to influence and indirectly promote the social standing of the Native Americans and the African-Americans. Lewis also promoted the ideals of the abolitionists by sculpturing the images of some of the prominent abolitionists such as John Brown. She also created a studio while in Rome where she kept her work such as the “Arrow Maker” which attracted tourists from Rome and beyond. Lewis held major exhibitions in Chicago, Illinois, and Rome
Lewis’ childhood was full misfortunes. First, she grew up with no parents since her parents had all died by her 9th birthday. She had to help her aunt Ojibwe sell some items to the tourists who visited Niagara Falls in order to raise money for upkeep. When she moved to Boston, she was unable to find an experienced sculptor as an instructor since most of the male sculptors were skeptical of her. While in Boston, she had to depend on the abolitionists for her work since she did not have the freedom to express herself through her work.
1. Death and Legacy
Edmonia Lewis moved to Hammersmith area in London from Rome. She died on September 17, 1907, from chronic Bright’s disease. Her remains were buried at Saint Mary’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. Lewis will always be remembered for her work as a sculptor. In 2002, she was named among the 100 Greatest African-Americans by scholar Molef Kete Asante.
About the Author
John Misachi is a seasoned writer with 5+ years of experience. His favorite topics include finance, history, geography, agriculture, legal, and sports.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | 847 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Benjamin Franklin: biography
Benjamin Franklin went down the history of the United States as an inventor, politician, diplomatist, and philosopher, as well as a talented businessman, musician, writer, and editor. It is hardly possible to find a sphere where he had not tried himself. Franklin is called “The First American” and universal person; one can see his face on the $100 banknote. The politician’s role in history is so great that some people mistake him for an American president.
Childhood and youth
Benjamin was born in Ecton into the large family of a soaper. In 1662, Josiah took his family from England to America: the Puritan was afraid of religious persecution.
Benjamin was the 15th child in the family; he had two younger siblings. At the age of eight, the boy started attending a school but had to quit it two years later, for the father had no extra money for his education. Ten-year-old Benjamin assisted his dad at a soap factory, but the exhausting work did not make him less interested in studies. In the daytime, he would melt wax for candles and make soap; evenings were devoted to reading. The father could not buy books, and the future politician borrowed them from friends and acquaintances.
Although the parents were glad their son was smart, Ben was reluctant to work at a soap factory; it made them sad. The father wanted to see him as a priest, but the 15th son disliked this option as well. Thus, Josiah sent him to the elder brother, who had opened a printing house. 12-year-old Franklin was an apprentice there and eventually took an interest in printing and creating ballads. The brother published one of them. However, the father did not approve of this hobby, for he treated poets like paupers.
When the brother started publishing a newspaper, 16-year-old Ben realized that his journalist career would finish, should his father reveal the truth. The young man wrote notes in the form of letters and unmasked social morals, using a pseudonym; these pieces of writing were popular among readers. However, when the brother learned who the author was, he kicked him away.
Franklin saved some money and fled to Philadelphia, where he got hired at a publishing house. The young and clever employee was noticed and sent to London to buy equipment and open a printing house for governmental orders in Philadelphia. Benjamin loved the British press so much that he began to publish his own newspaper and almanac a decade later. They proved to be beneficial and provided the family with everything necessary; Franklin had the opportunity to focus on science and politics.
Benjamin Franklin started his political career in Philadelphia and founded a discussion club; it transformed into the American Philosophical Society in 1743. Thanks to Franklin, the first open library appeared in the country in 1731, when it was still a British colony. At the age of 15, the young man worked as a secretary at the Pennsylvania Assembly; he became its leader later. In addition, he governed the state post office and then the departments in other lands under the British guidance.
From 1757, Franklin represented four American states in Great Britain; he did this job for 13 years. In 1775, the politician joined the Second Continental Congress led by Thomas Jefferson and contributed to the creation of the emblem of the USA (The Great Seal).
In July 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, “The First American” led the group that went to Paris to support the country in its war against Great Britain. By winter 1778, Franklin got the French signature; the talented diplomatist stayed in Paris as an ambassador. He joined the lodge Les Neuf Sœurs (Nine Sisters), becoming the first American mason.
In the 1780s, the politician represented the USA in London and signed The Treaty of Paris, which marked the end of the American Revolutionary War.
Franklin characterized democracy as the correlation of forces with “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”. Long before Adam Smith, he created and proved the theory of value; labor, not money, was named its standard. In the early 1770-1790s, the politician was working on his autobiography; he never finished it. It was supposed to be the memoirs about the brightest events in the man’s life; The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin was released after his death.
A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain, The Way to Wealth, and Poor Richard’s Almanack are among popular books. The legendary personality has attracted many directors: one can see him in John Paul Jones, John Adams, and Sons of Liberty. The latter is the most recent project by Kari Skogland; the mini-series starred Dean Norris as Franklin. The story is set in the USA when the country was still a British colony.
The American War of Independence
During the war, Benjamin Franklin worked on the plan of the Colonial Union and became the head of the Post Office Department; he co-authored the Declaration of Independence and served as the advisor of the Chief of the Army George Washington.
When the newly-born republic needed allies, Franklin went to France and performed his duties spotlessly; France became the first European country to recognize American independence in 1778.
Science and inventions
Franklin showed much interest in sciences in his early childhood. One day, little Ben appeared on the seashore with small boards on his feet and hands; this invention (flippers) helped surpass his competitors. Soon, the boy amazed his friends again: he took a paper kite and used a tail-wind. He backed on the water and held on to the rope, moving on the surface quickly, as if the kite were a sail.
Considering Franklin’s political and diplomatic activities, he did not have much time on scientific experiments: about five or six years. Still, he reached remarkable results at this short time: electricity research, thermal conductivity of metals, and sound spreading in water.
The scientist studied and tamed the heaven’s fire which caused destructive fires during storms. As long as a lightning discharger was created, the number of such catastrophes decreased; Immanuel Kant called Franklin “the new Prometheus”. Besides, the man offered the plus and minus signs for electrical charges, bulbs for street lamps, and flat condensers.
Franklin’s relationships with women make a specific chapter in his life; the amorous man was not a loyal partner. He met Deborah Read in Philadelphia; she became his fiancée soon. However, the diplomatist had to go to London and fell in love with the daughter of his apartment hostess. The young woman gave birth to the son William.
When Benjamin came back to Philadelphia with an out-of-wedlock child, Deborah accepted them; she was a grass widow whose husband had left her and escaped from collectors.
Two children were born in this union later: the daughter Sarah and the son Francis, who died of smallpox at four. The life with Read was not happy; the couple spent two years together.
Charming and impressive, Franklin had many lovers. In the mid-1750s, he met beautiful Catherine Ray; they maintained romantic correspondence until the politician’s last days. The affair with the landlady continued for several years; rumors had it the man was flirting with the hostess and her young niece at the same time.
In the late 1770s, 70-year-old Franklin met 30-year-old Parisian Brillon de Jouy, the widow of Helvétius. She is often called the politician’s last passion.
In 1745, 39-year-old Franklin wrote his famous letter on an intimate topic; it was addressed to a nameless friend. The letter was stored in the archives of the State Department and published in 1926. Benjamin recommended his friend to choose older women and shared the details about why they were better than young girls.
The 84-year-old politician and scientist died on April 17, 1790. 20 000 people were present at his funeral in Philadelphia; its population was 33 000.
Millions of people shed tears over the death of “the First American”; nobody was buried with such honors. The county was mourning him for two months.
- Franklin signed the most significant historical documents that marked the beginning of the United States: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and The Treaty of Paris (1783).
- He contributed to the design of the Great Seal of the United States.
- The man was the first American to become a foreign honorary member of St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.
- Franklin founded the first public library.
- He introduced the “+” and “-” markings to identify electric charges, proved the electrical nature of lightning, and invented a lightning discharger.
- The scientist created bifocal spectacles and received a patent on a rocking chair.
- He invented an economic small-size stove named “Franklin stove” or “Pennsylvania fireplace”.
- Franklin was the first to use an electric spark for gunpowder explosions.
- He collected much data on stormy winds (northeasters) and suggested a theory explaining their origin.
- The man contributed to the first map of the Gulf Stream.
Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed.
The first degree of folly is to conceit one’s self wise; the second to profess it; the third to despise counsel.
Lend money to an enemy, and thou will gain him, to a friend and thou will lose him.
Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.
Buy what thou hast no need of and ere long thou shalt sell thy necessities.
Critics are our friends; they show us our faults.
A crown is no cure for the headache.
Pride breakfasted with Plenty, dined with Poverty, supped with Infamy.
The one who lives with hope, risks to die of starvation.
A ploughman on his legs is higher than a gentleman on his knees.
At twenty years of age the will reigns; at thirty, the wit; and at forty, the judgment.
He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money.
Time is money.
Don’t put off until tomorrow what you can do today.
Moving three times is as bad as a fire.
To find out a girl’s faults, praise her to her girlfriends.
A person good at making excuses is seldom good for anything else.
Whatever is begun in anger, ends in shame. | <urn:uuid:bc8d7857-b8b0-4656-943d-95330f343a3a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://24celebs.com/celebrity/87777-benjamin-franklin.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606269.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122012204-20200122041204-00284.warc.gz | en | 0.981494 | 2,248 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.03403462842106819,
0.5095675587654114,
-0.030560672283172607,
-0.3874601721763611,
-0.4584556818008423,
0.22001296281814575,
0.13956263661384583,
0.4890316128730774,
-0.3391573131084442,
0.03706006333231926,
0.3817267417907715,
0.3214714527130127,
0.04850611463189125,
0.3056181073188782... | 5 | Benjamin Franklin: biography
Benjamin Franklin went down the history of the United States as an inventor, politician, diplomatist, and philosopher, as well as a talented businessman, musician, writer, and editor. It is hardly possible to find a sphere where he had not tried himself. Franklin is called “The First American” and universal person; one can see his face on the $100 banknote. The politician’s role in history is so great that some people mistake him for an American president.
Childhood and youth
Benjamin was born in Ecton into the large family of a soaper. In 1662, Josiah took his family from England to America: the Puritan was afraid of religious persecution.
Benjamin was the 15th child in the family; he had two younger siblings. At the age of eight, the boy started attending a school but had to quit it two years later, for the father had no extra money for his education. Ten-year-old Benjamin assisted his dad at a soap factory, but the exhausting work did not make him less interested in studies. In the daytime, he would melt wax for candles and make soap; evenings were devoted to reading. The father could not buy books, and the future politician borrowed them from friends and acquaintances.
Although the parents were glad their son was smart, Ben was reluctant to work at a soap factory; it made them sad. The father wanted to see him as a priest, but the 15th son disliked this option as well. Thus, Josiah sent him to the elder brother, who had opened a printing house. 12-year-old Franklin was an apprentice there and eventually took an interest in printing and creating ballads. The brother published one of them. However, the father did not approve of this hobby, for he treated poets like paupers.
When the brother started publishing a newspaper, 16-year-old Ben realized that his journalist career would finish, should his father reveal the truth. The young man wrote notes in the form of letters and unmasked social morals, using a pseudonym; these pieces of writing were popular among readers. However, when the brother learned who the author was, he kicked him away.
Franklin saved some money and fled to Philadelphia, where he got hired at a publishing house. The young and clever employee was noticed and sent to London to buy equipment and open a printing house for governmental orders in Philadelphia. Benjamin loved the British press so much that he began to publish his own newspaper and almanac a decade later. They proved to be beneficial and provided the family with everything necessary; Franklin had the opportunity to focus on science and politics.
Benjamin Franklin started his political career in Philadelphia and founded a discussion club; it transformed into the American Philosophical Society in 1743. Thanks to Franklin, the first open library appeared in the country in 1731, when it was still a British colony. At the age of 15, the young man worked as a secretary at the Pennsylvania Assembly; he became its leader later. In addition, he governed the state post office and then the departments in other lands under the British guidance.
From 1757, Franklin represented four American states in Great Britain; he did this job for 13 years. In 1775, the politician joined the Second Continental Congress led by Thomas Jefferson and contributed to the creation of the emblem of the USA (The Great Seal).
In July 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, “The First American” led the group that went to Paris to support the country in its war against Great Britain. By winter 1778, Franklin got the French signature; the talented diplomatist stayed in Paris as an ambassador. He joined the lodge Les Neuf Sœurs (Nine Sisters), becoming the first American mason.
In the 1780s, the politician represented the USA in London and signed The Treaty of Paris, which marked the end of the American Revolutionary War.
Franklin characterized democracy as the correlation of forces with “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”. Long before Adam Smith, he created and proved the theory of value; labor, not money, was named its standard. In the early 1770-1790s, the politician was working on his autobiography; he never finished it. It was supposed to be the memoirs about the brightest events in the man’s life; The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin was released after his death.
A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain, The Way to Wealth, and Poor Richard’s Almanack are among popular books. The legendary personality has attracted many directors: one can see him in John Paul Jones, John Adams, and Sons of Liberty. The latter is the most recent project by Kari Skogland; the mini-series starred Dean Norris as Franklin. The story is set in the USA when the country was still a British colony.
The American War of Independence
During the war, Benjamin Franklin worked on the plan of the Colonial Union and became the head of the Post Office Department; he co-authored the Declaration of Independence and served as the advisor of the Chief of the Army George Washington.
When the newly-born republic needed allies, Franklin went to France and performed his duties spotlessly; France became the first European country to recognize American independence in 1778.
Science and inventions
Franklin showed much interest in sciences in his early childhood. One day, little Ben appeared on the seashore with small boards on his feet and hands; this invention (flippers) helped surpass his competitors. Soon, the boy amazed his friends again: he took a paper kite and used a tail-wind. He backed on the water and held on to the rope, moving on the surface quickly, as if the kite were a sail.
Considering Franklin’s political and diplomatic activities, he did not have much time on scientific experiments: about five or six years. Still, he reached remarkable results at this short time: electricity research, thermal conductivity of metals, and sound spreading in water.
The scientist studied and tamed the heaven’s fire which caused destructive fires during storms. As long as a lightning discharger was created, the number of such catastrophes decreased; Immanuel Kant called Franklin “the new Prometheus”. Besides, the man offered the plus and minus signs for electrical charges, bulbs for street lamps, and flat condensers.
Franklin’s relationships with women make a specific chapter in his life; the amorous man was not a loyal partner. He met Deborah Read in Philadelphia; she became his fiancée soon. However, the diplomatist had to go to London and fell in love with the daughter of his apartment hostess. The young woman gave birth to the son William.
When Benjamin came back to Philadelphia with an out-of-wedlock child, Deborah accepted them; she was a grass widow whose husband had left her and escaped from collectors.
Two children were born in this union later: the daughter Sarah and the son Francis, who died of smallpox at four. The life with Read was not happy; the couple spent two years together.
Charming and impressive, Franklin had many lovers. In the mid-1750s, he met beautiful Catherine Ray; they maintained romantic correspondence until the politician’s last days. The affair with the landlady continued for several years; rumors had it the man was flirting with the hostess and her young niece at the same time.
In the late 1770s, 70-year-old Franklin met 30-year-old Parisian Brillon de Jouy, the widow of Helvétius. She is often called the politician’s last passion.
In 1745, 39-year-old Franklin wrote his famous letter on an intimate topic; it was addressed to a nameless friend. The letter was stored in the archives of the State Department and published in 1926. Benjamin recommended his friend to choose older women and shared the details about why they were better than young girls.
The 84-year-old politician and scientist died on April 17, 1790. 20 000 people were present at his funeral in Philadelphia; its population was 33 000.
Millions of people shed tears over the death of “the First American”; nobody was buried with such honors. The county was mourning him for two months.
- Franklin signed the most significant historical documents that marked the beginning of the United States: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and The Treaty of Paris (1783).
- He contributed to the design of the Great Seal of the United States.
- The man was the first American to become a foreign honorary member of St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.
- Franklin founded the first public library.
- He introduced the “+” and “-” markings to identify electric charges, proved the electrical nature of lightning, and invented a lightning discharger.
- The scientist created bifocal spectacles and received a patent on a rocking chair.
- He invented an economic small-size stove named “Franklin stove” or “Pennsylvania fireplace”.
- Franklin was the first to use an electric spark for gunpowder explosions.
- He collected much data on stormy winds (northeasters) and suggested a theory explaining their origin.
- The man contributed to the first map of the Gulf Stream.
Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed.
The first degree of folly is to conceit one’s self wise; the second to profess it; the third to despise counsel.
Lend money to an enemy, and thou will gain him, to a friend and thou will lose him.
Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.
Buy what thou hast no need of and ere long thou shalt sell thy necessities.
Critics are our friends; they show us our faults.
A crown is no cure for the headache.
Pride breakfasted with Plenty, dined with Poverty, supped with Infamy.
The one who lives with hope, risks to die of starvation.
A ploughman on his legs is higher than a gentleman on his knees.
At twenty years of age the will reigns; at thirty, the wit; and at forty, the judgment.
He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money.
Time is money.
Don’t put off until tomorrow what you can do today.
Moving three times is as bad as a fire.
To find out a girl’s faults, praise her to her girlfriends.
A person good at making excuses is seldom good for anything else.
Whatever is begun in anger, ends in shame. | 2,212 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The simple choker goes back thousands of years, to the ancient civilizations of Sumer, Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. They’ve been used as a source of power and protection, to make a political statement, and as a beauty accessory.
Dr. Stephanie Langin-Hooper is a professor of ancient art history at SMU.
“Each kind of jewelry had a different meaning—wealth, beauty and status as well as more specific religious, political and spiritual meanings,” said Langin-Hooper.
Most Egyptian jewelry was made from gold or copper since silver was scarce. Precious and semi-precious stones were used such as lapis lazuli which was a favorite and denoted honor, royalty, wisdom and truth.
“Trade would allow for different gemstones to be included in the jewelry,” said Langin-Hooper.
Types of jewelry included signet rings which were used as seals, armbands, and crowns along with earrings and necklaces.
One example is the ancient Egyptian shebyu collar which was made from gold to represent the sun god and creator of gold, Ra. The choker-like necklace was formed from beads strung together joined by a clasp. The long strands of beads hanging from the clasp act as a counterweight and would have been worn on the person’s back.
The choker was first adopted by European women during the Enlightenment and remained popular as a visible sign of wealth.
Anne Boleyn’s portrait from the 17th century shows her wearing a pearl choker adorned with a “B” charm.
Chokers also brought to mind the beheadings that took place during execution sentences.
During the French Revolution when the monarchy was overthrown and people took control of the government, the Reign of Terror marked a one-year period where thousands of people such as Marie Antoinette were beheaded for treason.
Following the French Revolution, women wore red ribbons around their necks to symbolize the bloody deaths caused by the guillotine and pay homage to those who were suspected of treason and executed.
Prostitutes began wearing black ribbons around the same time to identify their profession.
This trend has been captured in Édouard Manet’s “Olympia” which shows a reclining, nude woman wearing a black ribbon choker.
Alexandra of Denmark popularized the choker in the early 20th century which she wore to cover a scar she acquired during a childhood operation.
A version of the choker called a Kropfkette was also used by women to hide goiters caused by an iodine deficiency common in the the Alps.
Chokers re-appeared in the 1920s and again in the 1940s as dog collars in America or colliers de chien in France. They were called this because they were worn lower on the neck and were often embellished with faux diamonds or pearls.
In the 1970s, choker represented gender bending with rockstars such as Mick Jagger, David Bowie, and Jimi Hendrix sporting the accessory.
In the 1990s, chokers made a strong comeback with the plastic tattoo choker which was often worn by teenagers who associated with the grunge or punk scene.
Chokers have been popular on-and-off since the ‘90s in just about every form and can be seen on the likes of Rihanna, Ariana Grande, and Hailey Baldwin. | <urn:uuid:7c66d2d8-e4b1-41af-a117-85ac4b8421ea> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://smulook.com/2019/12/04/look-back-choker-necklace/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672537.90/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125131641-20200125160641-00181.warc.gz | en | 0.984196 | 725 | 3.6875 | 4 | [
-0.021520771086215973,
0.43205422163009644,
-0.01233552023768425,
0.20845648646354675,
-0.4085572361946106,
-0.3757961094379425,
0.5706489086151123,
0.05420681834220886,
-0.20492428541183472,
-0.32777494192123413,
0.017506325617432594,
-0.31522470712661743,
-0.1830485761165619,
-0.01785106... | 10 | The simple choker goes back thousands of years, to the ancient civilizations of Sumer, Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. They’ve been used as a source of power and protection, to make a political statement, and as a beauty accessory.
Dr. Stephanie Langin-Hooper is a professor of ancient art history at SMU.
“Each kind of jewelry had a different meaning—wealth, beauty and status as well as more specific religious, political and spiritual meanings,” said Langin-Hooper.
Most Egyptian jewelry was made from gold or copper since silver was scarce. Precious and semi-precious stones were used such as lapis lazuli which was a favorite and denoted honor, royalty, wisdom and truth.
“Trade would allow for different gemstones to be included in the jewelry,” said Langin-Hooper.
Types of jewelry included signet rings which were used as seals, armbands, and crowns along with earrings and necklaces.
One example is the ancient Egyptian shebyu collar which was made from gold to represent the sun god and creator of gold, Ra. The choker-like necklace was formed from beads strung together joined by a clasp. The long strands of beads hanging from the clasp act as a counterweight and would have been worn on the person’s back.
The choker was first adopted by European women during the Enlightenment and remained popular as a visible sign of wealth.
Anne Boleyn’s portrait from the 17th century shows her wearing a pearl choker adorned with a “B” charm.
Chokers also brought to mind the beheadings that took place during execution sentences.
During the French Revolution when the monarchy was overthrown and people took control of the government, the Reign of Terror marked a one-year period where thousands of people such as Marie Antoinette were beheaded for treason.
Following the French Revolution, women wore red ribbons around their necks to symbolize the bloody deaths caused by the guillotine and pay homage to those who were suspected of treason and executed.
Prostitutes began wearing black ribbons around the same time to identify their profession.
This trend has been captured in Édouard Manet’s “Olympia” which shows a reclining, nude woman wearing a black ribbon choker.
Alexandra of Denmark popularized the choker in the early 20th century which she wore to cover a scar she acquired during a childhood operation.
A version of the choker called a Kropfkette was also used by women to hide goiters caused by an iodine deficiency common in the the Alps.
Chokers re-appeared in the 1920s and again in the 1940s as dog collars in America or colliers de chien in France. They were called this because they were worn lower on the neck and were often embellished with faux diamonds or pearls.
In the 1970s, choker represented gender bending with rockstars such as Mick Jagger, David Bowie, and Jimi Hendrix sporting the accessory.
In the 1990s, chokers made a strong comeback with the plastic tattoo choker which was often worn by teenagers who associated with the grunge or punk scene.
Chokers have been popular on-and-off since the ‘90s in just about every form and can be seen on the likes of Rihanna, Ariana Grande, and Hailey Baldwin. | 702 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the greatest generals of war the world has ever seen. Read his biography here.
Napoleon Bonaparte, known as Little Corporal, was the one who taught the world that there was nothing impossible. He was one of the greatest war heroes the world has ever seen.
Napoleon was born in the island of Corsica in 1769. That year, France captured the island. At the age of 10, he joined the French Military School and five years later, he got appointed in the French army. He spent time for reading along with his job and studied war techniques and philosophies of Voltaire and Russeau.
Napoleon went on to be promoted as Brigadier and he was assigned to lead the army against the Sardinian- Austrian army in Italy in 1796. Napoleon led his soldiers to victory in the war and rose in status among his colleagues.
He could raise the morale of the army and he was lauded for his battle techniques. It led to the 16 year long reign of Napoleon. He motivated his soldiers like no one else before. He made them believe in themselves and inspired confidence in them.
He led a military operation in Egypt but it brought a huge amount of loss to the army. He returned when the French politics was facing a crisis. His popularity helped Napoleon to rise and he along with many revolutionaries captured the power. He became one of the counsel who governed the country.
There were noted achievements during Napoleon's reign. He designed a centralised government, introduced many law reforms and restructured the tax system. He started a national bank and university. An organised secret police came into existence under the supervision of Napoleon. He was a lover of sculpture, and built a museum to showcase the antiques he captured during his military missions. He went so far as to establish a dynasty in his name. He appointed his brothers to govern the countries he conquered and his son was coronated as the King of Rome.
But, Napoleon's policies earned him many enemies later. Various mutinies sprang up and Spain attacked France. Even though, France won the war, they lost thousands of soldiers. The following Battle of Waterloo in 1815 against England brought an end to the era of Napoleon. The British army, led by Arthur Wellesley. captured him as a prisoner and imprisoned him in St. Helena Island. Napoleon spent 6 years there before surrendering to death.
Napoleon was a role model to many of his successors. His many policies helped them to design a powerful governing system. His remnants were brought to Paris in 1840 and buried with national honour.
The term warrior is associated with a brave or experienced soldier, warrior king or fighter. Warriors fought battles of conquest for self or for Kings, Emperors, or influential members in the high dynasty.
Warriors! Every country has them. This space showcases a list of the greatest Indian warriors since ancient times..
Kerala has had many social reformers in its history. Read about four of them here.. | <urn:uuid:dfc8b045-1620-44ec-85c7-c23b52bc6f55> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://travelandculture.expertscolumn.com/napoleon-bonaparte-great-war-hero | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00467.warc.gz | en | 0.987921 | 613 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.04537651687860489,
0.7587417960166931,
0.7642293572425842,
-0.4664062261581421,
-0.6656956672668457,
-0.38694125413894653,
0.2813628315925598,
0.2669532597064972,
-0.05453106388449669,
0.04844030737876892,
0.5098406076431274,
-0.5634347796440125,
0.24342983961105347,
0.542232871055603,
... | 1 | Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the greatest generals of war the world has ever seen. Read his biography here.
Napoleon Bonaparte, known as Little Corporal, was the one who taught the world that there was nothing impossible. He was one of the greatest war heroes the world has ever seen.
Napoleon was born in the island of Corsica in 1769. That year, France captured the island. At the age of 10, he joined the French Military School and five years later, he got appointed in the French army. He spent time for reading along with his job and studied war techniques and philosophies of Voltaire and Russeau.
Napoleon went on to be promoted as Brigadier and he was assigned to lead the army against the Sardinian- Austrian army in Italy in 1796. Napoleon led his soldiers to victory in the war and rose in status among his colleagues.
He could raise the morale of the army and he was lauded for his battle techniques. It led to the 16 year long reign of Napoleon. He motivated his soldiers like no one else before. He made them believe in themselves and inspired confidence in them.
He led a military operation in Egypt but it brought a huge amount of loss to the army. He returned when the French politics was facing a crisis. His popularity helped Napoleon to rise and he along with many revolutionaries captured the power. He became one of the counsel who governed the country.
There were noted achievements during Napoleon's reign. He designed a centralised government, introduced many law reforms and restructured the tax system. He started a national bank and university. An organised secret police came into existence under the supervision of Napoleon. He was a lover of sculpture, and built a museum to showcase the antiques he captured during his military missions. He went so far as to establish a dynasty in his name. He appointed his brothers to govern the countries he conquered and his son was coronated as the King of Rome.
But, Napoleon's policies earned him many enemies later. Various mutinies sprang up and Spain attacked France. Even though, France won the war, they lost thousands of soldiers. The following Battle of Waterloo in 1815 against England brought an end to the era of Napoleon. The British army, led by Arthur Wellesley. captured him as a prisoner and imprisoned him in St. Helena Island. Napoleon spent 6 years there before surrendering to death.
Napoleon was a role model to many of his successors. His many policies helped them to design a powerful governing system. His remnants were brought to Paris in 1840 and buried with national honour.
The term warrior is associated with a brave or experienced soldier, warrior king or fighter. Warriors fought battles of conquest for self or for Kings, Emperors, or influential members in the high dynasty.
Warriors! Every country has them. This space showcases a list of the greatest Indian warriors since ancient times..
Kerala has had many social reformers in its history. Read about four of them here.. | 631 | ENGLISH | 1 |
During the years 1800 to 1850, the usa became a nation significantly separated by distinct sectional differences in the North plus the South. The main of these distinctions were thoughts about slavery and ways of existence.
In the To the south, slavery was encouraged. It had been, for all rigorous purposes, the backbone of the plantations. Without slave labor almost nothing would get done. Slaves did everything from cooking to cleaning to working in the fields. The South was reliant with them. When the North tried to end slavery that they tried to destroy the southern way of life. Albeit it was a negative & uncivilized way of life however it was theirs. Another thing the South majored in was agriculture. The South was the entire gardening source of the entire nation. The majority of exports came from southern cultivation such as silk cotton.
The North was (as mentioned earlier) completely different in the South. The most crucial thing that they disagreed together with the South about was captivity. The North was against it & wanted to get rid of it over the country. One other item that separated the North from the South is that the North embraced market. Building industrial facilities and urban centers to better address the needs with the growing country. Most metallic and weapons and furniture and other manufactured goods originated from the North.
It was these kinds of opposing naturel that induced the North & To the south to despise each other. However , it is all their differences that brought harmony to the land. When the legal rights of the people are challenged (slavery) all hell can break loose and it do, in the form of the Civil Warfare. | <urn:uuid:a902aed8-ca24-4384-972e-9857aec0b2b7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://percussioneducationonline.com/1800s-to-1850s/94520-1800-s-to-1850-s-dissertation.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00173.warc.gz | en | 0.983209 | 329 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.039139553904533386,
0.21829107403755188,
0.3409358859062195,
-0.2189023494720459,
0.5374787449836731,
-0.03570330888032913,
-0.07840881496667862,
-0.3064408004283905,
-0.1833256185054779,
0.015023290179669857,
0.29670098423957825,
-0.011143585667014122,
0.036117587238550186,
0.234351441... | 1 | During the years 1800 to 1850, the usa became a nation significantly separated by distinct sectional differences in the North plus the South. The main of these distinctions were thoughts about slavery and ways of existence.
In the To the south, slavery was encouraged. It had been, for all rigorous purposes, the backbone of the plantations. Without slave labor almost nothing would get done. Slaves did everything from cooking to cleaning to working in the fields. The South was reliant with them. When the North tried to end slavery that they tried to destroy the southern way of life. Albeit it was a negative & uncivilized way of life however it was theirs. Another thing the South majored in was agriculture. The South was the entire gardening source of the entire nation. The majority of exports came from southern cultivation such as silk cotton.
The North was (as mentioned earlier) completely different in the South. The most crucial thing that they disagreed together with the South about was captivity. The North was against it & wanted to get rid of it over the country. One other item that separated the North from the South is that the North embraced market. Building industrial facilities and urban centers to better address the needs with the growing country. Most metallic and weapons and furniture and other manufactured goods originated from the North.
It was these kinds of opposing naturel that induced the North & To the south to despise each other. However , it is all their differences that brought harmony to the land. When the legal rights of the people are challenged (slavery) all hell can break loose and it do, in the form of the Civil Warfare. | 333 | ENGLISH | 1 |
I don’t usually celebrate the anniversaries of individual paintings, but this year there’s one which merits it, as it was responsible for changing the course of painting during the nineteenth century. It was also painted by an artist whose other works are largely forgotten. This revolutionary painting is Théodore Géricault’s massive Raft of the Medusa, completed and exhibited in 1819.
This first article of two considers history painting before this work, the underlying story, and how Géricault painted what he did. Tomorrow’s sequel will explain its reception and effect on art.
The idea of painting historical events goes back to the dawn of painting, but such works were only seldom intended to be any form of visual record of what actually happened. Renaissance battle scenes, for example, were composed as works of art, and the artist was rarely an eye witness, or undertook research to establish what the scene might have looked like. Even gross anachronisms, such as the use of cannons before gunpowder had been introduced to Europe, were acceptable.
West and modern history
One of the first painters to consciously make an effort at fidelity was Benjamin West (1738–1820), who ended up in a row with the influential Joshua Reynolds over how he should paint contemporary history.
West intended to paint a scene from an almost uniquely brief battle between British and French forces on 13 September 1759, which lasted just an hour or so. At the end of their three months seige of the French city of Quebec, Canada, British forces under the command of General Wolfe were preparing to take the city by force. The French attacked the British line on a plateau just outside the city.
Within minutes, General Wolfe suffered three gunshot wounds, and died quickly from them. The French commander, General Louis-Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm, was also hit by a musket ball, and died the following morning. The British line held, and the French were forced to evacuate the city, which ultimately led to France ceding most of its possessions in North America to Britain, in the Treaty of Paris of 1763. Wolfe’s death was quickly seen as the ultimate sacrifice of a commander in securing victory.
West’s painting uses a formal composition in three groups, arranged in a line across the foreground, with the dying general at their centre. The central group has common compositional features with scenes painted of the crucifixion of Christ, and is often considered to be modelled after a ‘Lamentation’ or pietà, although there are obvious differences in the people present (the Marys are central), their positions (there are commonly figures at the foot, and cradling the upper body), and most significantly in the fact that, at that stage, Christ’s body is limp and lifeless.
The argument centred on West’s choice of a subject from very recent history, and his claim that he was put under pressure by Joshua Reynolds to dress its figures in classical Roman clothing. In Galt’s biography of West, he gives these words as being West’s own:
“When it was understood that I intended to paint the characters as they had actually appeared in the scene, the Archbishop of York called on Reynolds and asked his opinion, the result of which was that they came together to my house.”
West is reported as saying that Reynolds “concluded with urging me earnestly to adopt the classic costume of antiquity, as much more becoming the inherent greatness of my subject than the modern garb of war.”
Of course West didn’t actually attempt to produce a visually accurate record, but an image which was an artistic interpretation of a real event. The next step towards modern history painting was taken by Jacques-Louis David (1748–1825), in his account of Marat Assassinated from 1793.
David as eye witness
Marat was a leading member of the Revolutionary movement in France, an influential journalist through his newspaper, and a friend of David, who had become embroiled in Revolutionary politics. Because of a severe skin disease, Marat spent much of the time in a bath to ease the intense itching. On the morning of 13 July 1793, Charlotte Corday, a young woman from Normandy, turned up at Marat’s house in Paris, asking to see him; his fiancée turned her away. She gained entry that evening, and started to give Marat the names of some local counter-revolutionaries. While he was writing them down, she drew a kitchen knife with a 15 cm (6 inch) blade from her clothing, and plunged it into Marat’s chest, killing him very quickly.
Corday admitted if not boasted of her actions, and on 17 July she was executed in public by guillotine. Marat became a martyr for the cause, after his friend David had organised his spectacular funeral, and an enduring painted memorial.
David shows Marat’s body slumped over the side of his bath, the murder weapon and his quill both on the floor, the pen still in his right hand, and a handwritten note in his left hand. Corday’s note gives the date, and addresses itself from her to Citizen Marat. It opens with “It suffices to say that I am very unhappy to qualify for your kindness”.
This sparse and simple painting became the quintessential image of The Terror in particular, and the Revolution as a whole. Although still a combination of artistic interpretation, reality as seen this time by an eye witness, and more than a little political propaganda, it appears to have a documentary quality: a painting as a visual record of contemporary history.
In 1816, France was a nation in turmoil. Crushed militarily at the Battle of Waterloo the previous year, Napoleon’s empire had collapsed, and the rest of Europe had restored the rule of Louis XVIII, reverted the country’s boundaries to those of 1789, and were occupying the country until it paid a war indemnity.
In June 1816, the French Naval frigate Méduse (Medusa) sailed as the lead of a small group to accept the return of French Senegal from the British, as part of the peace process. She was under the command of Viscount de Chaumereys, who had had little experience at sea over the previous twenty years, but had been preferred as a result of political policy.
The Méduse overtook the other ships instead of sailing in company, and the captain’s poor navigation took it more than a hundred miles off course, to run aground on a sandbank off the coast of West Africa on 2 July. The decision to abandon the vessel was taken on 5 July, but with four hundred souls on board and capacity for only around 250 in the ship’s boats, at least 146 men and one woman were put on board a raft which was built hastily for the purpose.
Although the ship’s boats had originally intended to tow the overloaded and partially-submerged raft, it was cut loose after only a few miles. The survivors on the raft then had little to keep them alive: a bag of ship’s biscuits which were eaten on the first day, two barrels of water which were soon lost overboard, and six of wine, hardly suitable to prevent dehydration. Over the following thirteen days, most died or were killed, leaving just fifteen alive when they were spotted by the Argus, a brig from the same group bound for Senegal.
Some of the survivors wrote a detailed account which was published in 1817, and deepened the embarrassment caused to the newly-restored French monarchy. What should have been a routine step in restoring a French colony became a lasting matter of shame in the press, and public debate.
In the winter of 1817-18, when Géricault must have decided to paint this disaster, he would have recognised the two changes of fortune (moments of peripeteia) in the story: the abandonment of the Méduse, and the rescue of the few survivors remaining in the raft. Classically, the best depictions of shipwreck and rescue have chosen the latter as preferable, as it shows both the result of the gruelling period of survival and the imminent hope of being saved. Géricault may also have considered this a parallel with that moment in the history of his nation.
During the spring and summer of 1818, Géricault worked on accumulating the information which he needed for the painting. He spent a long time talking to survivors, notably Savigny and Corréard, the principal authors of the book about the incident, and studied popular lithographs which were being produced illustrating it. Of the three example illustrations included in Eitner’s monograph about this painting, one showed the abandonment, one a mutiny on board the raft, and the last the sighting of the rescue ship.
He sketched various moments during the disaster, gradually honing in on the moment of rescue. This drawing shows one of the ship’s boats from the Argus reaching the raft, for example, and Géricault drew each event from the mutiny through to the raft being left empty once everyone had been rescued. Note that in this sketch, the raft is shown as a long rectangle rather than a square.
Once he had selected the second moment of peripeteia, when the survivors first sighted the Argus, he then worked through different compositional options, resulting in an initial compositional study in oils.
He continued to develop from this, probably completing these preparations during the autumn of 1818.
Attention to detail
In this period of almost a year devoted to preparatory work, Géricault accumulated a great deal of information about the disaster. He had enlisted the help of another of the survivors, a carpenter, in constructing props for his studio painting. As figures resolved for inclusion in the work, he made detailed studies of those elements in readiness for painting.
This study shows one of the figures, known as “the Father”, from the group named “the Father holding his dead son”, seen below in the finished painting.
Géricault visited morgues to make studies of cadavers and body parts. When he came to paint individual figures, he carefully selected some of sickly appearance, including the young artist Eugène Delacroix, who was ill with jaundice at the time.
In contrast to his previous studies, though, for the finished work he decided to make the Argus so tiny that this most important element in the whole composition was also its smallest.
The finished work
The end result is a vast canvas, its figures shown life-sized, which has had huge impact on everyone who has seen it since 1819. It appears completely authentic, and given the work that Géricault put into making it so, that’s perhaps not surprising. But most gain the impression that the raft was almost square in form, as a result of the tight cropping applied, and that even with those few survivors on board, it was overcrowded. This is because Géricault chose to pack all his figures into one small section of the raft.
Athanassoglou-Kallmyer N (2010) Théodore Géricault, Phaidon Press. ISBN 978 0 7148 4400 8.
Eitner L (1972) Géricault’s Raft of the Medusa, Phaidon Press. | <urn:uuid:ff072c8a-8f44-433d-9602-89fb8880d14f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://eclecticlight.co/2019/12/05/why-gericaults-shipwreck-changed-the-course-of-art-1/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607118.51/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122131612-20200122160612-00379.warc.gz | en | 0.981796 | 2,405 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.18486595153808594,
0.3794129490852356,
0.47840237617492676,
-0.04159432649612427,
-0.05524662882089615,
0.08172087371349335,
-0.07282817363739014,
0.34695976972579956,
-0.06341174244880676,
-0.17677360773086548,
-0.3597339391708374,
-0.09889347106218338,
-0.12568244338035583,
0.38527634... | 11 | I don’t usually celebrate the anniversaries of individual paintings, but this year there’s one which merits it, as it was responsible for changing the course of painting during the nineteenth century. It was also painted by an artist whose other works are largely forgotten. This revolutionary painting is Théodore Géricault’s massive Raft of the Medusa, completed and exhibited in 1819.
This first article of two considers history painting before this work, the underlying story, and how Géricault painted what he did. Tomorrow’s sequel will explain its reception and effect on art.
The idea of painting historical events goes back to the dawn of painting, but such works were only seldom intended to be any form of visual record of what actually happened. Renaissance battle scenes, for example, were composed as works of art, and the artist was rarely an eye witness, or undertook research to establish what the scene might have looked like. Even gross anachronisms, such as the use of cannons before gunpowder had been introduced to Europe, were acceptable.
West and modern history
One of the first painters to consciously make an effort at fidelity was Benjamin West (1738–1820), who ended up in a row with the influential Joshua Reynolds over how he should paint contemporary history.
West intended to paint a scene from an almost uniquely brief battle between British and French forces on 13 September 1759, which lasted just an hour or so. At the end of their three months seige of the French city of Quebec, Canada, British forces under the command of General Wolfe were preparing to take the city by force. The French attacked the British line on a plateau just outside the city.
Within minutes, General Wolfe suffered three gunshot wounds, and died quickly from them. The French commander, General Louis-Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm, was also hit by a musket ball, and died the following morning. The British line held, and the French were forced to evacuate the city, which ultimately led to France ceding most of its possessions in North America to Britain, in the Treaty of Paris of 1763. Wolfe’s death was quickly seen as the ultimate sacrifice of a commander in securing victory.
West’s painting uses a formal composition in three groups, arranged in a line across the foreground, with the dying general at their centre. The central group has common compositional features with scenes painted of the crucifixion of Christ, and is often considered to be modelled after a ‘Lamentation’ or pietà, although there are obvious differences in the people present (the Marys are central), their positions (there are commonly figures at the foot, and cradling the upper body), and most significantly in the fact that, at that stage, Christ’s body is limp and lifeless.
The argument centred on West’s choice of a subject from very recent history, and his claim that he was put under pressure by Joshua Reynolds to dress its figures in classical Roman clothing. In Galt’s biography of West, he gives these words as being West’s own:
“When it was understood that I intended to paint the characters as they had actually appeared in the scene, the Archbishop of York called on Reynolds and asked his opinion, the result of which was that they came together to my house.”
West is reported as saying that Reynolds “concluded with urging me earnestly to adopt the classic costume of antiquity, as much more becoming the inherent greatness of my subject than the modern garb of war.”
Of course West didn’t actually attempt to produce a visually accurate record, but an image which was an artistic interpretation of a real event. The next step towards modern history painting was taken by Jacques-Louis David (1748–1825), in his account of Marat Assassinated from 1793.
David as eye witness
Marat was a leading member of the Revolutionary movement in France, an influential journalist through his newspaper, and a friend of David, who had become embroiled in Revolutionary politics. Because of a severe skin disease, Marat spent much of the time in a bath to ease the intense itching. On the morning of 13 July 1793, Charlotte Corday, a young woman from Normandy, turned up at Marat’s house in Paris, asking to see him; his fiancée turned her away. She gained entry that evening, and started to give Marat the names of some local counter-revolutionaries. While he was writing them down, she drew a kitchen knife with a 15 cm (6 inch) blade from her clothing, and plunged it into Marat’s chest, killing him very quickly.
Corday admitted if not boasted of her actions, and on 17 July she was executed in public by guillotine. Marat became a martyr for the cause, after his friend David had organised his spectacular funeral, and an enduring painted memorial.
David shows Marat’s body slumped over the side of his bath, the murder weapon and his quill both on the floor, the pen still in his right hand, and a handwritten note in his left hand. Corday’s note gives the date, and addresses itself from her to Citizen Marat. It opens with “It suffices to say that I am very unhappy to qualify for your kindness”.
This sparse and simple painting became the quintessential image of The Terror in particular, and the Revolution as a whole. Although still a combination of artistic interpretation, reality as seen this time by an eye witness, and more than a little political propaganda, it appears to have a documentary quality: a painting as a visual record of contemporary history.
In 1816, France was a nation in turmoil. Crushed militarily at the Battle of Waterloo the previous year, Napoleon’s empire had collapsed, and the rest of Europe had restored the rule of Louis XVIII, reverted the country’s boundaries to those of 1789, and were occupying the country until it paid a war indemnity.
In June 1816, the French Naval frigate Méduse (Medusa) sailed as the lead of a small group to accept the return of French Senegal from the British, as part of the peace process. She was under the command of Viscount de Chaumereys, who had had little experience at sea over the previous twenty years, but had been preferred as a result of political policy.
The Méduse overtook the other ships instead of sailing in company, and the captain’s poor navigation took it more than a hundred miles off course, to run aground on a sandbank off the coast of West Africa on 2 July. The decision to abandon the vessel was taken on 5 July, but with four hundred souls on board and capacity for only around 250 in the ship’s boats, at least 146 men and one woman were put on board a raft which was built hastily for the purpose.
Although the ship’s boats had originally intended to tow the overloaded and partially-submerged raft, it was cut loose after only a few miles. The survivors on the raft then had little to keep them alive: a bag of ship’s biscuits which were eaten on the first day, two barrels of water which were soon lost overboard, and six of wine, hardly suitable to prevent dehydration. Over the following thirteen days, most died or were killed, leaving just fifteen alive when they were spotted by the Argus, a brig from the same group bound for Senegal.
Some of the survivors wrote a detailed account which was published in 1817, and deepened the embarrassment caused to the newly-restored French monarchy. What should have been a routine step in restoring a French colony became a lasting matter of shame in the press, and public debate.
In the winter of 1817-18, when Géricault must have decided to paint this disaster, he would have recognised the two changes of fortune (moments of peripeteia) in the story: the abandonment of the Méduse, and the rescue of the few survivors remaining in the raft. Classically, the best depictions of shipwreck and rescue have chosen the latter as preferable, as it shows both the result of the gruelling period of survival and the imminent hope of being saved. Géricault may also have considered this a parallel with that moment in the history of his nation.
During the spring and summer of 1818, Géricault worked on accumulating the information which he needed for the painting. He spent a long time talking to survivors, notably Savigny and Corréard, the principal authors of the book about the incident, and studied popular lithographs which were being produced illustrating it. Of the three example illustrations included in Eitner’s monograph about this painting, one showed the abandonment, one a mutiny on board the raft, and the last the sighting of the rescue ship.
He sketched various moments during the disaster, gradually honing in on the moment of rescue. This drawing shows one of the ship’s boats from the Argus reaching the raft, for example, and Géricault drew each event from the mutiny through to the raft being left empty once everyone had been rescued. Note that in this sketch, the raft is shown as a long rectangle rather than a square.
Once he had selected the second moment of peripeteia, when the survivors first sighted the Argus, he then worked through different compositional options, resulting in an initial compositional study in oils.
He continued to develop from this, probably completing these preparations during the autumn of 1818.
Attention to detail
In this period of almost a year devoted to preparatory work, Géricault accumulated a great deal of information about the disaster. He had enlisted the help of another of the survivors, a carpenter, in constructing props for his studio painting. As figures resolved for inclusion in the work, he made detailed studies of those elements in readiness for painting.
This study shows one of the figures, known as “the Father”, from the group named “the Father holding his dead son”, seen below in the finished painting.
Géricault visited morgues to make studies of cadavers and body parts. When he came to paint individual figures, he carefully selected some of sickly appearance, including the young artist Eugène Delacroix, who was ill with jaundice at the time.
In contrast to his previous studies, though, for the finished work he decided to make the Argus so tiny that this most important element in the whole composition was also its smallest.
The finished work
The end result is a vast canvas, its figures shown life-sized, which has had huge impact on everyone who has seen it since 1819. It appears completely authentic, and given the work that Géricault put into making it so, that’s perhaps not surprising. But most gain the impression that the raft was almost square in form, as a result of the tight cropping applied, and that even with those few survivors on board, it was overcrowded. This is because Géricault chose to pack all his figures into one small section of the raft.
Athanassoglou-Kallmyer N (2010) Théodore Géricault, Phaidon Press. ISBN 978 0 7148 4400 8.
Eitner L (1972) Géricault’s Raft of the Medusa, Phaidon Press. | 2,376 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In early 1942, the Jews of Sighet, Hungary were impervious to what the Germans had waiting for them. One day all of the foreign Jews of Sighet were expelled, including Elie’s friend Moshe The Beadle. Several months would pass by until Moshe returned. When he returned he explained to Sighet the horrors that he had witnessed the Germans doing. “Jews, listen to me. It’s all I ask of you. I don’t want money or pity. Only listen to me,” cried Moshe. “I did not believe him myself,” thought Elie.(Page 5) Wiesel had received a warning about an upcoming danger and had been told to save himself. Unfortunately for Elie, he did not take this chance that he got to escape from Sighet.
Years later in 1944, Elie and his father would have a conversation about moving to Palestine. “At the time, it was still possible to obtain emigration permits for Palestine.” “I’m too old my son. I’m too old to start from scratch again in a country so far away.” (Page 6) During this conversation, Elie recommended to his father that they should abandon what they have in Sighet and start a brand new life in the holy land of Palestine, where they would be completely safe from the Germans. Again Elie and his family missed another good opportunity to escape when Elie’s father rejected the plan, stating that he is too old to restart completely. Too bad for him, he would have managed to live a longer happier life had he left to Palestine.
“It was an inspector in the Hungarian Police, a friend of my fathers. If he could have spoken to us that evening, we could perhaps have fled… But by the time we had managed to open the window, it was too late. There was no one outside.” (Page 12) This represents another missed opportunity that the Wiesel family had to escape from German captivity. Had they gotten to the window a split second earlier, that moment in time could have saved the entire family from their fateful doom.
Later on when Elie and his father were at Auschwitz Concentration Camp, they were once again given a chance to decide there own fates. “For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him entered as a patient or a nurse. Or else we could follow the others.” (Page 78) Making another poor decision, Elie and his father chose the path of following the others onto the death march to Buchenwald. “I learned after the war the fate of those who stayed behind in the hospital. They were quite simply liberated by the Russians two days after the evacuation.” (Page 78) Unfortunately for the Wiesels, that poor choice would seal the fate of Elie’s father as he would become ill during the march, leading to his death later on.
In a way, the Wiesel family made a lot of poor decisions and missed a great deal of opportunities that they could have taken to escape from German captivity. Had they taken all the chances, the family could have perhaps lived a long pleasant life and could have died together in peace. On the other hand, all of them except for Elie would be executed in fire pits by SS guards at the concentration camps. A good lesson learned by Elie Wiesel throughout his time in captivity is that when opportunities arise, take them. | <urn:uuid:bcf1ab88-2df7-4971-842d-0fe0e01957f8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.studymode.com/essays/Night-Literary-Analysis-63615430.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00502.warc.gz | en | 0.990912 | 742 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.5626205205917358,
0.6605663299560547,
-0.11712655425071716,
-0.12629438936710358,
0.06036381050944328,
0.13402512669563293,
0.33876609802246094,
0.13003289699554443,
-0.20638437569141388,
-0.1700429469347,
-0.00117016420699656,
-0.19524450600147247,
0.2782554030418396,
0.296415537595748... | 1 | In early 1942, the Jews of Sighet, Hungary were impervious to what the Germans had waiting for them. One day all of the foreign Jews of Sighet were expelled, including Elie’s friend Moshe The Beadle. Several months would pass by until Moshe returned. When he returned he explained to Sighet the horrors that he had witnessed the Germans doing. “Jews, listen to me. It’s all I ask of you. I don’t want money or pity. Only listen to me,” cried Moshe. “I did not believe him myself,” thought Elie.(Page 5) Wiesel had received a warning about an upcoming danger and had been told to save himself. Unfortunately for Elie, he did not take this chance that he got to escape from Sighet.
Years later in 1944, Elie and his father would have a conversation about moving to Palestine. “At the time, it was still possible to obtain emigration permits for Palestine.” “I’m too old my son. I’m too old to start from scratch again in a country so far away.” (Page 6) During this conversation, Elie recommended to his father that they should abandon what they have in Sighet and start a brand new life in the holy land of Palestine, where they would be completely safe from the Germans. Again Elie and his family missed another good opportunity to escape when Elie’s father rejected the plan, stating that he is too old to restart completely. Too bad for him, he would have managed to live a longer happier life had he left to Palestine.
“It was an inspector in the Hungarian Police, a friend of my fathers. If he could have spoken to us that evening, we could perhaps have fled… But by the time we had managed to open the window, it was too late. There was no one outside.” (Page 12) This represents another missed opportunity that the Wiesel family had to escape from German captivity. Had they gotten to the window a split second earlier, that moment in time could have saved the entire family from their fateful doom.
Later on when Elie and his father were at Auschwitz Concentration Camp, they were once again given a chance to decide there own fates. “For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him entered as a patient or a nurse. Or else we could follow the others.” (Page 78) Making another poor decision, Elie and his father chose the path of following the others onto the death march to Buchenwald. “I learned after the war the fate of those who stayed behind in the hospital. They were quite simply liberated by the Russians two days after the evacuation.” (Page 78) Unfortunately for the Wiesels, that poor choice would seal the fate of Elie’s father as he would become ill during the march, leading to his death later on.
In a way, the Wiesel family made a lot of poor decisions and missed a great deal of opportunities that they could have taken to escape from German captivity. Had they taken all the chances, the family could have perhaps lived a long pleasant life and could have died together in peace. On the other hand, all of them except for Elie would be executed in fire pits by SS guards at the concentration camps. A good lesson learned by Elie Wiesel throughout his time in captivity is that when opportunities arise, take them. | 720 | ENGLISH | 1 |
‘Perfect liberty and uproar’
After his arrival in Sydney in April 1850, Thomas Frederick Fitzsimmons Jones, a Dublin-born music master from London, wrote a seven-page letter to the NSW Commissioners of Emigration. In it, he candidly describes the cheek, trouble and challenges he’d faced during the almost five-month voyage from Plymouth as he attempted to teach subjects including English and arithmetic to 279 teenage girls.
Irish orphans at sea
The girls, ranging in age from 14 to 20, were orphans, mostly from famine-ravaged Ireland. They’d been selected from workhouses to emigrate to Australia under the British Government’s Earl Grey scheme (1848–50). In total, 4114 young women would emigrate under this scheme; 2253 were sent to Sydney, where they passed through the Immigration Depot at the Hyde Park Barracks, then providing temporary accommodation and a hiring office for single female immigrants. The colony needed women, both as domestic servants and as wives and mothers, and the orphans, whose future at home was bleak, were chosen as the first batch to stay at the new depot.
The voyage to NSW on the ‘orphan ships’ represented a substantial period of time at sea. A matron was appointed to supervise the girls, and in a genuine attempt to improve the lives and prospects of emigrants, ships would also allocate a schoolmaster. Jones, a fellow passenger who was emigrating to NSW with his family, was probably chosen on the strength of his own education.
Ireland had had a national school system since the 1830s, and all instruction was carried out in English. However, attendance rates throughout the 19th century were low, particularly for girls. This was exacerbated during the famine years, when many of these girls would have been of school age, as children were often required to work on family farms or find jobs to survive. So while levels of education among assisted Irish emigrants to NSW were typically higher than those of the non-migrating population, the John Knox orphans were different – almost half of them were unable to read or write, at least in English. (It’s not known how many were able to read or write in Gaelic.)
A tough gig
Jones had his work cut out for him. Bad weather, cramped quarters below decks and rowdy teenage girls on the trip of a lifetime would challenge the most experienced classroom teacher to build rapport and maintain focus, let alone a ring-in.
The opening paragraph of Jones’s letter sets the tone: ‘Gentlemen – It is with regret that I am compelled to admit that the improvement in the Education of the Orphan Emigrants has been far, very far short of what in the commencement I expected’. Based on the ‘perfect liberty and uproar’ with which the girls conducted themselves, he gloomily predicted that they would never submit to a life of quiet domestic service.
Many of his frustrations – from student misbehaviour to lack of adequate resources – could be those of any teacher, at any school, at any time in history. Classes were supposed to begin at 10.30am, but ‘it was very seldom I could assemble [the students] before 12, for as fast as they were collected, they went below again, hiding behind their bedding in the dark corners of the ship’. Some better‑behaved students were appointed as monitors, but with little success. Jones singled out the girls from Cashel and Cork as being the most troublesome: ‘almost all refused to attend their studies’.
Jones complained that girls he knew could read refused to, some who said they could read had exaggerated their abilities, while others ‘were indignant at being offered books which they said they had gone through long before’. He also claimed that many of the schoolbooks were destroyed or given away to the sailors. He does allow that some of the girls ‘certainly learned to read, and others improved in arithmetic’. But he acknowledges that ‘it was owing to their desire to learn’ and not necessarily due to his interventions – intrinsic motivation, a teacher’s holy grail.
It’s clear that this situation was new territory for the music master. Not only was he unfamiliar with ‘schoolroom practice’, but we know from his letter that he’d based his approach to teaching the girls on an account by surgeon-superintendent Dr Colin Browning, who had devised a system of education for male convicts undergoing transportation. This was a rigid and disciplined approach, heavily religious, and probably not best applied to a group of free young women.
A contrasting perspective
Jones’s letter provides a rare insight into the experience of a schoolmaster at sea. Interestingly, his candid perspective contrasts with a widely published account from Charles Strutt, surgeon‑superintendent on another Earl Grey orphan ship, the Thomas Arbuthnot, which arrived in Sydney in February 1850. Strutt and numerous private passengers stated that the girls on this ship were attentive and well behaved, and that many worked hard to learn new skills.
But unlike Strutt’s account, Jones’s letter wasn’t intended for publication. As well as recommending shipboard improvements and complaining about the pressures he’d endured, Jones laid some blame for the girls’ behaviour at the feet of the surgeon-superintendent on the John Knox, Richard Greenup, claiming that Greenup wouldn’t administer the punishments he requested.
After receiving Jones’s letter, the commissioners sought Greenup’s response. In his reply, the surgeon‑superintendent spoke approvingly of the girls, and alluded to Jones’s insistence on ‘threatening grievous punishment’ for the slightest infraction, as well as his general temperament: ‘Had he been calmer these scenes would not have occurred … but how difficult it was for him to preserve his calmness always living in such a turmoil’.1
It seems Jones had lost the students’ respect. Greenup states that he and the ship’s captain frequently discussed how ‘we could keep Mr Jones’s consequence amongst the emigrants’ by reminding them of the great opportunity presented to be tutored by such a well-educated man: ‘we did what we could’. Meanwhile, what the Dubliner Jones described as the girls’ ‘impertinence’, Greenup – who hailed from Halifax in Yorkshire – put down to good-natured ‘Irish readiness of repartee’.
In the end, it’s Jones who comes out of this sparring match the worse for wear. No doubt the students caused some headaches, but perhaps with a more empathetic and experienced schoolmaster the daily task of instruction would have been less of a battle. | <urn:uuid:daad771b-5828-4a47-afa7-2fa4d72893b2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://sydneylivingmuseums.com.au/stories/perfect-liberty-and-uproar | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00389.warc.gz | en | 0.985378 | 1,425 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.08632931113243103,
0.09445253014564514,
0.05956583470106125,
-0.41948413848876953,
-0.24780216813087463,
0.10196652263402939,
-0.10389325767755508,
-0.22125595808029175,
-0.40524429082870483,
-0.07248261570930481,
-0.06316851079463959,
-0.16915401816368103,
-0.19905786216259003,
0.37702... | 5 | ‘Perfect liberty and uproar’
After his arrival in Sydney in April 1850, Thomas Frederick Fitzsimmons Jones, a Dublin-born music master from London, wrote a seven-page letter to the NSW Commissioners of Emigration. In it, he candidly describes the cheek, trouble and challenges he’d faced during the almost five-month voyage from Plymouth as he attempted to teach subjects including English and arithmetic to 279 teenage girls.
Irish orphans at sea
The girls, ranging in age from 14 to 20, were orphans, mostly from famine-ravaged Ireland. They’d been selected from workhouses to emigrate to Australia under the British Government’s Earl Grey scheme (1848–50). In total, 4114 young women would emigrate under this scheme; 2253 were sent to Sydney, where they passed through the Immigration Depot at the Hyde Park Barracks, then providing temporary accommodation and a hiring office for single female immigrants. The colony needed women, both as domestic servants and as wives and mothers, and the orphans, whose future at home was bleak, were chosen as the first batch to stay at the new depot.
The voyage to NSW on the ‘orphan ships’ represented a substantial period of time at sea. A matron was appointed to supervise the girls, and in a genuine attempt to improve the lives and prospects of emigrants, ships would also allocate a schoolmaster. Jones, a fellow passenger who was emigrating to NSW with his family, was probably chosen on the strength of his own education.
Ireland had had a national school system since the 1830s, and all instruction was carried out in English. However, attendance rates throughout the 19th century were low, particularly for girls. This was exacerbated during the famine years, when many of these girls would have been of school age, as children were often required to work on family farms or find jobs to survive. So while levels of education among assisted Irish emigrants to NSW were typically higher than those of the non-migrating population, the John Knox orphans were different – almost half of them were unable to read or write, at least in English. (It’s not known how many were able to read or write in Gaelic.)
A tough gig
Jones had his work cut out for him. Bad weather, cramped quarters below decks and rowdy teenage girls on the trip of a lifetime would challenge the most experienced classroom teacher to build rapport and maintain focus, let alone a ring-in.
The opening paragraph of Jones’s letter sets the tone: ‘Gentlemen – It is with regret that I am compelled to admit that the improvement in the Education of the Orphan Emigrants has been far, very far short of what in the commencement I expected’. Based on the ‘perfect liberty and uproar’ with which the girls conducted themselves, he gloomily predicted that they would never submit to a life of quiet domestic service.
Many of his frustrations – from student misbehaviour to lack of adequate resources – could be those of any teacher, at any school, at any time in history. Classes were supposed to begin at 10.30am, but ‘it was very seldom I could assemble [the students] before 12, for as fast as they were collected, they went below again, hiding behind their bedding in the dark corners of the ship’. Some better‑behaved students were appointed as monitors, but with little success. Jones singled out the girls from Cashel and Cork as being the most troublesome: ‘almost all refused to attend their studies’.
Jones complained that girls he knew could read refused to, some who said they could read had exaggerated their abilities, while others ‘were indignant at being offered books which they said they had gone through long before’. He also claimed that many of the schoolbooks were destroyed or given away to the sailors. He does allow that some of the girls ‘certainly learned to read, and others improved in arithmetic’. But he acknowledges that ‘it was owing to their desire to learn’ and not necessarily due to his interventions – intrinsic motivation, a teacher’s holy grail.
It’s clear that this situation was new territory for the music master. Not only was he unfamiliar with ‘schoolroom practice’, but we know from his letter that he’d based his approach to teaching the girls on an account by surgeon-superintendent Dr Colin Browning, who had devised a system of education for male convicts undergoing transportation. This was a rigid and disciplined approach, heavily religious, and probably not best applied to a group of free young women.
A contrasting perspective
Jones’s letter provides a rare insight into the experience of a schoolmaster at sea. Interestingly, his candid perspective contrasts with a widely published account from Charles Strutt, surgeon‑superintendent on another Earl Grey orphan ship, the Thomas Arbuthnot, which arrived in Sydney in February 1850. Strutt and numerous private passengers stated that the girls on this ship were attentive and well behaved, and that many worked hard to learn new skills.
But unlike Strutt’s account, Jones’s letter wasn’t intended for publication. As well as recommending shipboard improvements and complaining about the pressures he’d endured, Jones laid some blame for the girls’ behaviour at the feet of the surgeon-superintendent on the John Knox, Richard Greenup, claiming that Greenup wouldn’t administer the punishments he requested.
After receiving Jones’s letter, the commissioners sought Greenup’s response. In his reply, the surgeon‑superintendent spoke approvingly of the girls, and alluded to Jones’s insistence on ‘threatening grievous punishment’ for the slightest infraction, as well as his general temperament: ‘Had he been calmer these scenes would not have occurred … but how difficult it was for him to preserve his calmness always living in such a turmoil’.1
It seems Jones had lost the students’ respect. Greenup states that he and the ship’s captain frequently discussed how ‘we could keep Mr Jones’s consequence amongst the emigrants’ by reminding them of the great opportunity presented to be tutored by such a well-educated man: ‘we did what we could’. Meanwhile, what the Dubliner Jones described as the girls’ ‘impertinence’, Greenup – who hailed from Halifax in Yorkshire – put down to good-natured ‘Irish readiness of repartee’.
In the end, it’s Jones who comes out of this sparring match the worse for wear. No doubt the students caused some headaches, but perhaps with a more empathetic and experienced schoolmaster the daily task of instruction would have been less of a battle. | 1,368 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Devil's Night is observed on October 30, 2020. Devil's Night, or Hell Night, is a name associated with October 30, the night before Halloween. It is related to the "Mischief night" practiced in other parts of the United States and the world, but is chiefly associated with the serious vandalism and arson seen in Detroit, Michigan from the 1970s to the 1990s, finally prompting the "Angel's Night" community response.
Devil's Nights dates from as early as the 1940s. Traditionally, city "youths" engaged in a night of criminal behavior, which usually consisted of acts of vandalism. These were almost exclusively acts of petty vandalism, causing little to no property damage. However, in the early 1970s, the vandalism escalated to more devastating acts, such as arson. This primarily took place in the inner city, but surrounding suburbs were often affected as well.
The crimes became more destructive in Detroit's inner-city neighborhoods, and included hundreds of acts of arson and vandalism every year. The destruction reached a peak in the mid- to late-1980s, with more than 800 fires set in 1984, and 500 to 800 fires in the three days and nights before Halloween in a typical year. (With material from: Wikipedia) | <urn:uuid:a79035f8-6a1d-45a1-b707-a35e4092ef7a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.cute-calendar.com/event/devils-night/37405.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250611127.53/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123160903-20200123185903-00045.warc.gz | en | 0.980411 | 258 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.006789865903556347,
-0.20804475247859955,
0.058626096695661545,
0.054684367030858994,
0.5976240038871765,
0.27046483755111694,
0.23252296447753906,
-0.03060888685286045,
0.07804577797651291,
0.2389877587556839,
0.4285367429256439,
0.27138951420783997,
-0.4751480221748352,
-0.07077468931... | 4 | Devil's Night is observed on October 30, 2020. Devil's Night, or Hell Night, is a name associated with October 30, the night before Halloween. It is related to the "Mischief night" practiced in other parts of the United States and the world, but is chiefly associated with the serious vandalism and arson seen in Detroit, Michigan from the 1970s to the 1990s, finally prompting the "Angel's Night" community response.
Devil's Nights dates from as early as the 1940s. Traditionally, city "youths" engaged in a night of criminal behavior, which usually consisted of acts of vandalism. These were almost exclusively acts of petty vandalism, causing little to no property damage. However, in the early 1970s, the vandalism escalated to more devastating acts, such as arson. This primarily took place in the inner city, but surrounding suburbs were often affected as well.
The crimes became more destructive in Detroit's inner-city neighborhoods, and included hundreds of acts of arson and vandalism every year. The destruction reached a peak in the mid- to late-1980s, with more than 800 fires set in 1984, and 500 to 800 fires in the three days and nights before Halloween in a typical year. (With material from: Wikipedia) | 296 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Dutch were able to gain control of the pepper trade by the 17th century, creating strong links to India, Ceylon, Java, and other areas in southeast Asia. The rising power of the British East India Company in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the British Empire's fortunes increased. During this time, spices and pepper in particular increasing began to be under a near monopoly of control by British traders. During the time of the Dutch and British control of the spice and pepper trade, it was by then that black pepper, once again, became common and prices depreciated considerably. By this time, middle class consumers were able to reasonably afford it and it was during the 17 and 18th centuries that pepper began to emerge as a daily type of spice used to season meat mainly. | <urn:uuid:c6c6ea71-f8e8-4409-9ae4-e2d3f5ba0ea3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://dailyhistory.org/Special:MobileDiff/5957 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00463.warc.gz | en | 0.98426 | 160 | 3.75 | 4 | [
-0.1380745768547058,
0.15894873440265656,
0.15721653401851654,
-0.3012595772743225,
0.23739168047904968,
-0.4748026430606842,
0.4199697971343994,
-0.10737007856369019,
-0.3767077624797821,
-0.22628973424434662,
-0.416873574256897,
-0.5254148244857788,
-0.0742112547159195,
0.091125130653381... | 1 | The Dutch were able to gain control of the pepper trade by the 17th century, creating strong links to India, Ceylon, Java, and other areas in southeast Asia. The rising power of the British East India Company in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the British Empire's fortunes increased. During this time, spices and pepper in particular increasing began to be under a near monopoly of control by British traders. During the time of the Dutch and British control of the spice and pepper trade, it was by then that black pepper, once again, became common and prices depreciated considerably. By this time, middle class consumers were able to reasonably afford it and it was during the 17 and 18th centuries that pepper began to emerge as a daily type of spice used to season meat mainly. | 170 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Although many of the thoughts of Puritans have gradually dissipated or become less meaningful over time, it is important to note that Puritan writers and thinkers such as John Winthrop and Roger Williams offered ideas that were new at the time that stayed with the American consciousness—culturally, socially, and politically. Notions of freedom, liberty, and the role of religion within the state have long since been at the forefront of national debates.
There are class notes, numerous Supreme Court case summaries and information on how to write a research paper inside. How did the Puritans effect the development of America? The Catholic Church split apart and many new Christian organizations called Protestants were formed.
In England a protestant religion called the Anglicans became the dominant force in social and political life. Some people in England, however, viewed religion differently.
As a result a new protestant religion called Puritans evolved. The ruling Anglican church disapproved of Puritan beliefs and persecuted the Puritans. Though Puritans did gain control of England for a short time Oliver Cromwell many fled England and came to the New World America to escape religious persecution.
Puritans believed that all men were born sinners, this was known as the idea of "original sin. Puritans felt that only certain of people would be saved and that these people were chosen at birth, this was known as "predestination.
The Bible, according to the Puritans, was the direct word of God. Because of this the Bible was seen as an infallible guide to all life including political, social and economic maters. Only members of the church, which were limited to a select few, made decisions for the community. The Puritans believed that man must follow the Bible exactly and try to communicate directly with God.
In order to communicate with God there had to be no distractions from their religion. In order to achieve this the Puritans held to an austere and Spartan lifestyle.
Puritans immersed themselves in their work and avoided art, sculpture, poetry, drama or anything else that might be seen as a distraction. Even home furnishings were simply made of wood. The result of this lifestyle of hard work was a community that was wealthy and industrious.
Since God was an all knowing and powerful force the puritans saw their wealth as a gift from God and a sign that they were correct. The Puritans sought to stamp out anything that might interfere in the correctness of their way.
Any non believers were considered to be in error and were not to be tolerated. It should be noted that the Puritans had fled England due to religious persecution and were now themselves persecuting others. The long term results of Puritanism are felt throughout our country because they were amongst our first settlers and spread their ideas and values throughout the land.
The Puritan work ethic became a staple of American idealism. Likewise this nation remains a Protestant country with a legacy of conservatism.The English Puritan movement that began in the reign of Elizabeth, and grew in strength and influence in England during the reign of King James sought to further the work of reforming the church of England, eradicate the influence of Roman Catholicism in the land, as well as promote the national interest of the English crown and the English .
The biggest influence that the Puritans had on America today is the value placed on education. They gave children compulsory education, so that they could learn how to read the Bible.
Harvard and Yale, two major American institutions of higher education, were founded by Puritans. Nov 12, · Puritanism remained one of the dominant cultural powers in that region until well into the 19th century. The morals and ideals held by Puritans between and influenced the social development of the colonies by putting into practice a series of rules, which our own founding fathers would use to create the political structure of the Reviews: 4.
Nov 12, · How Did the Puritans Influence the New England Colonies Politically, Socially, and Economically?
Updated on October 1, Predestination was an important aspect of Puritan faith—the idea that God predetermines who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell.
The social structure of the New England colonies under the Puritans was one Reviews: 4. The ruling Anglican church disapproved of Puritan beliefs and persecuted the Puritans. Though Puritans did gain control of England for a short time (Oliver Cromwell) many fled England and came to the New World (America) to escape religious persecution.
How America Is Under Puritan Influence The Puritans were a group of people who settled in New England in They went to America to be free to practice religion without being persecuted. | <urn:uuid:b59c1a89-de4f-49f4-979f-bd46a8edd191> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://cozysuviry.lausannecongress2018.com/how-america-is-under-puritan-influence-32288py.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592636.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118135205-20200118163205-00152.warc.gz | en | 0.982135 | 953 | 3.78125 | 4 | [
-0.15775597095489502,
0.2704479396343231,
-0.07009883224964142,
-0.4471319913864136,
-0.0166423711925745,
0.26564162969589233,
-0.09265337139368057,
-0.20289798080921173,
0.24079710245132446,
0.5285341739654541,
-0.24543458223342896,
0.18144391477108002,
0.34079596400260925,
-0.03818861767... | 2 | Although many of the thoughts of Puritans have gradually dissipated or become less meaningful over time, it is important to note that Puritan writers and thinkers such as John Winthrop and Roger Williams offered ideas that were new at the time that stayed with the American consciousness—culturally, socially, and politically. Notions of freedom, liberty, and the role of religion within the state have long since been at the forefront of national debates.
There are class notes, numerous Supreme Court case summaries and information on how to write a research paper inside. How did the Puritans effect the development of America? The Catholic Church split apart and many new Christian organizations called Protestants were formed.
In England a protestant religion called the Anglicans became the dominant force in social and political life. Some people in England, however, viewed religion differently.
As a result a new protestant religion called Puritans evolved. The ruling Anglican church disapproved of Puritan beliefs and persecuted the Puritans. Though Puritans did gain control of England for a short time Oliver Cromwell many fled England and came to the New World America to escape religious persecution.
Puritans believed that all men were born sinners, this was known as the idea of "original sin. Puritans felt that only certain of people would be saved and that these people were chosen at birth, this was known as "predestination.
The Bible, according to the Puritans, was the direct word of God. Because of this the Bible was seen as an infallible guide to all life including political, social and economic maters. Only members of the church, which were limited to a select few, made decisions for the community. The Puritans believed that man must follow the Bible exactly and try to communicate directly with God.
In order to communicate with God there had to be no distractions from their religion. In order to achieve this the Puritans held to an austere and Spartan lifestyle.
Puritans immersed themselves in their work and avoided art, sculpture, poetry, drama or anything else that might be seen as a distraction. Even home furnishings were simply made of wood. The result of this lifestyle of hard work was a community that was wealthy and industrious.
Since God was an all knowing and powerful force the puritans saw their wealth as a gift from God and a sign that they were correct. The Puritans sought to stamp out anything that might interfere in the correctness of their way.
Any non believers were considered to be in error and were not to be tolerated. It should be noted that the Puritans had fled England due to religious persecution and were now themselves persecuting others. The long term results of Puritanism are felt throughout our country because they were amongst our first settlers and spread their ideas and values throughout the land.
The Puritan work ethic became a staple of American idealism. Likewise this nation remains a Protestant country with a legacy of conservatism.The English Puritan movement that began in the reign of Elizabeth, and grew in strength and influence in England during the reign of King James sought to further the work of reforming the church of England, eradicate the influence of Roman Catholicism in the land, as well as promote the national interest of the English crown and the English .
The biggest influence that the Puritans had on America today is the value placed on education. They gave children compulsory education, so that they could learn how to read the Bible.
Harvard and Yale, two major American institutions of higher education, were founded by Puritans. Nov 12, · Puritanism remained one of the dominant cultural powers in that region until well into the 19th century. The morals and ideals held by Puritans between and influenced the social development of the colonies by putting into practice a series of rules, which our own founding fathers would use to create the political structure of the Reviews: 4.
Nov 12, · How Did the Puritans Influence the New England Colonies Politically, Socially, and Economically?
Updated on October 1, Predestination was an important aspect of Puritan faith—the idea that God predetermines who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell.
The social structure of the New England colonies under the Puritans was one Reviews: 4. The ruling Anglican church disapproved of Puritan beliefs and persecuted the Puritans. Though Puritans did gain control of England for a short time (Oliver Cromwell) many fled England and came to the New World (America) to escape religious persecution.
How America Is Under Puritan Influence The Puritans were a group of people who settled in New England in They went to America to be free to practice religion without being persecuted. | 969 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Albert Einstein was a German-American physicist and probably the most well-known scientist of the 20th century. His theory of relativity, which describes the dynamics of light and extremely massive entities, is one of the pillars of modern physics, alongside his work in quantum mechanics, which focuses on the subatomic realm.
Einstein's upbringing and education
Einstein was born in Ulm, in the German state of Württemberg, on March 14, 1879, according to a biography from the Nobel Prize organization. His family moved to Munich six weeks later, and in 1885, when he was 6 years old, he began attending Petersschule, a Catholic elementary school.
Contrary to popular belief, Einstein was a good student. "Yesterday Albert received his grades, he was again number one, and his report card was brilliant," his mother once wrote to her sister, according to a German website dedicated to Einstein's legacy. But when he later switched to the Luitpold grammar school, young Einstein was not able to cope with the school's authoritarian attitude, and his teacher once said of him, "never will he get anywhere."
In 1896, at age 17, Einstein entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. A few years later, he gained his diploma and acquired Swiss citizenship but was unable to find a teaching post. So he accepted a position as a technical assistant in the Swiss patent office.
Einstein married Mileva Maric, his longtime love and former student, in 1903. A year prior, they had a child out of wedlock, who was discovered by scholars only in the 1980s, when private letters revealed her existence. The daughter, called Lieserl in the letters, may have been mentally challenged and either died young or was adopted when she was a year old. Einstein had two other children with Maric, Hans Albert and Eduard, born in 1904 and 1910, respectively.
How Einstein changed physics
Einstein obtained his Ph.D. in physics in 1905 — a year that's often known as his annus mirabilis ("year of miracles" in Latin), according to the Library of Congress. That year, he published four groundbreaking papers of significant importance in physics.
The first incorporated the newly conceived idea that light could come in discrete particles called photons. This theory describes the photoelectric effect, the concept that underpins modern solar power. The second explained Brownian motion — in which a small bit of dust is seen to move randomly on the surface of water — by pointing out that water is made up of tiny, vibrating molecules that kick the dust back and forth.
The final two outlined his theory of special relativity, which showed how observers moving at different speeds would disagree about many measurements, but would agree about the speed of light, which was a constant. These papers also introduced the equation E = mc^2, showing the equivalence between mass and energy. That finding is perhaps the most widely known aspect of Einstein's work.
In 1915, Einstein published four papers outlining his theory of general relativity, which updated Isaac Newton's laws of gravity by explaining that the force of gravity arose from warps in the fabric of space-time caused by massive objects. The theory was given a major validating boost in 1919, when British astronomer Arthur Eddington observed stars at the edge of the sun during a solar eclipse and was able to show that their light was bent by the sun's gravitational well, causing shifts in their perceived positions.
Einstein divorced Maric in 1919 and soon married his cousin Elsa Löwenthal, with whom he had been in a relationship since 1912. In 1921, he won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the photoelectric effect, though the committee members also mentioned his "services to Theoretical Physics" when presenting their award. The decision to give Einstein the award was controversial because the brilliant physicist was a Jew and a pacifist. Anti-Semitism was on the rise and relativity was not yet seen as a proven theory, according to an article from The Guardian.
Einstein was a professor at the University of Berlin for a time but fled Germany with Löwenthal in 1933, during the rise of Adolf Hitler. He renounced his German citizenship and moved to the United States to become a professor of theoretical physics at Princeton, becoming a U.S. citizen in 1940.
During this era, other researchers were creating a revolution by reformulating the rules of the smallest known entities in existence. The laws of quantum mechanics had been worked out by a group led by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, and Einstein was intimately involved with their efforts.
Bohr and Einstein famously clashed over the latter's qualms regarding quantum mechanics. Bohr and his cohorts proposed that quantum particles behaved according to probabilistic laws, which Einstein found unacceptable, quipping that "God does not play dice with the universe." Bohr's views eventually came to dominate much of contemporary thinking about quantum mechanics.
Einstein's later years and legacy
After he retired in 1945, Einstein spent most of his later years working on a method to unify gravity with electromagnetism in what's known as a unified field theory. The effort stumped the physicist, who died of a burst blood vessel near his heart on April 18, 1955.
Einstein's body was cremated and his ashes were spread in an undisclosed location, according to the American Museum of Natural History. But a doctor performed an unauthorized craniotomy before this and removed and saved Einstein's brain.
The brain has been the subject of many tests over the decades, which suggested that it had extra folding in the gray matter, the site of conscious thinking. In particular, there were more folds in the frontal lobes, which have been tied to abstract thought and planning. However, drawing any conclusions about intelligence based on a single specimen is problematic, according to Eric H. Chudler, a neuroscientist at the University of Washington.
In addition to his incredible legacy regarding relativity and quantum mechanics, Einstein conducted lesser-known research into a refrigeration method that required no motors, moving parts or coolant. He was also a tireless anti-war advocate, helping found the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an organization dedicated to warning the public about the dangers of nuclear weapons.
Einstein's theories concerning relativity have so far held up spectacularly as a predictive models. Astronomers have found that, as the legendary physicist anticipated, the light of distant objects is lensed by massive, closer entities, a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing, which has helped our understanding of the universe's evolution. In 2016, the Advanced LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) also announced the first-ever direct detection of gravitational waves, created when massive neutron stars and black holes merge and generate ripples in the fabric of space-time.
- Find answers to frequently asked questions about Albert Einstein on the Nobel Prize website.
- Flip through digitized versions of Einstein's published and unpublished manuscripts at Einstein Archives Online.
- Learn about The Einstein Memorial at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C. | <urn:uuid:b36d3ef6-09ae-4d09-8271-480c4e550447> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.livescience.com/albert-einstein.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00104.warc.gz | en | 0.982063 | 1,472 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.06821226328611374,
0.1449408233165741,
-0.1700793206691742,
0.1615915298461914,
-0.25549280643463135,
-0.030305787920951843,
0.24240238964557648,
0.15210729837417603,
-0.11224212497472763,
-0.2912992537021637,
0.5902486443519592,
-0.4547616243362427,
-0.26215243339538574,
0.345271825790... | 7 | Albert Einstein was a German-American physicist and probably the most well-known scientist of the 20th century. His theory of relativity, which describes the dynamics of light and extremely massive entities, is one of the pillars of modern physics, alongside his work in quantum mechanics, which focuses on the subatomic realm.
Einstein's upbringing and education
Einstein was born in Ulm, in the German state of Württemberg, on March 14, 1879, according to a biography from the Nobel Prize organization. His family moved to Munich six weeks later, and in 1885, when he was 6 years old, he began attending Petersschule, a Catholic elementary school.
Contrary to popular belief, Einstein was a good student. "Yesterday Albert received his grades, he was again number one, and his report card was brilliant," his mother once wrote to her sister, according to a German website dedicated to Einstein's legacy. But when he later switched to the Luitpold grammar school, young Einstein was not able to cope with the school's authoritarian attitude, and his teacher once said of him, "never will he get anywhere."
In 1896, at age 17, Einstein entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. A few years later, he gained his diploma and acquired Swiss citizenship but was unable to find a teaching post. So he accepted a position as a technical assistant in the Swiss patent office.
Einstein married Mileva Maric, his longtime love and former student, in 1903. A year prior, they had a child out of wedlock, who was discovered by scholars only in the 1980s, when private letters revealed her existence. The daughter, called Lieserl in the letters, may have been mentally challenged and either died young or was adopted when she was a year old. Einstein had two other children with Maric, Hans Albert and Eduard, born in 1904 and 1910, respectively.
How Einstein changed physics
Einstein obtained his Ph.D. in physics in 1905 — a year that's often known as his annus mirabilis ("year of miracles" in Latin), according to the Library of Congress. That year, he published four groundbreaking papers of significant importance in physics.
The first incorporated the newly conceived idea that light could come in discrete particles called photons. This theory describes the photoelectric effect, the concept that underpins modern solar power. The second explained Brownian motion — in which a small bit of dust is seen to move randomly on the surface of water — by pointing out that water is made up of tiny, vibrating molecules that kick the dust back and forth.
The final two outlined his theory of special relativity, which showed how observers moving at different speeds would disagree about many measurements, but would agree about the speed of light, which was a constant. These papers also introduced the equation E = mc^2, showing the equivalence between mass and energy. That finding is perhaps the most widely known aspect of Einstein's work.
In 1915, Einstein published four papers outlining his theory of general relativity, which updated Isaac Newton's laws of gravity by explaining that the force of gravity arose from warps in the fabric of space-time caused by massive objects. The theory was given a major validating boost in 1919, when British astronomer Arthur Eddington observed stars at the edge of the sun during a solar eclipse and was able to show that their light was bent by the sun's gravitational well, causing shifts in their perceived positions.
Einstein divorced Maric in 1919 and soon married his cousin Elsa Löwenthal, with whom he had been in a relationship since 1912. In 1921, he won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the photoelectric effect, though the committee members also mentioned his "services to Theoretical Physics" when presenting their award. The decision to give Einstein the award was controversial because the brilliant physicist was a Jew and a pacifist. Anti-Semitism was on the rise and relativity was not yet seen as a proven theory, according to an article from The Guardian.
Einstein was a professor at the University of Berlin for a time but fled Germany with Löwenthal in 1933, during the rise of Adolf Hitler. He renounced his German citizenship and moved to the United States to become a professor of theoretical physics at Princeton, becoming a U.S. citizen in 1940.
During this era, other researchers were creating a revolution by reformulating the rules of the smallest known entities in existence. The laws of quantum mechanics had been worked out by a group led by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, and Einstein was intimately involved with their efforts.
Bohr and Einstein famously clashed over the latter's qualms regarding quantum mechanics. Bohr and his cohorts proposed that quantum particles behaved according to probabilistic laws, which Einstein found unacceptable, quipping that "God does not play dice with the universe." Bohr's views eventually came to dominate much of contemporary thinking about quantum mechanics.
Einstein's later years and legacy
After he retired in 1945, Einstein spent most of his later years working on a method to unify gravity with electromagnetism in what's known as a unified field theory. The effort stumped the physicist, who died of a burst blood vessel near his heart on April 18, 1955.
Einstein's body was cremated and his ashes were spread in an undisclosed location, according to the American Museum of Natural History. But a doctor performed an unauthorized craniotomy before this and removed and saved Einstein's brain.
The brain has been the subject of many tests over the decades, which suggested that it had extra folding in the gray matter, the site of conscious thinking. In particular, there were more folds in the frontal lobes, which have been tied to abstract thought and planning. However, drawing any conclusions about intelligence based on a single specimen is problematic, according to Eric H. Chudler, a neuroscientist at the University of Washington.
In addition to his incredible legacy regarding relativity and quantum mechanics, Einstein conducted lesser-known research into a refrigeration method that required no motors, moving parts or coolant. He was also a tireless anti-war advocate, helping found the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an organization dedicated to warning the public about the dangers of nuclear weapons.
Einstein's theories concerning relativity have so far held up spectacularly as a predictive models. Astronomers have found that, as the legendary physicist anticipated, the light of distant objects is lensed by massive, closer entities, a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing, which has helped our understanding of the universe's evolution. In 2016, the Advanced LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) also announced the first-ever direct detection of gravitational waves, created when massive neutron stars and black holes merge and generate ripples in the fabric of space-time.
- Find answers to frequently asked questions about Albert Einstein on the Nobel Prize website.
- Flip through digitized versions of Einstein's published and unpublished manuscripts at Einstein Archives Online.
- Learn about The Einstein Memorial at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C. | 1,518 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This chapter examines changing government policies including assimilation, integration and self-determination. This chapter also gives an overview of Indigenous Australian protests for equality and land rights and responses to these issues from the government. Assimilation Aboriginal people were expected to fit in with white Australian culture - they were expected to assimilate. The assimilation policy did not work.
The Coniston Massacre of was the last time that Aboriginal people and white settlers would clash in a physical battle; a new era of resistance now began. Instead of using violence the Indigenous people now began to pursue a policy of peaceful, political protest through activist groups and demonstrations.
The first protest group formed in New South Wales was the Aborigines' Progressive Association APA which was established in by a group of Aboriginal people and some white supporters sympathetic to their cause. The APA wanted to promote citizenship rights and wanted to bring an end to racial discrimination.
The Indigenous people, however, declared the day not one of celebration but a 'Day of Mourning'; for their culture, their traditions and those who had died un-necessarily in Rights and freedoms of aboriginals previous years.
As the celebrations were going on in Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay the Aboriginal protest groups were also making their presence felt.
More than Aboriginal people from every state made the journey to Sydney to protest the celebrations of the anniversary of an event that had begun the destruction of their traditional way of life. The movement was also very much an Indigenous initiative - pamphlets that were given out to advertise the fact that there would be a protest rally made it clear that it was for Aboriginal peoples only.
They were kept locked up overnight in a police station and were not allowed to see their families.
They had been told that if they did not take part, their rations would be stopped on the reserves. Those who were able to take part in the National Day of Mourning were also protesting for the right to citizenship. Two of the main Indigenous leaders, Jack Patten and William Ferguson wrote up a manifesto outlining the Aboriginal peoples' protest and their demands.
Lyons to present him with a document that outlined the steps towards equality for Aboriginal people. This was an historic meeting - no Indigenous delegation had ever been able to present their demands directly to the Prime Minister before. The Second World War halted the impetus of the Aboriginal peoples' protest movement - nearly Indigenous Australians became directly involved with the war effort as soldiers - even though conscription of Aboriginal people was banned by military policy at the time.
They did not get anywhere near the same amount of wages as their white colleagues - some were even only paid in tobacco. At the same time, the shortage of labour in the towns and cities meant that for the first time many Indigenous men and women were able to get long term jobs, rather than just the normal seasonal work they usually got.
When the war was over however the situation reversed once more and Aboriginal people had made no real gains. The 'black diggers' were not given war pensions or any of the other benefits the white soldiers received when the war was over. Several of them became spokesmen for the Indigenous protest movement.
See image 2 Nearly Indigenous Australians became involved in the war effort. Discrimination was also a major issue in the work sector for Aboriginal people; many of them were only ever paid in food and board, while those who were paid with money were paid far less than their white counterparts.
Their living conditions on the farms and reserves were also so bad that it prompted some to take strike action.
The first instance of this type of protest was in when the Cummeroogunga people walked off their reserve in protest at their living and working conditions. In Aboriginal people in Pilbara in Western Australia started a strike that was to last for three years over work and pay conditions and in there was also a strike by Indigenous people in Darwin.
The fact that reserve land was being taken away from Indigenous people also caused many of them to react in a political way. The government had given land to Aboriginal people to live on, only to take some of it away and sell it for housing or mining. In the people on the Yirrkala reserve in Arnhem Land sent a petition written on bark to the House of Representatives in protest at square kilometres of their land on the Gove peninsula being given to a mining company.
The Yirrkala people said they had not been consulted before the land, which they depended on, had been taken away.
Although they eventually lost their court case inthe bark petition did lead to the formation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission which meant that sacred Indigenous sites could no longer be easily destroyed. The strikes and the Yirrkala bark petition were the fore runners of the land rights campaign that took off in the s and grew throughout the s.
There are evident links between the Indigenous protest movement in Australia and the civil rights movement in America at that time. In America the Freedom Riders were helping black people register to vote, in Australia they were high-lighting the extent of segregation in many country towns.
The Australian Freedom Riders were led by a young Indigenous man named Charles Perkins and a group of non-Indigenous university students. They spent a summer driving to country towns and protesting at the segregation and discrimination that was rife in the New South Wales countryside.
These towns included places like Moree and Walgett, where Aboriginal people could only use the town swimming pool at certain times, where they were banned from socialising in the hotels and where Indigenous ex-servicemen could not enter the local RSL.Back to About Rights and Freedoms.
Back to About Rights and Freedoms Skip to the content Rights and freedoms: right by right. Back to About Rights and Freedoms. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, and ;. The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about .
Section states that the Charter does not derogate existing Aboriginal rights and freedoms. Aboriginal rights, including treaty rights, receive more direct constitutional protection under section 35 of the Constitution Act, The Protection, Assimilation, Integration and Self-Determination policies had a significant impact on the changing rights and freedoms for the Australian Aboriginal people.
The Protection policy was formed in the 's by the government because they believed the Aboriginal people needed to have Reviews: 2. The struggle for rights and freedoms, Self-determination, Changing rights and freedoms: Aboriginal people, History, Year 9, NSW The taking away of reserve land, the after math of the Second World War and the assimilation policy all led to an increase in;Indigenous activism.
The Coniston Massacre of was the last time that Aboriginal people;and white settlers would. The Aboriginal group did not celebrate but organised a conference and protest in the Australian Hall, Sydney and planned a march from the Town Hall (Rights and freedoms, the present, n.d.).
The second event was the Freedom Ride, which involved a group of students from the University of Sydney who began a journey by bus to . | <urn:uuid:64d31b1a-223b-4387-b3cc-3466b90b2a39> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://widytugucomunyq.iridis-photo-restoration.com/rights-and-freedoms-of-aboriginals-18223au.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606975.49/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122101729-20200122130729-00289.warc.gz | en | 0.985014 | 1,445 | 3.890625 | 4 | [
-0.4222124218940735,
0.32127293944358826,
0.2223939746618271,
0.1619628667831421,
-0.27038583159446716,
0.4959034323692322,
-0.1019505113363266,
-0.08085069805383682,
-0.4094056487083435,
0.2644570469856262,
0.1593666523694992,
-0.329375296831131,
-0.005110094323754311,
0.27337273955345154... | 1 | This chapter examines changing government policies including assimilation, integration and self-determination. This chapter also gives an overview of Indigenous Australian protests for equality and land rights and responses to these issues from the government. Assimilation Aboriginal people were expected to fit in with white Australian culture - they were expected to assimilate. The assimilation policy did not work.
The Coniston Massacre of was the last time that Aboriginal people and white settlers would clash in a physical battle; a new era of resistance now began. Instead of using violence the Indigenous people now began to pursue a policy of peaceful, political protest through activist groups and demonstrations.
The first protest group formed in New South Wales was the Aborigines' Progressive Association APA which was established in by a group of Aboriginal people and some white supporters sympathetic to their cause. The APA wanted to promote citizenship rights and wanted to bring an end to racial discrimination.
The Indigenous people, however, declared the day not one of celebration but a 'Day of Mourning'; for their culture, their traditions and those who had died un-necessarily in Rights and freedoms of aboriginals previous years.
As the celebrations were going on in Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay the Aboriginal protest groups were also making their presence felt.
More than Aboriginal people from every state made the journey to Sydney to protest the celebrations of the anniversary of an event that had begun the destruction of their traditional way of life. The movement was also very much an Indigenous initiative - pamphlets that were given out to advertise the fact that there would be a protest rally made it clear that it was for Aboriginal peoples only.
They were kept locked up overnight in a police station and were not allowed to see their families.
They had been told that if they did not take part, their rations would be stopped on the reserves. Those who were able to take part in the National Day of Mourning were also protesting for the right to citizenship. Two of the main Indigenous leaders, Jack Patten and William Ferguson wrote up a manifesto outlining the Aboriginal peoples' protest and their demands.
Lyons to present him with a document that outlined the steps towards equality for Aboriginal people. This was an historic meeting - no Indigenous delegation had ever been able to present their demands directly to the Prime Minister before. The Second World War halted the impetus of the Aboriginal peoples' protest movement - nearly Indigenous Australians became directly involved with the war effort as soldiers - even though conscription of Aboriginal people was banned by military policy at the time.
They did not get anywhere near the same amount of wages as their white colleagues - some were even only paid in tobacco. At the same time, the shortage of labour in the towns and cities meant that for the first time many Indigenous men and women were able to get long term jobs, rather than just the normal seasonal work they usually got.
When the war was over however the situation reversed once more and Aboriginal people had made no real gains. The 'black diggers' were not given war pensions or any of the other benefits the white soldiers received when the war was over. Several of them became spokesmen for the Indigenous protest movement.
See image 2 Nearly Indigenous Australians became involved in the war effort. Discrimination was also a major issue in the work sector for Aboriginal people; many of them were only ever paid in food and board, while those who were paid with money were paid far less than their white counterparts.
Their living conditions on the farms and reserves were also so bad that it prompted some to take strike action.
The first instance of this type of protest was in when the Cummeroogunga people walked off their reserve in protest at their living and working conditions. In Aboriginal people in Pilbara in Western Australia started a strike that was to last for three years over work and pay conditions and in there was also a strike by Indigenous people in Darwin.
The fact that reserve land was being taken away from Indigenous people also caused many of them to react in a political way. The government had given land to Aboriginal people to live on, only to take some of it away and sell it for housing or mining. In the people on the Yirrkala reserve in Arnhem Land sent a petition written on bark to the House of Representatives in protest at square kilometres of their land on the Gove peninsula being given to a mining company.
The Yirrkala people said they had not been consulted before the land, which they depended on, had been taken away.
Although they eventually lost their court case inthe bark petition did lead to the formation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission which meant that sacred Indigenous sites could no longer be easily destroyed. The strikes and the Yirrkala bark petition were the fore runners of the land rights campaign that took off in the s and grew throughout the s.
There are evident links between the Indigenous protest movement in Australia and the civil rights movement in America at that time. In America the Freedom Riders were helping black people register to vote, in Australia they were high-lighting the extent of segregation in many country towns.
The Australian Freedom Riders were led by a young Indigenous man named Charles Perkins and a group of non-Indigenous university students. They spent a summer driving to country towns and protesting at the segregation and discrimination that was rife in the New South Wales countryside.
These towns included places like Moree and Walgett, where Aboriginal people could only use the town swimming pool at certain times, where they were banned from socialising in the hotels and where Indigenous ex-servicemen could not enter the local RSL.Back to About Rights and Freedoms.
Back to About Rights and Freedoms Skip to the content Rights and freedoms: right by right. Back to About Rights and Freedoms. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, and ;. The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about .
Section states that the Charter does not derogate existing Aboriginal rights and freedoms. Aboriginal rights, including treaty rights, receive more direct constitutional protection under section 35 of the Constitution Act, The Protection, Assimilation, Integration and Self-Determination policies had a significant impact on the changing rights and freedoms for the Australian Aboriginal people.
The Protection policy was formed in the 's by the government because they believed the Aboriginal people needed to have Reviews: 2. The struggle for rights and freedoms, Self-determination, Changing rights and freedoms: Aboriginal people, History, Year 9, NSW The taking away of reserve land, the after math of the Second World War and the assimilation policy all led to an increase in;Indigenous activism.
The Coniston Massacre of was the last time that Aboriginal people;and white settlers would. The Aboriginal group did not celebrate but organised a conference and protest in the Australian Hall, Sydney and planned a march from the Town Hall (Rights and freedoms, the present, n.d.).
The second event was the Freedom Ride, which involved a group of students from the University of Sydney who began a journey by bus to . | 1,422 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Critical Thinking 102
18 December 2019
In the famous tragedy Hamlet by William Shakespeare, the madness that the character Hamlet displays is ultimately an effect as to what he describes as part of a ruse although it is often argued that it was not just a fake act but that he does truly become mad. Of course he is going through a lot of emotional stress as an effect with his mother remarrying his uncle, his father’s brother and whom he thinks murdered his father as well. Since his uncle married the queen, Hamlet is now not the king as he should be which ultimately affects him by driving him a little bit more into his madness that is brewing inside his soul. Ultimately Hamlet descends into madness because of his desperation to prove the death of his father was actually a plot of treason his uncle played out to steal the thrown. Throughout the play the audience can slowly see how the ruse of acting mad eventually causes six deaths as well as his own because of the depression, desperation, and hatred that builds inside his soul and mind.
Hamlet is going through what some might call an emotional crisis and because he comes from royalty as a privileged young man; this is somewhat too much for him to process in such a short amount of time. His mother remarried his Uncle, which in doing so allowed for the crown to be taken from her son, the rightful successor to the kingdom. Hamlet perhaps is not effected or even upset at the fact that he does not have the power to the kingdom but rather the fact that his father’s murderer is the one who goes unchecked while trying to keep Hamlet in check because of paranoia. Hamlet’s mother often sides with the uncle being as she married him shortly after the death of Hamlet’s father, which tends to trigger Hamlet in a way but also the new king does questionable things like asking Hamlet’s long time friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on him so that they can come back to report back to King Claudius himself. “I like him not, nor stands safe with us/ to let his madness range” (3.3.1-2). The king is speaking to the friends letting them know of their true goals to accomplish before he sends them to England with his troubled nephew. He is already being paranoid, questioning Hamlet’s actions on whether he is truly crazy or if he is just trying to come up what ways to prove who is the murderer of the former King but either which way the king must know of Hamlet’s true intentions. Once Hamlet figures this out, not only does it affect him by being bothersome to him but also that it causes him to realize the hurtful truth that he cannot trust whom he considered friends and this adds to that hatred for his uncle and the desperation to prove that the new king is indeed the killer. Not feeling like anyone truly has your back can drive anyone into depression but add the fact that he is also dealing with desperation to avenge his father by going about it in a questionable manner of portraying to be a mad man and all this can really add up to cause anyone to lose their true self in all the games being played out in their mind.
Once Hamlet convinces himself that pretending to be a mad man was a good way to investigate the accusation because the ghost of his father visits him to tell him he needs to help figure it out so that his soul can escape some hellish purgatory, he was set on a trail he would not come back from. His devotion to only trusting himself and his plan to figure out the person guilty of killing his father causes six deaths: Polonius, Ophelia, Laertes, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and his mother, and all because they believed he was truly affected by the depression and became a mad man. He stabs an eavesdropper behind a curtain, Polonius, after telling his mother that he swears he really is not crazy. After using Ophelia as a piece in his plot by one again pretending to be crazy cause she will not be with him, he then causes her to overload on all the emotional stress which ultimately cause her to decide to commit suicide. His two friends who join him after he is banished to England for causing trouble are beheaded after he switches the letters indicating to behead the men who bring it. After he comes back to Denmark and shows up at Ophelia’s funeral, which upsets everyone being that he killed her father by stabbing him for eavesdropping and that led her to kill herself because of all the emotional stress, he gets into a fight with Laertes, her brother. They then agree to duel where Laertes and King Claudius conspire to poison not only Laertes sword but also a specific challis before the duel begins. Hamlet ends up killing Laertes but also being poised by the sword Laertes was fencing with and by winning his mother calls for a toast to him, which is when she drinks from the poisoned cup. “Though this be madness,/ yet there is method in’t” (2.2.205-206). Polonius is thinking to himself, convinced of the prince’s madness and this is just as Hamlet wants everybody to believe. With all these killings due to his devotion to the plan of being a mad man to prove Claudius is a killer and really just a bad man altogether is proof of the fact Hamlet is losing himself in this journey of rectifying the pass.
In this tragedy a point that is often brought up is that the women in this play are victimized and taken advantage of all the men fighting for power or pride throughout the play. Hamlet gets questioned on whether his mothers action cause a hatred towards all women’s actions and if he uses his own personal experiences to paint the world as he wants. “Frailty, thy name is Woman” (1.2.146). While blaming his mother for her quick remarriage he quickly starts blaming all women, but he really dislikes the fact that he thinks his mother is so easily tempted to sexual temptations. When he demeans Ophelia he mentions that he thinks his madness is do to women because they disguise themselves with make-up and feminine ways of seducing men which Hamlet already has a problem with separating peoples disguises from reality. Hamlet ends up causing both of their deaths due to HIS madness but he does not see it that way because he believes it is their fault for this whole situation. Maybe his mother’s actions are to blame a little bit since she does quickly remarry to his uncle and it seems she does not ever ask if Hamlet was okay with that but to go throughout from there blaming his mother for not seeing that Claudius is the killer because she is too sexually tempted and then blaming women for just being who they are can clearly be signs he was deepening in his madness.
Through the play it is clear to see that Hamlet may have not intended to become a mad man and only portray one but somewhere got lost in the desperation to prove Claudius as the killer of his father. He convinces himself that a ghost stuck in purgatory was his father telling him to avenge him and hurt either by the lost of his father, the betrayal felt from his mother remarrying his uncle so quickly, or both he never looks back once convincing himself of his path. Either by using Ophelia to blame for the reason of his madness or by using a play to see how his uncle reacts to see if he shows guilty signs. The reason he becomes mad is because he is desperate and hurt which is usually the cause for most to lose their mind but also that when people convince themselves of something they can lose themselves in those beliefs. Although he found truth and got what he was seeking in the end, Hamlet’s desperation in doing so caused for so much death that he could no longer consider himself to have not lost control. | <urn:uuid:c82616b3-312c-460b-8642-9010ff888acd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://professorramos.blog/2019/12/18/the-ploy-of-necessary-evil-to-be-or-not-to-be/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00343.warc.gz | en | 0.99063 | 1,657 | 3.875 | 4 | [
0.09697994589805603,
0.010716598480939865,
0.495308518409729,
-0.47977447509765625,
-0.13904014229774475,
0.4265362024307251,
0.5759092569351196,
0.170911505818367,
-0.07389148324728012,
-0.05109420046210289,
0.023529939353466034,
-0.24879351258277893,
-0.13670390844345093,
0.0436060503125... | 11 | Critical Thinking 102
18 December 2019
In the famous tragedy Hamlet by William Shakespeare, the madness that the character Hamlet displays is ultimately an effect as to what he describes as part of a ruse although it is often argued that it was not just a fake act but that he does truly become mad. Of course he is going through a lot of emotional stress as an effect with his mother remarrying his uncle, his father’s brother and whom he thinks murdered his father as well. Since his uncle married the queen, Hamlet is now not the king as he should be which ultimately affects him by driving him a little bit more into his madness that is brewing inside his soul. Ultimately Hamlet descends into madness because of his desperation to prove the death of his father was actually a plot of treason his uncle played out to steal the thrown. Throughout the play the audience can slowly see how the ruse of acting mad eventually causes six deaths as well as his own because of the depression, desperation, and hatred that builds inside his soul and mind.
Hamlet is going through what some might call an emotional crisis and because he comes from royalty as a privileged young man; this is somewhat too much for him to process in such a short amount of time. His mother remarried his Uncle, which in doing so allowed for the crown to be taken from her son, the rightful successor to the kingdom. Hamlet perhaps is not effected or even upset at the fact that he does not have the power to the kingdom but rather the fact that his father’s murderer is the one who goes unchecked while trying to keep Hamlet in check because of paranoia. Hamlet’s mother often sides with the uncle being as she married him shortly after the death of Hamlet’s father, which tends to trigger Hamlet in a way but also the new king does questionable things like asking Hamlet’s long time friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on him so that they can come back to report back to King Claudius himself. “I like him not, nor stands safe with us/ to let his madness range” (3.3.1-2). The king is speaking to the friends letting them know of their true goals to accomplish before he sends them to England with his troubled nephew. He is already being paranoid, questioning Hamlet’s actions on whether he is truly crazy or if he is just trying to come up what ways to prove who is the murderer of the former King but either which way the king must know of Hamlet’s true intentions. Once Hamlet figures this out, not only does it affect him by being bothersome to him but also that it causes him to realize the hurtful truth that he cannot trust whom he considered friends and this adds to that hatred for his uncle and the desperation to prove that the new king is indeed the killer. Not feeling like anyone truly has your back can drive anyone into depression but add the fact that he is also dealing with desperation to avenge his father by going about it in a questionable manner of portraying to be a mad man and all this can really add up to cause anyone to lose their true self in all the games being played out in their mind.
Once Hamlet convinces himself that pretending to be a mad man was a good way to investigate the accusation because the ghost of his father visits him to tell him he needs to help figure it out so that his soul can escape some hellish purgatory, he was set on a trail he would not come back from. His devotion to only trusting himself and his plan to figure out the person guilty of killing his father causes six deaths: Polonius, Ophelia, Laertes, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and his mother, and all because they believed he was truly affected by the depression and became a mad man. He stabs an eavesdropper behind a curtain, Polonius, after telling his mother that he swears he really is not crazy. After using Ophelia as a piece in his plot by one again pretending to be crazy cause she will not be with him, he then causes her to overload on all the emotional stress which ultimately cause her to decide to commit suicide. His two friends who join him after he is banished to England for causing trouble are beheaded after he switches the letters indicating to behead the men who bring it. After he comes back to Denmark and shows up at Ophelia’s funeral, which upsets everyone being that he killed her father by stabbing him for eavesdropping and that led her to kill herself because of all the emotional stress, he gets into a fight with Laertes, her brother. They then agree to duel where Laertes and King Claudius conspire to poison not only Laertes sword but also a specific challis before the duel begins. Hamlet ends up killing Laertes but also being poised by the sword Laertes was fencing with and by winning his mother calls for a toast to him, which is when she drinks from the poisoned cup. “Though this be madness,/ yet there is method in’t” (2.2.205-206). Polonius is thinking to himself, convinced of the prince’s madness and this is just as Hamlet wants everybody to believe. With all these killings due to his devotion to the plan of being a mad man to prove Claudius is a killer and really just a bad man altogether is proof of the fact Hamlet is losing himself in this journey of rectifying the pass.
In this tragedy a point that is often brought up is that the women in this play are victimized and taken advantage of all the men fighting for power or pride throughout the play. Hamlet gets questioned on whether his mothers action cause a hatred towards all women’s actions and if he uses his own personal experiences to paint the world as he wants. “Frailty, thy name is Woman” (1.2.146). While blaming his mother for her quick remarriage he quickly starts blaming all women, but he really dislikes the fact that he thinks his mother is so easily tempted to sexual temptations. When he demeans Ophelia he mentions that he thinks his madness is do to women because they disguise themselves with make-up and feminine ways of seducing men which Hamlet already has a problem with separating peoples disguises from reality. Hamlet ends up causing both of their deaths due to HIS madness but he does not see it that way because he believes it is their fault for this whole situation. Maybe his mother’s actions are to blame a little bit since she does quickly remarry to his uncle and it seems she does not ever ask if Hamlet was okay with that but to go throughout from there blaming his mother for not seeing that Claudius is the killer because she is too sexually tempted and then blaming women for just being who they are can clearly be signs he was deepening in his madness.
Through the play it is clear to see that Hamlet may have not intended to become a mad man and only portray one but somewhere got lost in the desperation to prove Claudius as the killer of his father. He convinces himself that a ghost stuck in purgatory was his father telling him to avenge him and hurt either by the lost of his father, the betrayal felt from his mother remarrying his uncle so quickly, or both he never looks back once convincing himself of his path. Either by using Ophelia to blame for the reason of his madness or by using a play to see how his uncle reacts to see if he shows guilty signs. The reason he becomes mad is because he is desperate and hurt which is usually the cause for most to lose their mind but also that when people convince themselves of something they can lose themselves in those beliefs. Although he found truth and got what he was seeking in the end, Hamlet’s desperation in doing so caused for so much death that he could no longer consider himself to have not lost control. | 1,637 | ENGLISH | 1 |
There is a prevailing notion that if you're not reading music notation from day one, from the first lesson, then you can't be learning music and the method can't be good. But is it necessary to start learning music by first reading it?
"Q: What if a parent wants their child to read music from the very beginning?
N: It's quite common for parents to ask about how soon it will be before their child begins to read. I say that even though that this is the prevailing thinking, it doesn't fully take into account the complexities and consequences of starting beginning students in a reading-based approach. Using music reading as a starting point has been the way 'it's been done' for many, many generations. It just doesn't make sense to me, and for the most part, it seems that the vast majority of people, of any age, who start in a reading-based program typically struggle with the experience. So many people who begin in the reading-based environment never really learn how to play. Too many lose their interest and desire to learn music for evermore. While it's common for many traditional music teachers to say that music is a language, in truth, many of them aren't really treating it as though it actually is a language. If we were to recognize and treat music as a language, we'd be using an approach similar to a way in which all of us learn how to speak.
You and I learned to talk and were speaking for years before we began learning to spell. In essence, Simply Music is doing the same thing. We say, "Let's build a foundation of self-expression through music. Let's build a direct, personal and intimate relationship with the instrument, let's develop and nurture our innate relationship to our musicality and have that manifest as a vast repertoire of great sounding music. With that as our basis, introducing the symbols of music reading makes a whole world of sense. ...."
Extract from A World Where Everyone Plays: Finding a way to bring fun and excitement back into learning, 2010, Edited by Bernadette E. Ashby, pp. 255-256, Published by Efting Press, Sunnyvale, Cal. USA. | <urn:uuid:8c90f281-6523-4c9e-a738-0e0419cedcbf> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.singingkeys.com.au/single-post/2018/09/01/Is-it-necessary-to-start-learning-music-by-first-reading-it | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00192.warc.gz | en | 0.980154 | 452 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
0.000749819737393409,
-0.34222090244293213,
0.2075924426317215,
-0.7484642267227173,
-0.6607382297515869,
0.36032795906066895,
-0.23275235295295715,
-0.25306183099746704,
0.15691983699798584,
-0.3727979362010956,
0.3280062675476074,
0.274331659078598,
-0.07792679220438004,
0.24383400380611... | 5 | There is a prevailing notion that if you're not reading music notation from day one, from the first lesson, then you can't be learning music and the method can't be good. But is it necessary to start learning music by first reading it?
"Q: What if a parent wants their child to read music from the very beginning?
N: It's quite common for parents to ask about how soon it will be before their child begins to read. I say that even though that this is the prevailing thinking, it doesn't fully take into account the complexities and consequences of starting beginning students in a reading-based approach. Using music reading as a starting point has been the way 'it's been done' for many, many generations. It just doesn't make sense to me, and for the most part, it seems that the vast majority of people, of any age, who start in a reading-based program typically struggle with the experience. So many people who begin in the reading-based environment never really learn how to play. Too many lose their interest and desire to learn music for evermore. While it's common for many traditional music teachers to say that music is a language, in truth, many of them aren't really treating it as though it actually is a language. If we were to recognize and treat music as a language, we'd be using an approach similar to a way in which all of us learn how to speak.
You and I learned to talk and were speaking for years before we began learning to spell. In essence, Simply Music is doing the same thing. We say, "Let's build a foundation of self-expression through music. Let's build a direct, personal and intimate relationship with the instrument, let's develop and nurture our innate relationship to our musicality and have that manifest as a vast repertoire of great sounding music. With that as our basis, introducing the symbols of music reading makes a whole world of sense. ...."
Extract from A World Where Everyone Plays: Finding a way to bring fun and excitement back into learning, 2010, Edited by Bernadette E. Ashby, pp. 255-256, Published by Efting Press, Sunnyvale, Cal. USA. | 452 | ENGLISH | 1 |
There are similarities between humans and animals, yes, but do they have the ability to count? I would have originally said not a chance, however after today’s input I’m not so sure.
We looked at various examples of animals “counting” the first being Clever Hans. Clever Hans was around in the 1900’s, he was a horse that could supposedly do simple mathematics, like counting and square roots. His owner would ask him a question for example 1 + 1, and Clever Hans would answer the question by in this case tapping his hoof twice. The initial idea of this is incredible, an animal working out basic maths! When you dig deeper however things are what they seem. The owner of the horse, Wihelm von Osten, would perform these tricks with his horse in front of crowds in public and amaze them. It was after a formal investigation by psychologist Oskar Pfungst that revealed the horse was not actually performing these tricks, instead he was reacting to the observers around him. This showed a fault in this experiment, as there were no variables to prove the horses tricks. Although on the outside it looks like this horse can count, with a little deeper dig it shows that he can’t technically count. I do wonder if the horse does have a sense of maths, by being able to tap his foot twice?
Another example we looked at was chimps counting and remembering sequences of numbers. The video showed chimps counting up to nine, touching the right order of numbers on screen. It then showed the chimps being shown numbers on a screen and then disappearing. They then had to remember where the numbers were and count in order. Humans then did the same test and actually did considerably worse than the chimps! The video was pretty impressive and after having a go as a class, it revealed how hard the test is, so for chimps to be able to complete it was fascinating! One explanation, however, could be that the reward of peanuts means more to chimps than humans. The chimp still had a concept of numbers and the sequence, so therefore it can count?
Finally, another example of animals counting is the chicks. The scientists conducting the experiment had two screens, and some plastic balls attached to string. They would move the balls behind the screens as the chickens watched from inside a clear box. Once there was 3 balls behind one screen and 2 behind the other, the chicks were released and each time the experiment was conducted, the chicks would go to the screen that had the most balls behind it. This showed that the chicks were able to count how many balls went behind each screen and then remember which one had the most. This is related to instinct, as chicks will also follow the larger group when they are first born. However this experiment shows that these untrained, young chicks had an awareness of numbers and counting.
So, even though not all the experiments were valid as a result of some influencing factors, I believe that overall animals have an awareness of numbers and to a certain extent, the ability to count. I knew animals were clever but I wouldn’t of agreed with anyone that told me they could count until now. | <urn:uuid:6d369834-17d2-41f6-ae4b-f89fb13d0d48> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://blogs.glowscotland.org.uk/glowblogs/lgeportfolio/2017/11/21/can-animals-count/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593937.27/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118193018-20200118221018-00052.warc.gz | en | 0.989834 | 652 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.39717140793800354,
-0.3930133581161499,
-0.08080996572971344,
0.2953442633152008,
-0.4231892228126526,
0.17742961645126343,
0.6814176440238953,
0.21915242075920105,
0.5299196243286133,
0.09584024548530579,
-0.022185498848557472,
-0.48718583583831787,
0.09231549501419067,
0.2895076572895... | 7 | There are similarities between humans and animals, yes, but do they have the ability to count? I would have originally said not a chance, however after today’s input I’m not so sure.
We looked at various examples of animals “counting” the first being Clever Hans. Clever Hans was around in the 1900’s, he was a horse that could supposedly do simple mathematics, like counting and square roots. His owner would ask him a question for example 1 + 1, and Clever Hans would answer the question by in this case tapping his hoof twice. The initial idea of this is incredible, an animal working out basic maths! When you dig deeper however things are what they seem. The owner of the horse, Wihelm von Osten, would perform these tricks with his horse in front of crowds in public and amaze them. It was after a formal investigation by psychologist Oskar Pfungst that revealed the horse was not actually performing these tricks, instead he was reacting to the observers around him. This showed a fault in this experiment, as there were no variables to prove the horses tricks. Although on the outside it looks like this horse can count, with a little deeper dig it shows that he can’t technically count. I do wonder if the horse does have a sense of maths, by being able to tap his foot twice?
Another example we looked at was chimps counting and remembering sequences of numbers. The video showed chimps counting up to nine, touching the right order of numbers on screen. It then showed the chimps being shown numbers on a screen and then disappearing. They then had to remember where the numbers were and count in order. Humans then did the same test and actually did considerably worse than the chimps! The video was pretty impressive and after having a go as a class, it revealed how hard the test is, so for chimps to be able to complete it was fascinating! One explanation, however, could be that the reward of peanuts means more to chimps than humans. The chimp still had a concept of numbers and the sequence, so therefore it can count?
Finally, another example of animals counting is the chicks. The scientists conducting the experiment had two screens, and some plastic balls attached to string. They would move the balls behind the screens as the chickens watched from inside a clear box. Once there was 3 balls behind one screen and 2 behind the other, the chicks were released and each time the experiment was conducted, the chicks would go to the screen that had the most balls behind it. This showed that the chicks were able to count how many balls went behind each screen and then remember which one had the most. This is related to instinct, as chicks will also follow the larger group when they are first born. However this experiment shows that these untrained, young chicks had an awareness of numbers and counting.
So, even though not all the experiments were valid as a result of some influencing factors, I believe that overall animals have an awareness of numbers and to a certain extent, the ability to count. I knew animals were clever but I wouldn’t of agreed with anyone that told me they could count until now. | 647 | ENGLISH | 1 |
While Romans had always had major State festivals to gods like Jupiter and Mars, nearer and dearer to most Roman families were a simple household based religion based around local and familial spirits. These local and familial demons were the mainstay of Roman religion throughout all stages of its history, from archaic origins to the Christian era. The worship of these spirits is what truly defines Roman religion, and what really separates it from the sister religion of Greek paganism.
Within the privacy of their homes each Roman family honored its ancestors and tutelary demons according to its own understandings. The venerable paterfamilias was very much the high priest of his own household religion; he honored his fathers and the gods of his fathers, and it was expected that his sons would honor his spirit and his gods when the time came. The paterfamilias held the power of life and death over his family and his servants. While this became increasingly theoretical with the evolution of Roman society, it was rooted in the religious taboo that the father was the link between the family and its tutelary gods and ghosts.
Indeed, it was not so much the paterfamilias who was owner of the house, it was his deified ancestors and local spirits who were the real proprietors and guardians of the land. The family demons could bring woe to those who offended them, and surely there was no greater insult than to lay a hand upon the paterfamilias whose chief duty was to propitiate them. Outsiders were also thought to invite divine wrath if they attempted to evict or harm a man within the presence of his household familiars. These religious taboos rendered domestic life and private property sacred centuries before civil law was accepted as a substitute.
The residence of a paterfamilias was virtually a temple to the family gods, and it therefore followed the house was itself sacred in some sense. The hearth which cooked the family's food and kept them from freezing in the cold was Vesta. Vesta like her Greek counterpart Hestia seems to be a very ancient Indo-European goddess of domestic fire. The women of the house were charged with maintaining Vesta's flames, and to let the flames extinguish was a disgrace. Small bits of the family's evening meal would be offered to Vesta's flames as an offering. The revered temple of Vesta with its cult of Virgins was a public outgrowth of this private cult.
The household door, the veil between the inner sanctity of family life and the profanity of the outside world, was also sacred. Janus was its name, and seems to have been a very ancient Italian deity connected with beginnings and transitions. The sons of the paterfamilias were charged with the worship of Janus, though not much is known about this. Even parts of the door were considered sacred: Forculus presided over the panels, and Cardea over the hinges. Limentinus was the threshold. The Greeks felt the Romans were a bit anal to find gods in so many small things, and later Christians made much mockery of these petty gods. But to the Roman, no god was so meaningful and so self-evident as the gods of the house, small though they were.
The paterfamilias took delight in having the household honor his genius. The genius was a kind of spiritual double, often portrayed as either a snake or a stately male in a toga and covered head. Somehow connected with the family line, the genius imbued the individual with procreative and inspirational powers. The genius was a kind of tether to the family line which, through the act of procreation, a paterfamilias was able to pass to the next generation. Every male had a genius, and every woman had a similar double called a juno (not to be confused with the deity of the same name) but the genius of the paterfamilias was central to the family cult and honored on his birthday. The Romans seemed to feel that because of the influence of a genius, an individual's character was written at birth which experience and education could only moderate.
Beginning with Augustus, the emperors would say that as the paterfamilias of the Roman race, their own genius was worthy of public veneration. This is what constituted the imperial ruler cult in the West, and over which early Christians had so much controversy. In the Roman understanding the emperor was not a god while alive, but as head of the public family his genius (spiritual essence) was worthy of rites. Most Christians did not seem to care about the distinction and regarded the honoring of the imperial genius as tantamount to worshipping a god, an offense to their religion.
The Greek conception of the afterlife - the shadowy abode of Hades - was a poetic conceit adopted by some of the Roman literati. However, Roman religion per se did not recognize a specific dwelling place for the souls of the dead. The souls of the dead were deified in an aggregated sense and referred to as the Manes. The Manes held power over the living and were a part of the world, the real owners of the land.
The Manes were divided into two sects. The Lares were spirits that were helpful, so long as they were propitiated. Every family was thought to have its own tutelary Lar, called the Lar Familiaris, who was honored by the paterfamilias. The Lares were originally honored outside on the borders between farming properties. Later, as Rome lost its agricultural character, the Lares came inside and were honored in a special shrine called the Lararium. There were still more "public" Lares who were honored at the crossroads in the neighborhood wards of Rome; Augustus set up special colleges for this. In any case the Lares were souls of the dead (ancestors) who guarded a family or piece of land. There were especially honored on the Kalends, Nones, and Ides of the calendar. The usual offerings were scraps of food or incense burned in their honor.
The Lares were also known as the genii loci - the spirits of the land. They were thought to particularly inhabit natural settings like springs and forest groves. Whenever the Romans cleared land for some earthwork project, they first made sacrifices to the genii loci. This does not mean that Romans were reluctant to clear the land, merely that they felt the spirits within first deserved a sacrifice to avert their wrath.
The Manes also had a malignant sect, an evil version of the Lares, called either Lemures or Larvae. The Lemures were thought to be souls of the discontented who caused mischief and harm. There were throughout the course of the year several festivals (some rather bizarre in nature) designed to scare aware the Lemures and avert their wrath.
Also of vital importance to a family were the Penates, the gods of the penus or store pantry. These were the major gods most directly concerned with the family's well-being, and usually had some relation to the profession or interests of the paterfamilias. For instance, Minerva was the patron of craftsmen, so a craftsmen would most likely honor Minerva as one of his Penates. Mercury was the patron of merchants, thus a merchant would be inclined to honor Mercury as a penates god. It seemed every Roman family had from two to eight patron or Penates gods, which they represented either by crude figurines or else by drawing their likeness somewhere on a familial shrine. It was said the Penates particularly delighted in the smell of food and roasted meat.
Every family belonged to a clan, and these clans themselves had special patron gods and corresponding rites. The Julian clan honored Venus and Apollo. The Nero clan, Bellona the war goddess. The Aurelians honored the sun. The Claudians honored Hercules. The leading families of these clans were responsible for maintaining the shrines and rites for the rest of the clan. When one of these clans came to power they had a habit of enshrining their private gods in the State conscious by building public temples and/or issuing coinage with the likeness of the relevant deities.
Beyond gods and spirits, there were religious rights to accompany an individual from birth to death. Men often kept the first trimmings of their beard in a box on the family shrine. When a young man became of age, he traded in his child's toga for an adult toga, and then went to the temple of Jupiter to offer sacrifice. Families kept wax funeral masks of their dead in their house. When a woman married, she formally left the protection of her father and his household gods and entered into the protection of her husband and his household gods.
This was the simple religion of the Romans that endured for centuries. Only the death penalty from the new Christian government formally ended it.
This article was provided by Forum member Ursus.
Did you know...
In Roman mythology a Genius loci was the protective spirit of a place. It was often depicted as a snake. | <urn:uuid:56329f37-42a7-425a-802e-36ab5a580ae9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-domestic-cult.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00378.warc.gz | en | 0.989005 | 1,859 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
0.32952430844306946,
0.634326159954071,
0.15614640712738037,
-0.21769914031028748,
-0.13330279290676117,
-0.12467234581708908,
-0.00907443929463625,
0.21322861313819885,
0.2121271789073944,
-0.38755160570144653,
0.03228892385959625,
-0.33085328340530396,
-0.20603013038635254,
-0.0315353199... | 7 | While Romans had always had major State festivals to gods like Jupiter and Mars, nearer and dearer to most Roman families were a simple household based religion based around local and familial spirits. These local and familial demons were the mainstay of Roman religion throughout all stages of its history, from archaic origins to the Christian era. The worship of these spirits is what truly defines Roman religion, and what really separates it from the sister religion of Greek paganism.
Within the privacy of their homes each Roman family honored its ancestors and tutelary demons according to its own understandings. The venerable paterfamilias was very much the high priest of his own household religion; he honored his fathers and the gods of his fathers, and it was expected that his sons would honor his spirit and his gods when the time came. The paterfamilias held the power of life and death over his family and his servants. While this became increasingly theoretical with the evolution of Roman society, it was rooted in the religious taboo that the father was the link between the family and its tutelary gods and ghosts.
Indeed, it was not so much the paterfamilias who was owner of the house, it was his deified ancestors and local spirits who were the real proprietors and guardians of the land. The family demons could bring woe to those who offended them, and surely there was no greater insult than to lay a hand upon the paterfamilias whose chief duty was to propitiate them. Outsiders were also thought to invite divine wrath if they attempted to evict or harm a man within the presence of his household familiars. These religious taboos rendered domestic life and private property sacred centuries before civil law was accepted as a substitute.
The residence of a paterfamilias was virtually a temple to the family gods, and it therefore followed the house was itself sacred in some sense. The hearth which cooked the family's food and kept them from freezing in the cold was Vesta. Vesta like her Greek counterpart Hestia seems to be a very ancient Indo-European goddess of domestic fire. The women of the house were charged with maintaining Vesta's flames, and to let the flames extinguish was a disgrace. Small bits of the family's evening meal would be offered to Vesta's flames as an offering. The revered temple of Vesta with its cult of Virgins was a public outgrowth of this private cult.
The household door, the veil between the inner sanctity of family life and the profanity of the outside world, was also sacred. Janus was its name, and seems to have been a very ancient Italian deity connected with beginnings and transitions. The sons of the paterfamilias were charged with the worship of Janus, though not much is known about this. Even parts of the door were considered sacred: Forculus presided over the panels, and Cardea over the hinges. Limentinus was the threshold. The Greeks felt the Romans were a bit anal to find gods in so many small things, and later Christians made much mockery of these petty gods. But to the Roman, no god was so meaningful and so self-evident as the gods of the house, small though they were.
The paterfamilias took delight in having the household honor his genius. The genius was a kind of spiritual double, often portrayed as either a snake or a stately male in a toga and covered head. Somehow connected with the family line, the genius imbued the individual with procreative and inspirational powers. The genius was a kind of tether to the family line which, through the act of procreation, a paterfamilias was able to pass to the next generation. Every male had a genius, and every woman had a similar double called a juno (not to be confused with the deity of the same name) but the genius of the paterfamilias was central to the family cult and honored on his birthday. The Romans seemed to feel that because of the influence of a genius, an individual's character was written at birth which experience and education could only moderate.
Beginning with Augustus, the emperors would say that as the paterfamilias of the Roman race, their own genius was worthy of public veneration. This is what constituted the imperial ruler cult in the West, and over which early Christians had so much controversy. In the Roman understanding the emperor was not a god while alive, but as head of the public family his genius (spiritual essence) was worthy of rites. Most Christians did not seem to care about the distinction and regarded the honoring of the imperial genius as tantamount to worshipping a god, an offense to their religion.
The Greek conception of the afterlife - the shadowy abode of Hades - was a poetic conceit adopted by some of the Roman literati. However, Roman religion per se did not recognize a specific dwelling place for the souls of the dead. The souls of the dead were deified in an aggregated sense and referred to as the Manes. The Manes held power over the living and were a part of the world, the real owners of the land.
The Manes were divided into two sects. The Lares were spirits that were helpful, so long as they were propitiated. Every family was thought to have its own tutelary Lar, called the Lar Familiaris, who was honored by the paterfamilias. The Lares were originally honored outside on the borders between farming properties. Later, as Rome lost its agricultural character, the Lares came inside and were honored in a special shrine called the Lararium. There were still more "public" Lares who were honored at the crossroads in the neighborhood wards of Rome; Augustus set up special colleges for this. In any case the Lares were souls of the dead (ancestors) who guarded a family or piece of land. There were especially honored on the Kalends, Nones, and Ides of the calendar. The usual offerings were scraps of food or incense burned in their honor.
The Lares were also known as the genii loci - the spirits of the land. They were thought to particularly inhabit natural settings like springs and forest groves. Whenever the Romans cleared land for some earthwork project, they first made sacrifices to the genii loci. This does not mean that Romans were reluctant to clear the land, merely that they felt the spirits within first deserved a sacrifice to avert their wrath.
The Manes also had a malignant sect, an evil version of the Lares, called either Lemures or Larvae. The Lemures were thought to be souls of the discontented who caused mischief and harm. There were throughout the course of the year several festivals (some rather bizarre in nature) designed to scare aware the Lemures and avert their wrath.
Also of vital importance to a family were the Penates, the gods of the penus or store pantry. These were the major gods most directly concerned with the family's well-being, and usually had some relation to the profession or interests of the paterfamilias. For instance, Minerva was the patron of craftsmen, so a craftsmen would most likely honor Minerva as one of his Penates. Mercury was the patron of merchants, thus a merchant would be inclined to honor Mercury as a penates god. It seemed every Roman family had from two to eight patron or Penates gods, which they represented either by crude figurines or else by drawing their likeness somewhere on a familial shrine. It was said the Penates particularly delighted in the smell of food and roasted meat.
Every family belonged to a clan, and these clans themselves had special patron gods and corresponding rites. The Julian clan honored Venus and Apollo. The Nero clan, Bellona the war goddess. The Aurelians honored the sun. The Claudians honored Hercules. The leading families of these clans were responsible for maintaining the shrines and rites for the rest of the clan. When one of these clans came to power they had a habit of enshrining their private gods in the State conscious by building public temples and/or issuing coinage with the likeness of the relevant deities.
Beyond gods and spirits, there were religious rights to accompany an individual from birth to death. Men often kept the first trimmings of their beard in a box on the family shrine. When a young man became of age, he traded in his child's toga for an adult toga, and then went to the temple of Jupiter to offer sacrifice. Families kept wax funeral masks of their dead in their house. When a woman married, she formally left the protection of her father and his household gods and entered into the protection of her husband and his household gods.
This was the simple religion of the Romans that endured for centuries. Only the death penalty from the new Christian government formally ended it.
This article was provided by Forum member Ursus.
Did you know...
In Roman mythology a Genius loci was the protective spirit of a place. It was often depicted as a snake. | 1,854 | ENGLISH | 1 |
It is believed that he had earlier made sketches and drawings when still a schoolboy, and thus took up the painting again when he returned to Sudbury. Gainsborough was regarded as an intelligent draughtsman from an early age, which explains why he is regarded as one of the most talented artist from England. This piece was painted at a time when capitalist landowners in England were enclosing common lands. The painting depicts rural folks roaming in the peaceful free woodlands. Cornard wood is located on the outskirts of the Great Cornard, just 2 miles from Sudbury where Thomas Gainsborough was born.
Gainsborough painted this landscape from the Abbas Hall view. The path in the painting leads the viewer to the church of St Mary's Great Henny in the background. During the period of this painting, the woods were considered as common land. This meant that they were not privately owned. This allowed villagers to wander freely, graze their animals, and also gather wood. These activities are depicted in this painting, where we see a lady sitting as she rests from digging, a man cutting firewood, animals grazing and people travelling on foot and horsebacks.
Cornard Wood is considered as one of the most intensive landscapes paintings by Gainsborough. The painting consists of 5 people, 3 dogs, flying ducks, a cow, 2 donkeys and a village. The intense levels of detail act to highlight the precocious skills of the painter. Analysing the painting, it is evident that Gainsborough approached it with a technique and lighting manner associated with 17th century Dutch paintings. It is believed that Gainsborough took keen interest in Dutch art during his time in London. He would copy great Dutch artists such as Ruisdael and Wynants. According to the artist, he claimed that the painting had passed through 20 art dealers in the intervening 40 years, and that he himself had once bought the painting back for 19 guineas. The name of the painting is believed to have been coined by painter John Constable, who recognised the scene of the paining as he was painting near Woodbridge in 1800. | <urn:uuid:2bb3f582-d2f7-46e1-a07c-10eae6f5809f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.thomasgainsborough.org/cornard-wood/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00555.warc.gz | en | 0.989005 | 429 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
0.4362345337867737,
-0.0020657177083194256,
0.47606199979782104,
0.18997056782245636,
0.20513242483139038,
-0.17546473443508148,
0.2641266882419586,
-0.338300496339798,
-0.21109488606452942,
0.06680262088775635,
-0.19788460433483124,
-0.7479712963104248,
-0.4028352200984955,
0.454918563365... | 9 | It is believed that he had earlier made sketches and drawings when still a schoolboy, and thus took up the painting again when he returned to Sudbury. Gainsborough was regarded as an intelligent draughtsman from an early age, which explains why he is regarded as one of the most talented artist from England. This piece was painted at a time when capitalist landowners in England were enclosing common lands. The painting depicts rural folks roaming in the peaceful free woodlands. Cornard wood is located on the outskirts of the Great Cornard, just 2 miles from Sudbury where Thomas Gainsborough was born.
Gainsborough painted this landscape from the Abbas Hall view. The path in the painting leads the viewer to the church of St Mary's Great Henny in the background. During the period of this painting, the woods were considered as common land. This meant that they were not privately owned. This allowed villagers to wander freely, graze their animals, and also gather wood. These activities are depicted in this painting, where we see a lady sitting as she rests from digging, a man cutting firewood, animals grazing and people travelling on foot and horsebacks.
Cornard Wood is considered as one of the most intensive landscapes paintings by Gainsborough. The painting consists of 5 people, 3 dogs, flying ducks, a cow, 2 donkeys and a village. The intense levels of detail act to highlight the precocious skills of the painter. Analysing the painting, it is evident that Gainsborough approached it with a technique and lighting manner associated with 17th century Dutch paintings. It is believed that Gainsborough took keen interest in Dutch art during his time in London. He would copy great Dutch artists such as Ruisdael and Wynants. According to the artist, he claimed that the painting had passed through 20 art dealers in the intervening 40 years, and that he himself had once bought the painting back for 19 guineas. The name of the painting is believed to have been coined by painter John Constable, who recognised the scene of the paining as he was painting near Woodbridge in 1800. | 445 | ENGLISH | 1 |
American Civil War and Reconstruction Essay
The time surrounding the Civil War and reconstruction effort could be described with plenty of adjectives. Of those, revolutionary might be one that some choose to use. In the time leading up to the Civil War, the United States was a country in flux. Questions of state rights, slavery, and how the nation would eventually form were on the docket. As such, there were different groups of people that all had very different perspectives and motivations working in their favor. Those in charge of the country, including President Abraham Lincoln, could not sit idly and watch the nation head down a road where such indecision was the order of the day.
In a way, there are many things that happened during that time that could be correctly described as revolutionary. This distinction includes both things that ended up being good for the Union and those things that were thrown out. From the effort to protect a state’s rights to the constant battle faced in reconstruction to incorporate freed blacks, the time was characterized by those things that a historian might consider to be revolutionary.
Starting with the Civil War in 1861, the revolutionary events were many. During that war, both idealistic and tangible revolutions were going on all over the country. On one hand, the time was revolutionary in a military sense. The development of both weapons and military strategy was evident for both sides. Those fighting for the North had to come up with ways to counteract the Confederacy’s knowledge of the fighting areas, while those fighting for the Confederacy had to get creative to overcome the sheer size advantage held by the union. The measured responses to these problems were revolutionary in a military sense. On top of that, there were certain small revolutions in medical technology. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest wars to ever be fought. With that in mind, doctors, nurses, and others had to constantly figure out ways to fix the various problems presented by gunshot wounds and other consequences of war.
In a more idealistic sense, the Civil War was a revolutionary time because it served as the impetus for a change in thinking in America. Until the fighting commenced, there was an entire segment of American citizens that felt it was alright to enslave other human beings. On a basic level, this is a type of thinking that had to be overcome if America was to move forward. Whereas the Revolutionary War helped Americans establish a nation free of British tyranny, the Civil War helped create a revolutionary new society free of such prevailing thought. Russian revolutionary thinker and politician Vladimir Lenin shared the thinking that American was home to a couple of different revolutions. In one of his memoirs on the American Revolutions, Lenin wrote of the long standing American revolutionary tradition when he said, “That tradition is the war of liberation against the British in the eighteenth century and the Civil War in the nineteenth century. In some respects, if we only take into consideration the ‘destruction’ of some branches of industry and of the national economy, America in 1870 was behind 1860. But what a pedant, what an idiot would anyone be to deny on these grounds the immense, world-historic, progressive and revolutionary significance of the American Civil War of 1863-65” (Lenin). Though it is absolutely true that Americans were not the first to end slavery or the first to think of bringing Africans into their society, that does not stand in the way of the fact that, for Americans, the thinking brought about by the Civil War was of a revolutionary nature.
Lenin’s quote not only addresses the revolutionary American tradition, but it also speaks to certain ways in which the Civil War was somewhat counter-revolutionary. Clearly, the Russian thinker understood the overall impact of the removal of slavery from American society, but he also recognized the fact that following the Civil War, America was not nearly the same economic power as it was prior to the Civil War. In fact, the economic side of things is where America truly took a step back. This is something that was understood by Lincoln, Grant, and the others that helped the country through the conflict. They were under the belief that sacrificing a little bit of economic prowess was a good way to go forward with the country, as the advancement of revolutionary thinking would eventually benefit the nation in a number of ways. Slavery, for its many different perils, was something that was good for the American economy. The reasons for this were obvious. Since the society, especially in the South, depended so heavily on farming and the activity of large plantations, being able to get labor for free was a huge benefit. It helped keep costs down low, so that Americans could export their products and make a great profit. Since the Civil War wiped out slavery, Southern planters had to come up with different ways to make up for this difference. They had to cut costs in other areas and for the most part, the profits were down and the American economy struggled for a long time.
One might also argue that the Civil War and reconstruction effort were counter-revolutionary because they did a lot to divide the nation, effectively eliminating much of the progress that was made in the Revolutionary War. During reconstruction, those in the South that had been on the other side of the conflict had to make apologies and pay for their wrong doings. In a way, they were being punished for leading secession and dividing the country. Though the people in control of the country felt this was a necessary step to protecting the nation from future incidents, it did a lot to drive a wedge between those in the South and those in the North. The Southerners, who felt that they were protecting their rights and their way of life, were forced to bow down to those in control of the new government. This was counter productive and historians could certainly take a stance that this was counter-revolutionary in many ways.
Historians have the right to look upon the Civil War and surrounding time as being whatever they wish it to be. In a way, the question of whether or not it was revolutionary is something that has to be answered on an opinion basis. Still, it is not productive for those historians to view any of the effort as being truly counter-revolutionary. Even though there is plenty of statistical evidence to indicate that the country struggled economically as a result of the Civil War, that is not what is important. The economics fixed themselves after plantation owners adjusted to their new way of life. The important thing for historians to do in this case is to keep things in proper perspective. Looking at only one aspect of the Civil War can lead a person to taking any number of different conclusions. The appropriate way to view the entire ordeal is to look at its overall historical significance. Instead of simply focusing on one or two different things, take a step back and view the big picture. The big picture clearly shows a country that benefited a ton from the new revolution in thinking. Getting rid of slavery eventually helped to bring the country together, promote the true American way of life, and bring the country into international prominence. Had the Civil War and resulting reconstruction not occurred, America would have struggled to stay relevant on an international level.
The reasons why the Civil War was a revolutionary effort are crystal clear. Vladimir Lenin summed up the American spirit perfectly in his quote, as he enthusiastically recounted the way that Americans were able to change their way of thinking. On the whole, American prior to the Civil War was a place that was stuck in reverse. Priorities were reversed so that economic considerations were being put in front of pure human values. The really scary thing about the entire ordeal is that there was a huge portion of the nation that actually considered slavery to be a positive thing. Removing that sort of thinking from the American code required a war, and in the end, it was one of the most important wars that the nation ever fought.
Lenin, Vladimir. 1918. Lenin on American Revolutions. http://sfr-21.org/american-revolutions.html
Cite this American Civil War and Reconstruction Essay
American Civil War and Reconstruction Essay. (2016, Jun 10). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/american-civil-war-and-reconstruction/ | <urn:uuid:42eb5533-d5fb-44b0-bd1e-5037e9a98744> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://graduateway.com/american-civil-war-and-reconstruction/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00001.warc.gz | en | 0.982264 | 1,663 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.4623645544052124,
0.2673822343349457,
0.18099264800548553,
0.09590154886245728,
0.004846010357141495,
0.2950238287448883,
-0.01777755469083786,
0.23202964663505554,
-0.4899027943611145,
0.06221242994070053,
-0.02034308761358261,
0.2590148150920868,
-0.08911499381065369,
0.43390339612960... | 1 | American Civil War and Reconstruction Essay
The time surrounding the Civil War and reconstruction effort could be described with plenty of adjectives. Of those, revolutionary might be one that some choose to use. In the time leading up to the Civil War, the United States was a country in flux. Questions of state rights, slavery, and how the nation would eventually form were on the docket. As such, there were different groups of people that all had very different perspectives and motivations working in their favor. Those in charge of the country, including President Abraham Lincoln, could not sit idly and watch the nation head down a road where such indecision was the order of the day.
In a way, there are many things that happened during that time that could be correctly described as revolutionary. This distinction includes both things that ended up being good for the Union and those things that were thrown out. From the effort to protect a state’s rights to the constant battle faced in reconstruction to incorporate freed blacks, the time was characterized by those things that a historian might consider to be revolutionary.
Starting with the Civil War in 1861, the revolutionary events were many. During that war, both idealistic and tangible revolutions were going on all over the country. On one hand, the time was revolutionary in a military sense. The development of both weapons and military strategy was evident for both sides. Those fighting for the North had to come up with ways to counteract the Confederacy’s knowledge of the fighting areas, while those fighting for the Confederacy had to get creative to overcome the sheer size advantage held by the union. The measured responses to these problems were revolutionary in a military sense. On top of that, there were certain small revolutions in medical technology. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest wars to ever be fought. With that in mind, doctors, nurses, and others had to constantly figure out ways to fix the various problems presented by gunshot wounds and other consequences of war.
In a more idealistic sense, the Civil War was a revolutionary time because it served as the impetus for a change in thinking in America. Until the fighting commenced, there was an entire segment of American citizens that felt it was alright to enslave other human beings. On a basic level, this is a type of thinking that had to be overcome if America was to move forward. Whereas the Revolutionary War helped Americans establish a nation free of British tyranny, the Civil War helped create a revolutionary new society free of such prevailing thought. Russian revolutionary thinker and politician Vladimir Lenin shared the thinking that American was home to a couple of different revolutions. In one of his memoirs on the American Revolutions, Lenin wrote of the long standing American revolutionary tradition when he said, “That tradition is the war of liberation against the British in the eighteenth century and the Civil War in the nineteenth century. In some respects, if we only take into consideration the ‘destruction’ of some branches of industry and of the national economy, America in 1870 was behind 1860. But what a pedant, what an idiot would anyone be to deny on these grounds the immense, world-historic, progressive and revolutionary significance of the American Civil War of 1863-65” (Lenin). Though it is absolutely true that Americans were not the first to end slavery or the first to think of bringing Africans into their society, that does not stand in the way of the fact that, for Americans, the thinking brought about by the Civil War was of a revolutionary nature.
Lenin’s quote not only addresses the revolutionary American tradition, but it also speaks to certain ways in which the Civil War was somewhat counter-revolutionary. Clearly, the Russian thinker understood the overall impact of the removal of slavery from American society, but he also recognized the fact that following the Civil War, America was not nearly the same economic power as it was prior to the Civil War. In fact, the economic side of things is where America truly took a step back. This is something that was understood by Lincoln, Grant, and the others that helped the country through the conflict. They were under the belief that sacrificing a little bit of economic prowess was a good way to go forward with the country, as the advancement of revolutionary thinking would eventually benefit the nation in a number of ways. Slavery, for its many different perils, was something that was good for the American economy. The reasons for this were obvious. Since the society, especially in the South, depended so heavily on farming and the activity of large plantations, being able to get labor for free was a huge benefit. It helped keep costs down low, so that Americans could export their products and make a great profit. Since the Civil War wiped out slavery, Southern planters had to come up with different ways to make up for this difference. They had to cut costs in other areas and for the most part, the profits were down and the American economy struggled for a long time.
One might also argue that the Civil War and reconstruction effort were counter-revolutionary because they did a lot to divide the nation, effectively eliminating much of the progress that was made in the Revolutionary War. During reconstruction, those in the South that had been on the other side of the conflict had to make apologies and pay for their wrong doings. In a way, they were being punished for leading secession and dividing the country. Though the people in control of the country felt this was a necessary step to protecting the nation from future incidents, it did a lot to drive a wedge between those in the South and those in the North. The Southerners, who felt that they were protecting their rights and their way of life, were forced to bow down to those in control of the new government. This was counter productive and historians could certainly take a stance that this was counter-revolutionary in many ways.
Historians have the right to look upon the Civil War and surrounding time as being whatever they wish it to be. In a way, the question of whether or not it was revolutionary is something that has to be answered on an opinion basis. Still, it is not productive for those historians to view any of the effort as being truly counter-revolutionary. Even though there is plenty of statistical evidence to indicate that the country struggled economically as a result of the Civil War, that is not what is important. The economics fixed themselves after plantation owners adjusted to their new way of life. The important thing for historians to do in this case is to keep things in proper perspective. Looking at only one aspect of the Civil War can lead a person to taking any number of different conclusions. The appropriate way to view the entire ordeal is to look at its overall historical significance. Instead of simply focusing on one or two different things, take a step back and view the big picture. The big picture clearly shows a country that benefited a ton from the new revolution in thinking. Getting rid of slavery eventually helped to bring the country together, promote the true American way of life, and bring the country into international prominence. Had the Civil War and resulting reconstruction not occurred, America would have struggled to stay relevant on an international level.
The reasons why the Civil War was a revolutionary effort are crystal clear. Vladimir Lenin summed up the American spirit perfectly in his quote, as he enthusiastically recounted the way that Americans were able to change their way of thinking. On the whole, American prior to the Civil War was a place that was stuck in reverse. Priorities were reversed so that economic considerations were being put in front of pure human values. The really scary thing about the entire ordeal is that there was a huge portion of the nation that actually considered slavery to be a positive thing. Removing that sort of thinking from the American code required a war, and in the end, it was one of the most important wars that the nation ever fought.
Lenin, Vladimir. 1918. Lenin on American Revolutions. http://sfr-21.org/american-revolutions.html
Cite this American Civil War and Reconstruction Essay
American Civil War and Reconstruction Essay. (2016, Jun 10). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/american-civil-war-and-reconstruction/ | 1,669 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Role of War in the Slave Economy of the Roman Empire
There were three basic types of people in the Roman Empire: Roman citizens, free noncitizens, and slaves. The first had many special rights, and the last had no rights at all. Under Roman law, slaves were simply property that could be treated like other animals.
There were several ways a person might become a slave: born to a slave mother, abandoned as a baby because the head of the family didn’t want the child, sold into slavery by a poor parent, captured outside the Empire by slave traders, kidnapped within the empire and sold, and captured in war.
From the time of the Roman Republic through the expansion period of the Roman Empire, war was a major source of slave labor. After a battle or the sacking of a city, the defeated were collected and guarded by soldiers. The commanding general then decided their fate. Although some were released to become subjects of Rome, death or enslavement was more likely. When Corinth was conquered in 146 BC, all adult males were killed, and the women and children were made slaves.
Slaves were just one more kind of plunder to be used for the profit or glory of Rome and its military leaders. Right after a battle, the defeated warriors and often civilians were collected and guarded by Roman soldiers. By the middle of the first century AD, manacles with chains had become a standard part of a legionary’s equipment. Soldiers often received a personal share of the plunder, which might include people. In 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each of his legionaries one slave to be kept for personal use or sold to the traders who followed the army.
Romans regarded anything taken from an enemy as their rightful property, including people. Usually, the questor, who was responsible for the financial affairs of a legion, took charge of the captives and sold them to slave traders who followed the legions as they advanced against Rome’s enemies. Sales of captives were called sales under the spear (sub hasta) or under the garland (sub corona) because war slaves in the second century AD wore a garland on their heads while being auctioned.
Slave traders transported the captives from the conquered territory to many parts of the empire. That often started with a long walk to a coast where the slaves could be loaded onto ships for transport around the Empire. It was common for men to have metal shackles clamped around their necks. Chaining slaves together made it harder to escape on the long treks. Women and children were considered less likely to try to escape and weren’t always chained.
From the Republic through the Empire, military success was measured in part by the number of slaves taken and sold. The money from such sales paid the expenses of the Roman state, including paying her armies, building public facilities, and funding future wars.
The numbers of people enslaved following a successful Roman campaign were staggering. In 167 BC, over 150,000 slaves were taken from Epirus, a relatively small area spanning parts of present-day Albania and the western coast of Greece. In 57 BC, Julius Caesar took 53,000 from a single tribe in Gaul (present-day France). During his Gallic wars between 58 and 51 BC, he might have taken as many as one million Gauls as slaves.
In the First Jewish Revolt of AD 66 to 70, 97,000 slaves were taken from Judaea. Emperor Vespasian used the wealth plundered from the Jews to replenish a Roman treasury depleted by the civil wars of AD 69 and for public building projects. Many Jewish slaves were used to build the Flavian Amphitheater (Colosseum), started by Vespasian and finished by his son Titus, only to be killed in the games in the amphitheater they helped build.
After Trajan’s Second Dacian War (AD 105-106), between 400,000 and 500,000 Dacians were enslaved, allowing the new Roman province of Dacia to be largely repopulated by Romans and their allies. Combined with the wealth from Dacia’s rich gold and silver mines, slave sales helped fund Trajan’s many public building projects, from the massive public Baths of Trajan (larger than eighteen American football fields) to a huge forum (1000 x 600 feet). A hill was flattened to make room for the forum’s construction.
Trajan’s Forum included a huge basilica along one side for government activities and public gatherings. Along the adjoining side was a six-story building (large parts still standing) of shops and offices that served as an ancient shopping mall. Two libraries (one Greek, one Latin) stood behind the basilica with a courtyard between them. In that courtyard was Trajan’s column. The column (still standing) is ninety-eight feet tall and has carved scenes of the First and Second Dacian Wars spiraling up it. In vivid detail, the scenes tell the story of those conflicts from the preparations for the first war through the Roman triumph in the second. Since no account written at the time of Trajan’s Dacian wars still survives, the column is a vital source of information about those conflicts in particular and Roman military practice in general.
One can only imagine the cost of such magnificent building projects, and slaves were one important source of the wealth that funded them.
Slave prices in the early second century AD varied considerably, depending on the age, fitness, and skills of an individual. A denarius was a silver coin worth about one days living wage. The very young were cheap (75 denarii for a 3-year-old boy) because mortality for children under five was high. Young slaves ranged from 175 to 600 denarii. One seven-year old boy cost 200 denarii, and a girl sold for 210. A young woman might sell for 250 to 675 denarii and a male slave for 350 to 700 denarii, depending on age and skill set.
Once the captives were sold to a trader at the questor’s first auction, they entered the slave trade as a commodity for resale. At the next auction, they would wear wooden plaques around their necks that described where they came from, what skills they possessed, and what defects they had, both physical and mental. They would be displayed naked so the bidders could see what they would be buying. It was common for a new owner to rename a newly purchased slave to emphasize the break between a former life as a free person and a new life as property.
Hope Unchained begins with Ariana, her younger brother Diegis, and her little sister Roanna held in separate cages sorted by age and gender, awaiting the questor’s auction. Although she is taken from her cage before that first sale and soon freed, her brother and sister start the march to the sea for a second sale that could take them anywhere in the Empire. Hope Unchained follows her attempt to find and buy her loved ones out of slavery before it’s too late to save them. | <urn:uuid:17955b17-d8b8-47fa-9bf8-8a7974cab2ae> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://carolashby.com/roman-slavery-war-slaves/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592565.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118110141-20200118134141-00495.warc.gz | en | 0.983057 | 1,470 | 4.1875 | 4 | [
-0.27810022234916687,
0.43759292364120483,
0.4988270699977875,
0.0003019515424966812,
-0.37472617626190186,
-0.3102050721645355,
0.22665521502494812,
0.009192779660224915,
-0.07486891001462936,
-0.3438321352005005,
0.248110830783844,
-0.1959894746541977,
-0.24214968085289001,
0.46402293443... | 16 | The Role of War in the Slave Economy of the Roman Empire
There were three basic types of people in the Roman Empire: Roman citizens, free noncitizens, and slaves. The first had many special rights, and the last had no rights at all. Under Roman law, slaves were simply property that could be treated like other animals.
There were several ways a person might become a slave: born to a slave mother, abandoned as a baby because the head of the family didn’t want the child, sold into slavery by a poor parent, captured outside the Empire by slave traders, kidnapped within the empire and sold, and captured in war.
From the time of the Roman Republic through the expansion period of the Roman Empire, war was a major source of slave labor. After a battle or the sacking of a city, the defeated were collected and guarded by soldiers. The commanding general then decided their fate. Although some were released to become subjects of Rome, death or enslavement was more likely. When Corinth was conquered in 146 BC, all adult males were killed, and the women and children were made slaves.
Slaves were just one more kind of plunder to be used for the profit or glory of Rome and its military leaders. Right after a battle, the defeated warriors and often civilians were collected and guarded by Roman soldiers. By the middle of the first century AD, manacles with chains had become a standard part of a legionary’s equipment. Soldiers often received a personal share of the plunder, which might include people. In 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each of his legionaries one slave to be kept for personal use or sold to the traders who followed the army.
Romans regarded anything taken from an enemy as their rightful property, including people. Usually, the questor, who was responsible for the financial affairs of a legion, took charge of the captives and sold them to slave traders who followed the legions as they advanced against Rome’s enemies. Sales of captives were called sales under the spear (sub hasta) or under the garland (sub corona) because war slaves in the second century AD wore a garland on their heads while being auctioned.
Slave traders transported the captives from the conquered territory to many parts of the empire. That often started with a long walk to a coast where the slaves could be loaded onto ships for transport around the Empire. It was common for men to have metal shackles clamped around their necks. Chaining slaves together made it harder to escape on the long treks. Women and children were considered less likely to try to escape and weren’t always chained.
From the Republic through the Empire, military success was measured in part by the number of slaves taken and sold. The money from such sales paid the expenses of the Roman state, including paying her armies, building public facilities, and funding future wars.
The numbers of people enslaved following a successful Roman campaign were staggering. In 167 BC, over 150,000 slaves were taken from Epirus, a relatively small area spanning parts of present-day Albania and the western coast of Greece. In 57 BC, Julius Caesar took 53,000 from a single tribe in Gaul (present-day France). During his Gallic wars between 58 and 51 BC, he might have taken as many as one million Gauls as slaves.
In the First Jewish Revolt of AD 66 to 70, 97,000 slaves were taken from Judaea. Emperor Vespasian used the wealth plundered from the Jews to replenish a Roman treasury depleted by the civil wars of AD 69 and for public building projects. Many Jewish slaves were used to build the Flavian Amphitheater (Colosseum), started by Vespasian and finished by his son Titus, only to be killed in the games in the amphitheater they helped build.
After Trajan’s Second Dacian War (AD 105-106), between 400,000 and 500,000 Dacians were enslaved, allowing the new Roman province of Dacia to be largely repopulated by Romans and their allies. Combined with the wealth from Dacia’s rich gold and silver mines, slave sales helped fund Trajan’s many public building projects, from the massive public Baths of Trajan (larger than eighteen American football fields) to a huge forum (1000 x 600 feet). A hill was flattened to make room for the forum’s construction.
Trajan’s Forum included a huge basilica along one side for government activities and public gatherings. Along the adjoining side was a six-story building (large parts still standing) of shops and offices that served as an ancient shopping mall. Two libraries (one Greek, one Latin) stood behind the basilica with a courtyard between them. In that courtyard was Trajan’s column. The column (still standing) is ninety-eight feet tall and has carved scenes of the First and Second Dacian Wars spiraling up it. In vivid detail, the scenes tell the story of those conflicts from the preparations for the first war through the Roman triumph in the second. Since no account written at the time of Trajan’s Dacian wars still survives, the column is a vital source of information about those conflicts in particular and Roman military practice in general.
One can only imagine the cost of such magnificent building projects, and slaves were one important source of the wealth that funded them.
Slave prices in the early second century AD varied considerably, depending on the age, fitness, and skills of an individual. A denarius was a silver coin worth about one days living wage. The very young were cheap (75 denarii for a 3-year-old boy) because mortality for children under five was high. Young slaves ranged from 175 to 600 denarii. One seven-year old boy cost 200 denarii, and a girl sold for 210. A young woman might sell for 250 to 675 denarii and a male slave for 350 to 700 denarii, depending on age and skill set.
Once the captives were sold to a trader at the questor’s first auction, they entered the slave trade as a commodity for resale. At the next auction, they would wear wooden plaques around their necks that described where they came from, what skills they possessed, and what defects they had, both physical and mental. They would be displayed naked so the bidders could see what they would be buying. It was common for a new owner to rename a newly purchased slave to emphasize the break between a former life as a free person and a new life as property.
Hope Unchained begins with Ariana, her younger brother Diegis, and her little sister Roanna held in separate cages sorted by age and gender, awaiting the questor’s auction. Although she is taken from her cage before that first sale and soon freed, her brother and sister start the march to the sea for a second sale that could take them anywhere in the Empire. Hope Unchained follows her attempt to find and buy her loved ones out of slavery before it’s too late to save them. | 1,504 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Karl Marx never visited India. In fact, he did not even step out of Europe. Born in the German city of Trier on May 5, 1818, Marx spent his early years in Bonn, Berlin, Paris, Cologne and Brussels before making London his home where he died and was buried.
In his lifetime, Marx may never have imagined that decades after his death, thousands of kilometres away from Europe, a small village in north India would be named after him.
Lucknow is the capital of Uttar Pradesh and about 40 kilometres southwest from it lies Marx Nagar.
The hamlet in Unnao district of the Indian state has nearly 50 houses. Some are made of bricks and cement while others of mud and straw. They were built around a rectangular open space in the village. Cows and buffaloes can be seen tethered in front of most of the houses. The population of the village is about 250.
Ram Shankar Sharma, a 56-year-old farmer, is a native of Marx Nagar. When I visit on a swelteringly hot day, he is sitting on a wooden bench under the slanting thatched awning of his home. Because of the afternoon heat he is wearing only a pair of shorts. As Sharma has visitors at home, his son hands over a shirt to him but Sharma is reluctant to wear it. He languidly places the shirt on his shoulder and continues our conversation about the village.
“It was on May 17, 1938, that our village was rechristened Marx Nagar. The village’s name earlier was Makoor,” he says. “My neighbour Ram Ghulam got this village renamed in honour of Karl Marx. You will find the name Marx Nagar on all official records,” he says.
“We have the name Marx Nagar on Aadhaar cards,” said Sharma. (Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique identity number that can be obtained by residents of India, based on their biometric and demographic data.)
Marx died on March 14, 1883, and only a handful of people were present at his funeral. However, his political, economic, and social principles, popularly dubbed Marxism, started influencing millions of people across the globe as the 20th century dawned. India was no exception.
Political parties based on Marxist principles were formed in different countries in the world. Marxism became more popular as Communists captured power in Russia in 1917.
In India, the Communist Party of India (CPI) was founded on December 26, 1915, in Kanpur city, close to Lucknow.
Ram Ghulam was born towards the end of the 19th century and got heavily influenced by Marxism as he became a youth. He was one of the founding members of the Communist Party in Unnao.
The struggle against the British empire in India intensified in the second decade of the 20th century.
Leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawahar Lal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose had become the towering personalities who led the nation’s freedom struggle.
“As Ram Ghulam joined the freedom struggle, Unnao became a hub of the freedom movement in Uttar Pradesh,” says Sharma.
Political rallies in Unnao became common and so did police raids. A historic moment came for Makoor in 1937 when Ram Ghulam invited Subhash Chandra Bose to the village.
Bose reached Makoor from Unnao railway station on a bullock cart on May 17 and stayed here for three days. During his visit, Bose addressed several public meetings that were attended by thousands of people of Uttar Pradesh which was then known as United Province.
“It was in one of those public meetings that Ram Ghulam, with Bose’s consent, suggested that Makoor’s name be changed to Marx Nagar and people agreed,” Sharma says.
Exactly a year later, on May 17, 1938, Makoor was rechristened as Marx Nagar.
Ram Ghulam remained dedicated to Marxism but did not enter politics.
“He fought for the rights of the farmers and common people. He died in 1982 or 1983. He was in his mid-eighties then,” Sharma recalls.
Legacy lives on
Though Ram Ghulam’s house still exists, members of his family have moved to other places. “Sometimes, may be once in a year or so, they visit Marx Nagar,” Sharma says.
Even after India’s independence in 1947, young men from Marx Nagar and Unnao were influenced by Marxism and joined the Communist Party of India in large numbers.
Brij Pal Singh Yadav was born in Makoor a year after India became free. He joined the Communist Party of India in 1971 when he turned 23.
“I spent 14 months in the erstwhile USSR studying Marxism in depth. I met several politburo members there,” Yadav tells the Weekend Review.
He says there was a time following India’s independence when Marxism produced great political figures. Yadav names a few leaders — Shaukat Usmani, S.A. Dange, PC Joshi, Bhupesh Gupta, Mohit Sen.
I spent 14 months in the erstwhile USSR studying Marxism in depth. I met several politburo members there.
“The communists were never in a majority in the Indian Parliament but they always kept the government on its toes,” he says.
Many Marxists from Unnao were elected as legislators to the Uttar Pradesh Assembly.
Yadav quit the Communist Party of India in 1998. “It’s not that I hold a grudge against Marxism or Communism. But I lost interest in Marxism, I was disillusioned. I realised it was leading me to nowhere,” Yadav says.
Millions like him across the world gradually started losing faith in Marxism, he says. “The biggest reason was the disintegration of the USSR. If I talk about India, workers formed the backbone of the Communist Parties here. Major industries in India at present have closed or are in doldrums. Existing workers now no more want to get involved in trade unions. Now, industries are not run the way they were run earlier. Marxist leaders have alienated themselves from the masses,” Yadav says.
“Another major reason,” he says, “people in India are now divided on caste and communal lines. Earlier poverty and development were major election issues. Not so any more.”
Yadav says election results clearly show people in India are losing faith in Communist parties. India has two major communist parties — the Communist Party of India and Communist Party of India (Marxists).
The strength of the Lower House of the Indian Parliament to which people directly elect representatives is 543.
The two Communists parties of India won as many as 54 seats in the 2004 general elections. But their strength reduced to 20 in the 2009 general elections and remained the same in 2014 as well.
Communists were considered invincible in two Indian states — West Bengal and Tripura but they have been uprooted in both states. Communists at present are in power only in the southern Indian state of Kerala.
So Karl Marx has a village in India named after him. His statues in public squares are not uncommon. But what were Marx’s views about India?
Veteran journalist Ambreesh Mishra who has closely studied Communism says, “Karl Marx regularly wrote for the New York Daily Tribune, an American magazine. In his despatches to it, Marx apparently took a grim view of Indian people and civilisation, dubbed as semi-barbarian and semi-civilised. But it must be seen in context. Political correctness, which could have sent up howls of protest, was not the norm back then and words like race, for instance, were often used with ethnic, cultural and geographical groups.
“He did critique the rapacious nature of the British colonial rule, but considered its cultural influences as civilising on India. That said, an Indian village being named after Marx is, at best, a curio. In India, people have names like Lenin and Stalin, it sure can put up with a non-descript rural hamlet called Marx Nagar.”
Rohit Ghosh is a writer based in Kanpur, India. | <urn:uuid:df5ae0ac-5d9a-483d-9d1d-fa9df3086d86> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/karl-marxs-footprint-on-an-indian-village-1.61574504 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00100.warc.gz | en | 0.985069 | 1,756 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.2163904905319214,
0.3789747953414917,
-0.3993670344352722,
0.2424079030752182,
-0.28066375851631165,
0.018237855285406113,
0.38420411944389343,
0.2093128263950348,
0.1430463194847107,
-0.24289339780807495,
0.18051910400390625,
-0.06522706151008606,
0.532256007194519,
0.2981455326080322,
... | 2 | Karl Marx never visited India. In fact, he did not even step out of Europe. Born in the German city of Trier on May 5, 1818, Marx spent his early years in Bonn, Berlin, Paris, Cologne and Brussels before making London his home where he died and was buried.
In his lifetime, Marx may never have imagined that decades after his death, thousands of kilometres away from Europe, a small village in north India would be named after him.
Lucknow is the capital of Uttar Pradesh and about 40 kilometres southwest from it lies Marx Nagar.
The hamlet in Unnao district of the Indian state has nearly 50 houses. Some are made of bricks and cement while others of mud and straw. They were built around a rectangular open space in the village. Cows and buffaloes can be seen tethered in front of most of the houses. The population of the village is about 250.
Ram Shankar Sharma, a 56-year-old farmer, is a native of Marx Nagar. When I visit on a swelteringly hot day, he is sitting on a wooden bench under the slanting thatched awning of his home. Because of the afternoon heat he is wearing only a pair of shorts. As Sharma has visitors at home, his son hands over a shirt to him but Sharma is reluctant to wear it. He languidly places the shirt on his shoulder and continues our conversation about the village.
“It was on May 17, 1938, that our village was rechristened Marx Nagar. The village’s name earlier was Makoor,” he says. “My neighbour Ram Ghulam got this village renamed in honour of Karl Marx. You will find the name Marx Nagar on all official records,” he says.
“We have the name Marx Nagar on Aadhaar cards,” said Sharma. (Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique identity number that can be obtained by residents of India, based on their biometric and demographic data.)
Marx died on March 14, 1883, and only a handful of people were present at his funeral. However, his political, economic, and social principles, popularly dubbed Marxism, started influencing millions of people across the globe as the 20th century dawned. India was no exception.
Political parties based on Marxist principles were formed in different countries in the world. Marxism became more popular as Communists captured power in Russia in 1917.
In India, the Communist Party of India (CPI) was founded on December 26, 1915, in Kanpur city, close to Lucknow.
Ram Ghulam was born towards the end of the 19th century and got heavily influenced by Marxism as he became a youth. He was one of the founding members of the Communist Party in Unnao.
The struggle against the British empire in India intensified in the second decade of the 20th century.
Leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawahar Lal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose had become the towering personalities who led the nation’s freedom struggle.
“As Ram Ghulam joined the freedom struggle, Unnao became a hub of the freedom movement in Uttar Pradesh,” says Sharma.
Political rallies in Unnao became common and so did police raids. A historic moment came for Makoor in 1937 when Ram Ghulam invited Subhash Chandra Bose to the village.
Bose reached Makoor from Unnao railway station on a bullock cart on May 17 and stayed here for three days. During his visit, Bose addressed several public meetings that were attended by thousands of people of Uttar Pradesh which was then known as United Province.
“It was in one of those public meetings that Ram Ghulam, with Bose’s consent, suggested that Makoor’s name be changed to Marx Nagar and people agreed,” Sharma says.
Exactly a year later, on May 17, 1938, Makoor was rechristened as Marx Nagar.
Ram Ghulam remained dedicated to Marxism but did not enter politics.
“He fought for the rights of the farmers and common people. He died in 1982 or 1983. He was in his mid-eighties then,” Sharma recalls.
Legacy lives on
Though Ram Ghulam’s house still exists, members of his family have moved to other places. “Sometimes, may be once in a year or so, they visit Marx Nagar,” Sharma says.
Even after India’s independence in 1947, young men from Marx Nagar and Unnao were influenced by Marxism and joined the Communist Party of India in large numbers.
Brij Pal Singh Yadav was born in Makoor a year after India became free. He joined the Communist Party of India in 1971 when he turned 23.
“I spent 14 months in the erstwhile USSR studying Marxism in depth. I met several politburo members there,” Yadav tells the Weekend Review.
He says there was a time following India’s independence when Marxism produced great political figures. Yadav names a few leaders — Shaukat Usmani, S.A. Dange, PC Joshi, Bhupesh Gupta, Mohit Sen.
I spent 14 months in the erstwhile USSR studying Marxism in depth. I met several politburo members there.
“The communists were never in a majority in the Indian Parliament but they always kept the government on its toes,” he says.
Many Marxists from Unnao were elected as legislators to the Uttar Pradesh Assembly.
Yadav quit the Communist Party of India in 1998. “It’s not that I hold a grudge against Marxism or Communism. But I lost interest in Marxism, I was disillusioned. I realised it was leading me to nowhere,” Yadav says.
Millions like him across the world gradually started losing faith in Marxism, he says. “The biggest reason was the disintegration of the USSR. If I talk about India, workers formed the backbone of the Communist Parties here. Major industries in India at present have closed or are in doldrums. Existing workers now no more want to get involved in trade unions. Now, industries are not run the way they were run earlier. Marxist leaders have alienated themselves from the masses,” Yadav says.
“Another major reason,” he says, “people in India are now divided on caste and communal lines. Earlier poverty and development were major election issues. Not so any more.”
Yadav says election results clearly show people in India are losing faith in Communist parties. India has two major communist parties — the Communist Party of India and Communist Party of India (Marxists).
The strength of the Lower House of the Indian Parliament to which people directly elect representatives is 543.
The two Communists parties of India won as many as 54 seats in the 2004 general elections. But their strength reduced to 20 in the 2009 general elections and remained the same in 2014 as well.
Communists were considered invincible in two Indian states — West Bengal and Tripura but they have been uprooted in both states. Communists at present are in power only in the southern Indian state of Kerala.
So Karl Marx has a village in India named after him. His statues in public squares are not uncommon. But what were Marx’s views about India?
Veteran journalist Ambreesh Mishra who has closely studied Communism says, “Karl Marx regularly wrote for the New York Daily Tribune, an American magazine. In his despatches to it, Marx apparently took a grim view of Indian people and civilisation, dubbed as semi-barbarian and semi-civilised. But it must be seen in context. Political correctness, which could have sent up howls of protest, was not the norm back then and words like race, for instance, were often used with ethnic, cultural and geographical groups.
“He did critique the rapacious nature of the British colonial rule, but considered its cultural influences as civilising on India. That said, an Indian village being named after Marx is, at best, a curio. In India, people have names like Lenin and Stalin, it sure can put up with a non-descript rural hamlet called Marx Nagar.”
Rohit Ghosh is a writer based in Kanpur, India. | 1,737 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The first suggestions for a bridge at Westminster were made soon after the Restoration but were quashed by opposition from the City Corporation and the Thames watermen, who feared the loss of their livelihood. The growth of Westminster in the 18th century urgently increased the need for a bridge. Apart from taking a boat or using the horse ferry, anybody wanting to cross the bridge had to go round by Putney Bridge (which only opened in 1729), or use the overcrowded London Bridge. Finally, in 1738, the Swiss engineer Charles Labelye was appointed designer of the new bridge. The watermen were paid £25,000 in compensation, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who owned the horse ferry, received £21,025. After a temporary setback when one of the piers subsided in 1748, the bridge was finally opened to traffic in November 1750. Prominent in this view is Westminster Abbey which had been restored between 1698 amd 1723 when Sir Christopher Wren was Surveyor, and Hawksmoor's West Towers which had been completed in 1745. | <urn:uuid:4f15c390-e329-48cc-a221-a6b7d0ac7f4f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Paintings/follower-of-william-marlow-a-view-of-5339765-details.aspx?intObjectID=5339765 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594662.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119151736-20200119175736-00383.warc.gz | en | 0.986073 | 218 | 3.6875 | 4 | [
-0.20947489142417908,
-0.2126162052154541,
0.17814697325229645,
0.004399454686790705,
-0.6405807137489319,
0.15397116541862488,
-0.1387021392583847,
0.2796502113342285,
0.09522892534732819,
0.1268121898174286,
-0.09482527524232864,
-0.40757426619529724,
0.07275907695293427,
0.0947723016142... | 1 | The first suggestions for a bridge at Westminster were made soon after the Restoration but were quashed by opposition from the City Corporation and the Thames watermen, who feared the loss of their livelihood. The growth of Westminster in the 18th century urgently increased the need for a bridge. Apart from taking a boat or using the horse ferry, anybody wanting to cross the bridge had to go round by Putney Bridge (which only opened in 1729), or use the overcrowded London Bridge. Finally, in 1738, the Swiss engineer Charles Labelye was appointed designer of the new bridge. The watermen were paid £25,000 in compensation, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who owned the horse ferry, received £21,025. After a temporary setback when one of the piers subsided in 1748, the bridge was finally opened to traffic in November 1750. Prominent in this view is Westminster Abbey which had been restored between 1698 amd 1723 when Sir Christopher Wren was Surveyor, and Hawksmoor's West Towers which had been completed in 1745. | 245 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The history of Dr. Seuss' Army career
Dr. Seuss is a story-writing legend in America. It's hard to find anyone who hasn't read "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," "The Cat in the Hat," "The Lorax" or "Horton Hears A Who!"
Army Master Sgt. Nekia Haywood reads to children at Hopkins Elementary School in Chesterfield, Va., March 2, 2018, in celebration of Dr. Seuss' birthday.
(Photo by Fran Mitchell, Army)
But well before those iconic books were written, Dr. Seuss joined the World War II effort on the home front using his real name, Theodor Seuss Geisel.
At first, he drew posters for the Treasury Department and the War Production Board. But by 1943, Geisel wanted to do more, so he joined the U.S. Army. He was put in command of the animation department of the 1st Motion Picture Unit, which was created out of the Army Signal Corps. There, he wrote pamphlets and films and contributed to the famous Private Snafu cartoon series.
Army Maj. Theodor Geisel.
Private Snafu — which stood for situation normal, all fouled up — was a series of adult instructional cartoons meant to relate to the noncareer soldier. They were humorous and sometimes even raunchy. According to the National Archives' Special Media Archives Services Division, Geisel and his team believed that the risque subject matter would help keep soldiers' attention, and because the Snafu series was for Army personnel only, producers could avoid traditional censorship.
Geisel's cartoons were often featured on Army-Navy Screen Magazine, a biweekly production of several short segments.
Theodor "Dr. Seuss" Geisel at work on a drawing of the Grinch, the hero of his children's book, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."
(Library of Congress photo)
One of Geisel's most significant military works, however, wasn't animated. It was called "Your Job in Germany" and was an orientation film for soldiers who would occupy Germany after the war was over. Geisel, who was German-American himself, was assigned to write it a year before the Germans surrendered.
According to Geisel's biography, "Dr. Seuss and Mr. Geisel," Geisel said he was sent to Europe during the war to screen the film in front of top generals for approval. He happened to be in Belgium in December 1944, when the Battle of the Bulge — Hitler's last big counteroffensive in Belgium's Ardennes forest — erupted. According to his biography, Geisel was trapped 10 miles behind enemy lines, and it took three days before he and his military police escort were rescued by British forces.
According to National Archives staff, it's possible that the snafu cartoons influenced Geisel's career as Dr. Seuss. Throughout Snafu, Geisel started using limited vocabulary and rhyme — something noticeable in his later works like "The Cat in the Hat," which used only 236 words but is one of the best-selling books of all time.
Air Force Gen. John Hyten, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, shares a "The Cat in the Hat" reading hat before he reads to children at the child development center at Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., April 26, 2018.
(Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Julie R. Matyascik)
Geisel left the Army in January 1946, having attained the rank of lieutenant colonel. He stayed in the filmmaking industry for a few years, even working on documentaries and shorts that earned Academy Awards, but he eventually switched to using his pen name, Dr. Seuss, to start writing children's books.
And the rest, as they say, is history!
This article originally appeared on Department of Defense. | <urn:uuid:835e0ec3-fda0-4928-a4a6-0c1b790eb90a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/history-dr-seuss-army-career | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595787.7/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119234426-20200120022426-00481.warc.gz | en | 0.980641 | 809 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.3353450894355774,
0.30760887265205383,
0.4662598967552185,
-0.3449403643608093,
0.11731164157390594,
-0.09032326191663742,
-0.02201717719435692,
0.040847063064575195,
-0.49908190965652466,
0.3982478380203247,
0.25697267055511475,
0.17319634556770325,
-0.1242840588092804,
0.0535935759544... | 1 | The history of Dr. Seuss' Army career
Dr. Seuss is a story-writing legend in America. It's hard to find anyone who hasn't read "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," "The Cat in the Hat," "The Lorax" or "Horton Hears A Who!"
Army Master Sgt. Nekia Haywood reads to children at Hopkins Elementary School in Chesterfield, Va., March 2, 2018, in celebration of Dr. Seuss' birthday.
(Photo by Fran Mitchell, Army)
But well before those iconic books were written, Dr. Seuss joined the World War II effort on the home front using his real name, Theodor Seuss Geisel.
At first, he drew posters for the Treasury Department and the War Production Board. But by 1943, Geisel wanted to do more, so he joined the U.S. Army. He was put in command of the animation department of the 1st Motion Picture Unit, which was created out of the Army Signal Corps. There, he wrote pamphlets and films and contributed to the famous Private Snafu cartoon series.
Army Maj. Theodor Geisel.
Private Snafu — which stood for situation normal, all fouled up — was a series of adult instructional cartoons meant to relate to the noncareer soldier. They were humorous and sometimes even raunchy. According to the National Archives' Special Media Archives Services Division, Geisel and his team believed that the risque subject matter would help keep soldiers' attention, and because the Snafu series was for Army personnel only, producers could avoid traditional censorship.
Geisel's cartoons were often featured on Army-Navy Screen Magazine, a biweekly production of several short segments.
Theodor "Dr. Seuss" Geisel at work on a drawing of the Grinch, the hero of his children's book, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."
(Library of Congress photo)
One of Geisel's most significant military works, however, wasn't animated. It was called "Your Job in Germany" and was an orientation film for soldiers who would occupy Germany after the war was over. Geisel, who was German-American himself, was assigned to write it a year before the Germans surrendered.
According to Geisel's biography, "Dr. Seuss and Mr. Geisel," Geisel said he was sent to Europe during the war to screen the film in front of top generals for approval. He happened to be in Belgium in December 1944, when the Battle of the Bulge — Hitler's last big counteroffensive in Belgium's Ardennes forest — erupted. According to his biography, Geisel was trapped 10 miles behind enemy lines, and it took three days before he and his military police escort were rescued by British forces.
According to National Archives staff, it's possible that the snafu cartoons influenced Geisel's career as Dr. Seuss. Throughout Snafu, Geisel started using limited vocabulary and rhyme — something noticeable in his later works like "The Cat in the Hat," which used only 236 words but is one of the best-selling books of all time.
Air Force Gen. John Hyten, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, shares a "The Cat in the Hat" reading hat before he reads to children at the child development center at Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., April 26, 2018.
(Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Julie R. Matyascik)
Geisel left the Army in January 1946, having attained the rank of lieutenant colonel. He stayed in the filmmaking industry for a few years, even working on documentaries and shorts that earned Academy Awards, but he eventually switched to using his pen name, Dr. Seuss, to start writing children's books.
And the rest, as they say, is history!
This article originally appeared on Department of Defense. | 814 | ENGLISH | 1 |
|Born||11 July 1826|
|Died||4 December 1864 (aged 38)|
Ackworth, Yorkshire, England
|Elizabeth Lucy Pease|
|Parent(s)||John and Rebecca Fowler|
John Fowler (11 July 1826 - 4 December 1864) was an English agricultural engineer who was a pioneer in the use of steam engines for ploughing and digging drainage channels. His inventions significantly reduced the cost of ploughing farmland, and also enabled the drainage of previously uncultivated land in many parts of the world.
Fowler was born in Melksham, Wiltshire. His father, John Fowler senior was a wealthy Quaker merchant, who had married Rebecca Hull, and together they had three daughters and five sons, of whom Fowler was the third son. When he left school Fowler followed his father's wishes and began working for a local corn merchant, but when he came of age in 1847 he turned his back on the corn business and joined the engineering firm of Gilkes Wilson and Company of Middlesbrough. Amongst other things, the company was involved in building steam locomotives and colliery winding engines. The company built a number of locomotives for the Stockton and Darlington Railway.
Fowler might have remained with the Middlesbrough firm and made his reputation there, had it not been for a chance visit to Ireland in 1849, probably on business. This was at the time of the Irish potato famine, and Irish agriculture depended on the potato crop whilst much of the land was uncultivated due to poor drainage. This affected Fowler and he was convinced that there must be a way of bringing more land into production. The normal way to drain agricultural land was to use a mole plough to dig a subterranean drainage channel. The mole plough has a vertical blade with a cylindrical "mole" attached to the bottom. The mole is pointed at the front end, and as it moves through the soil, it leaves a horizontal channel into which porous drainage pipes can be laid. However this required considerable tractive power, so that the size of the plough was limited by the strength of the teams of horses that pulled it. Fowler returned to England and developed a horse-powered ploughing engine that would dig drainage channels.
Fowler's ploughing engine dragged itself across the field on rollers, pulling the mole plough as it went. The engine was driven by a team of horses that walked round a capstan, winding in a rope which was passed through a pulley securely anchored at the far end of the field. The mole would have a string of drainage pipes attached at the rear end and these would be dragged through the channel created by the mole. On completing each length of drains, the engine would be turned, the rope would be let out and the pulley repositioned ready for the next length. Fowler had trouble with the capstan gears and with the rope slipping on the capstan, but was able to demonstrate his engine at a meeting of the Royal Agricultural Society of England at Exeter in 1850. He was able to lay a drain at a depth of 2 ft 6 in (0.76 m) in heavy clay. His invention was awarded a silver medal and was reported as "altogether the most important feature of the exhibition."
Fowler then decided to change his design so that the horse engine remained stationary at the corner of the field. The team of horses drove a vertical winch around which a rope was wound. The rope would pass along the edge of the field to a securely anchored pulley and would then pass at right angles across the field to the mole plough. As the horses drove the winch, the rope would drag the mole plough across the field, digging a drainage channel and inserting a length of drainage pipes. When each length had been completed, the pulley would be moved to a new position, the rope would be let out and the plough would be taken to the far side of the field, ready to start the next channel. The design was a vast improvement on the previous one, in that the horsepower was not being expended in dragging the machine across the field, only the plough. Fowler demonstrated his new drainage plough at the Great Exhibition in 1851 and at the Royal Agricultural Society of England meeting at Gloucester in 1853, where he was awarded another silver medal. He was able to lay drains to a depth of 3 ft 6 in (1.07 m).
In his early career, Fowler had worked with steam engines and the logical progression was to apply this method of power to his drainage plough. This he did in 1852 when he designed a steam engine with a winch mounted out in front of the smoke box and a rope running from it, round a pulley anchored at the far side of the field and back to the engine. The engine pulled itself across the field, dragging the mole plough behind it. The design was therefore similar to his first design for the horse-powered plough. The experiment was a failure because the steam engine proved to be too heavy to move easily over soft ground. However, in the same year, on 21 October, Fowler was awarded patent number 480 for "Improvements in Machinery for draining land", believed to be one of the first patents for the use of steam power in agriculture.
Following the failure of his first steam-driven plough, Fowler reverted to the design used for his second horse-driven plough. His new design consisted of a steam engine placed in a corner of the field driving a winch. A rope led from the winch along the side of the field, around a securely anchored pulley and across the field to the mole plough. As the winch drew in the rope the mole plough was drawn across the field digging a drainage channel as it went. The engine also had a second winch with a rope passing round the same anchored pulley and then passing across the field and around a second pulley and back to the plough. This second rope would be used to drag the plough back to its starting point after completing a drainage line. Both pulleys would then be re-anchored at both ends of the next channel to be dug and the ploughing process would be repeated. The steam plough was demonstrated at the Royal Agricultural Society of England meeting at Lincoln in 1854.
It seemed an obvious progression to use Fowler's latest steam-driven plough for normal ploughing, rather than just drainage channels. However normal ploughing was much lighter work that could be achieved perfectly well by a team of horses and in comparison the steam-driven plough was rather cumbersome. One way of improving the plough's efficiency would be to design a plough that could plough in either direction without having to be turned round. Fowler achieved this by designing a frame for the plough that had two ploughs attached as a kind of see-saw. One of the two plough blades would be swung down to make contact with the soil, depending on the direction the plough was to travel. At the end of each furrow the anchored pulleys would be moved slightly ready for the next furrow.
The firm of Ransome and Sims built the new engine at its Orwell works at Ipswich, and on 10 April 1856 a trial was carried out at Nacton in which 1 acre was ploughed in an hour. Despite the fact that the engine and plough coped well with the task, the effort of re-positioning the pulleys at either end of the field was too time-consuming.
Fowler got round the above problem by using a weighted cart with a pulley mounted beneath the frame. The cart had disc wheels that dug into the ground so that the cart acted as an anchor for the pulley. Two carts would be placed at opposite ends of the furrow so as to pull the plough in either direction, and after completing a furrow, the carts would be winched to the position for the next furrow.
Fowler's modified ploughing system was demonstrated at the Royal Agricultural Society of England meeting at Chelmsford in 1856. and at the following meeting at Salisbury in 1857. In 1854 the R.A.S.E. had offered a £200 prize for the best system of mechanical cultivation, and this had since been raised to £500. At Chelmsford, Fowler's ploughing system was pitted against a rival ploughing system designed by John Smith of Woolston. Smith's design did not fulfil all of the judges' conditions and it was disqualified. Fowler's system worked very well, but the estimated cost of his work was 7s 2½d per acre as against 7s for horse ploughing. The judges therefore decided not to award the prize, a bitter disappointment for Fowler who thought that the superior speed of his system over horse ploughing should have been taken into account.
A similar trial was held at the R.A.S.E. meeting at Salisbury in 1857, but again the prize was withheld. However, Fowler did receive £200 awarded by the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, after a trial at Stirling that same year, despite the judges agreeing that the sole entrant had not exactly fulfilled the conditions the efforts were impressive. Fowler returned to contest the R.A.S.E. ploughing trial at Chester in 1858. He was opposed by a number of competitors but was successful in being awarded the £500 prize.
On 30 July 1857 Fowler married his third cousin (once removed), Elizabeth Lucy (1833-1881), fifth child of Joseph Pease, MP for South Durham. Joseph Pease was a wealthy Quaker from Darlington who had supported his father Edward Pease's proposal for the Stockton and Darlington Railway. Fowler had become more closely acquainted with the Pease family when he was working at Middlesbrough. Fowler and his wife settled at Havering in Essex and had five children: Emma Mary Fowler (4 May 1858 - 13 Dec 1939), Edith Rebecca Fowler (15 Oct 1859 - 6 Dec 1895), Laura Elizabeth Fowler (16 Mar 1861 - 11 Oct 1941), John Ernest Fowler (3 Jan 1863 - 21 Apr 1884), Lucy Pease Fowler (25 Apr 1864 - 22 Aug 1909).
In 1856 Fowler filed a patent relating to a method of ploughing using two self-moving engines, placed at opposite ends of the field and each using a winch to draw a plough backwards and forwards between them. This system did away with the need for pulleys and anchors, but was more expensive in that it required two engines, only one of which was working at a time. It is believed that Fowler persevered with his single-engine ploughing system because it was cheaper and he saw it as more affordable for average farmer. Eventually the double-engine ploughing method superseded the single-engine system that had won the prize at Chester. Because of its expense it was normally operated by contractors.
Fowler first showed his double-engine system of ploughing at the R.A.S.E. ploughing trial at Worcester in 1863. He competed in 1864 in Newcastle upon Tyne competing against a ploughing system designed by his great rivals, the Howard brothers of Bedford. Fowler's system carried off every prize.
Between 1850 and 1864 Fowler took out in his own name and in partnership with other persons thirty-two patents for ploughs and ploughing apparatus, reaping machines, seed drills, traction engines, slide valves, the laying of electric telegraph cables, and the making of bricks and tiles.
By 1858 Fowler had forty sets of ploughing tackle in use, and by 1861 he had one hundred sets working. From 1860 the manufacture of the ploughing machinery was carried out by the firm of Kitson and Hewitson of Leeds.
In 1862 Fowler formed a partnership with William Watson Hewitson of the above firm and founded Hewitson and Fowler based at Hunslet. A year later Hewitson died and the firm became John Fowler and Company. Fowler's ploughing sets were sold all over the world and were responsible for bringing land into production that was previously unable to be cultivated.
Fowler had worked so hard in developing his ideas that he had undermined his health. He was advised to take more rest and so he retired to Ackworth in Yorkshire, to recuperate. He was persuaded to take up hunting as a way of getting exercise and whilst out with the hunt he had a fall and sustained a compound fracture of his arm. Whilst recovering from this mishap, he developed tetanus and died on 4 December 1864, at his home in Ackworth. He died only months after his great triumph at the Newcastle ploughing trial, at age 38.
His brothers Robert, William and Barnard had joined him in the business he had founded and they continued to run the firm after his death. Fowler's method of ploughing continued to be used until well into the twentieth century when the internal combustion engine allowed the development of light but powerful tractors that could draw a plough behind them.
A monument to John Fowler's invention of the steam plough was placed on his father-in-law's Pierremont estate in 1856, but was moved in 1870 to South Park, Darlington. The plinth may still be seen there, but the plough that it supported disappeared in 1970. | <urn:uuid:77f8c98a-73ae-4247-946f-669b068b4a42> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://popflock.com/learn?s=John_Fowler_(agricultural_engineer) | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00242.warc.gz | en | 0.984143 | 2,786 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
0.3069233298301697,
0.3408834636211395,
0.5274479985237122,
0.26988279819488525,
0.2593276798725128,
-0.3022289276123047,
-0.2183842658996582,
0.16200396418571472,
-0.26142364740371704,
0.09861813485622406,
-0.21303421258926392,
-0.8693002462387085,
-0.014079198241233826,
-0.07389897853136... | 1 | |Born||11 July 1826|
|Died||4 December 1864 (aged 38)|
Ackworth, Yorkshire, England
|Elizabeth Lucy Pease|
|Parent(s)||John and Rebecca Fowler|
John Fowler (11 July 1826 - 4 December 1864) was an English agricultural engineer who was a pioneer in the use of steam engines for ploughing and digging drainage channels. His inventions significantly reduced the cost of ploughing farmland, and also enabled the drainage of previously uncultivated land in many parts of the world.
Fowler was born in Melksham, Wiltshire. His father, John Fowler senior was a wealthy Quaker merchant, who had married Rebecca Hull, and together they had three daughters and five sons, of whom Fowler was the third son. When he left school Fowler followed his father's wishes and began working for a local corn merchant, but when he came of age in 1847 he turned his back on the corn business and joined the engineering firm of Gilkes Wilson and Company of Middlesbrough. Amongst other things, the company was involved in building steam locomotives and colliery winding engines. The company built a number of locomotives for the Stockton and Darlington Railway.
Fowler might have remained with the Middlesbrough firm and made his reputation there, had it not been for a chance visit to Ireland in 1849, probably on business. This was at the time of the Irish potato famine, and Irish agriculture depended on the potato crop whilst much of the land was uncultivated due to poor drainage. This affected Fowler and he was convinced that there must be a way of bringing more land into production. The normal way to drain agricultural land was to use a mole plough to dig a subterranean drainage channel. The mole plough has a vertical blade with a cylindrical "mole" attached to the bottom. The mole is pointed at the front end, and as it moves through the soil, it leaves a horizontal channel into which porous drainage pipes can be laid. However this required considerable tractive power, so that the size of the plough was limited by the strength of the teams of horses that pulled it. Fowler returned to England and developed a horse-powered ploughing engine that would dig drainage channels.
Fowler's ploughing engine dragged itself across the field on rollers, pulling the mole plough as it went. The engine was driven by a team of horses that walked round a capstan, winding in a rope which was passed through a pulley securely anchored at the far end of the field. The mole would have a string of drainage pipes attached at the rear end and these would be dragged through the channel created by the mole. On completing each length of drains, the engine would be turned, the rope would be let out and the pulley repositioned ready for the next length. Fowler had trouble with the capstan gears and with the rope slipping on the capstan, but was able to demonstrate his engine at a meeting of the Royal Agricultural Society of England at Exeter in 1850. He was able to lay a drain at a depth of 2 ft 6 in (0.76 m) in heavy clay. His invention was awarded a silver medal and was reported as "altogether the most important feature of the exhibition."
Fowler then decided to change his design so that the horse engine remained stationary at the corner of the field. The team of horses drove a vertical winch around which a rope was wound. The rope would pass along the edge of the field to a securely anchored pulley and would then pass at right angles across the field to the mole plough. As the horses drove the winch, the rope would drag the mole plough across the field, digging a drainage channel and inserting a length of drainage pipes. When each length had been completed, the pulley would be moved to a new position, the rope would be let out and the plough would be taken to the far side of the field, ready to start the next channel. The design was a vast improvement on the previous one, in that the horsepower was not being expended in dragging the machine across the field, only the plough. Fowler demonstrated his new drainage plough at the Great Exhibition in 1851 and at the Royal Agricultural Society of England meeting at Gloucester in 1853, where he was awarded another silver medal. He was able to lay drains to a depth of 3 ft 6 in (1.07 m).
In his early career, Fowler had worked with steam engines and the logical progression was to apply this method of power to his drainage plough. This he did in 1852 when he designed a steam engine with a winch mounted out in front of the smoke box and a rope running from it, round a pulley anchored at the far side of the field and back to the engine. The engine pulled itself across the field, dragging the mole plough behind it. The design was therefore similar to his first design for the horse-powered plough. The experiment was a failure because the steam engine proved to be too heavy to move easily over soft ground. However, in the same year, on 21 October, Fowler was awarded patent number 480 for "Improvements in Machinery for draining land", believed to be one of the first patents for the use of steam power in agriculture.
Following the failure of his first steam-driven plough, Fowler reverted to the design used for his second horse-driven plough. His new design consisted of a steam engine placed in a corner of the field driving a winch. A rope led from the winch along the side of the field, around a securely anchored pulley and across the field to the mole plough. As the winch drew in the rope the mole plough was drawn across the field digging a drainage channel as it went. The engine also had a second winch with a rope passing round the same anchored pulley and then passing across the field and around a second pulley and back to the plough. This second rope would be used to drag the plough back to its starting point after completing a drainage line. Both pulleys would then be re-anchored at both ends of the next channel to be dug and the ploughing process would be repeated. The steam plough was demonstrated at the Royal Agricultural Society of England meeting at Lincoln in 1854.
It seemed an obvious progression to use Fowler's latest steam-driven plough for normal ploughing, rather than just drainage channels. However normal ploughing was much lighter work that could be achieved perfectly well by a team of horses and in comparison the steam-driven plough was rather cumbersome. One way of improving the plough's efficiency would be to design a plough that could plough in either direction without having to be turned round. Fowler achieved this by designing a frame for the plough that had two ploughs attached as a kind of see-saw. One of the two plough blades would be swung down to make contact with the soil, depending on the direction the plough was to travel. At the end of each furrow the anchored pulleys would be moved slightly ready for the next furrow.
The firm of Ransome and Sims built the new engine at its Orwell works at Ipswich, and on 10 April 1856 a trial was carried out at Nacton in which 1 acre was ploughed in an hour. Despite the fact that the engine and plough coped well with the task, the effort of re-positioning the pulleys at either end of the field was too time-consuming.
Fowler got round the above problem by using a weighted cart with a pulley mounted beneath the frame. The cart had disc wheels that dug into the ground so that the cart acted as an anchor for the pulley. Two carts would be placed at opposite ends of the furrow so as to pull the plough in either direction, and after completing a furrow, the carts would be winched to the position for the next furrow.
Fowler's modified ploughing system was demonstrated at the Royal Agricultural Society of England meeting at Chelmsford in 1856. and at the following meeting at Salisbury in 1857. In 1854 the R.A.S.E. had offered a £200 prize for the best system of mechanical cultivation, and this had since been raised to £500. At Chelmsford, Fowler's ploughing system was pitted against a rival ploughing system designed by John Smith of Woolston. Smith's design did not fulfil all of the judges' conditions and it was disqualified. Fowler's system worked very well, but the estimated cost of his work was 7s 2½d per acre as against 7s for horse ploughing. The judges therefore decided not to award the prize, a bitter disappointment for Fowler who thought that the superior speed of his system over horse ploughing should have been taken into account.
A similar trial was held at the R.A.S.E. meeting at Salisbury in 1857, but again the prize was withheld. However, Fowler did receive £200 awarded by the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, after a trial at Stirling that same year, despite the judges agreeing that the sole entrant had not exactly fulfilled the conditions the efforts were impressive. Fowler returned to contest the R.A.S.E. ploughing trial at Chester in 1858. He was opposed by a number of competitors but was successful in being awarded the £500 prize.
On 30 July 1857 Fowler married his third cousin (once removed), Elizabeth Lucy (1833-1881), fifth child of Joseph Pease, MP for South Durham. Joseph Pease was a wealthy Quaker from Darlington who had supported his father Edward Pease's proposal for the Stockton and Darlington Railway. Fowler had become more closely acquainted with the Pease family when he was working at Middlesbrough. Fowler and his wife settled at Havering in Essex and had five children: Emma Mary Fowler (4 May 1858 - 13 Dec 1939), Edith Rebecca Fowler (15 Oct 1859 - 6 Dec 1895), Laura Elizabeth Fowler (16 Mar 1861 - 11 Oct 1941), John Ernest Fowler (3 Jan 1863 - 21 Apr 1884), Lucy Pease Fowler (25 Apr 1864 - 22 Aug 1909).
In 1856 Fowler filed a patent relating to a method of ploughing using two self-moving engines, placed at opposite ends of the field and each using a winch to draw a plough backwards and forwards between them. This system did away with the need for pulleys and anchors, but was more expensive in that it required two engines, only one of which was working at a time. It is believed that Fowler persevered with his single-engine ploughing system because it was cheaper and he saw it as more affordable for average farmer. Eventually the double-engine ploughing method superseded the single-engine system that had won the prize at Chester. Because of its expense it was normally operated by contractors.
Fowler first showed his double-engine system of ploughing at the R.A.S.E. ploughing trial at Worcester in 1863. He competed in 1864 in Newcastle upon Tyne competing against a ploughing system designed by his great rivals, the Howard brothers of Bedford. Fowler's system carried off every prize.
Between 1850 and 1864 Fowler took out in his own name and in partnership with other persons thirty-two patents for ploughs and ploughing apparatus, reaping machines, seed drills, traction engines, slide valves, the laying of electric telegraph cables, and the making of bricks and tiles.
By 1858 Fowler had forty sets of ploughing tackle in use, and by 1861 he had one hundred sets working. From 1860 the manufacture of the ploughing machinery was carried out by the firm of Kitson and Hewitson of Leeds.
In 1862 Fowler formed a partnership with William Watson Hewitson of the above firm and founded Hewitson and Fowler based at Hunslet. A year later Hewitson died and the firm became John Fowler and Company. Fowler's ploughing sets were sold all over the world and were responsible for bringing land into production that was previously unable to be cultivated.
Fowler had worked so hard in developing his ideas that he had undermined his health. He was advised to take more rest and so he retired to Ackworth in Yorkshire, to recuperate. He was persuaded to take up hunting as a way of getting exercise and whilst out with the hunt he had a fall and sustained a compound fracture of his arm. Whilst recovering from this mishap, he developed tetanus and died on 4 December 1864, at his home in Ackworth. He died only months after his great triumph at the Newcastle ploughing trial, at age 38.
His brothers Robert, William and Barnard had joined him in the business he had founded and they continued to run the firm after his death. Fowler's method of ploughing continued to be used until well into the twentieth century when the internal combustion engine allowed the development of light but powerful tractors that could draw a plough behind them.
A monument to John Fowler's invention of the steam plough was placed on his father-in-law's Pierremont estate in 1856, but was moved in 1870 to South Park, Darlington. The plinth may still be seen there, but the plough that it supported disappeared in 1970. | 2,922 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Senator Joe McCarthy and his Red Scare was one of the last “witch hunts” to take place in the United States. McCarthy’s tactics in his search for communists led to the destruction of his already weak reputation while he was in office. It is often taught that McCarthy was an overzealous madman that was out for fame and glory without concern for who he hurt. The purpose of this paper is not to show McCarthy as “a good guy”; rather, it is to show him in a different light. Even though McCarthy’s methods were reprehensible, given new information released by the Soviet Union he was not far from his mark. Yet, in order to understand how McCarthy was able to gain his power, one must understand the time and in which he rose to power.
The first Red Scare that took place in the United States happened around the time of 1919, shortly after the First World War. During this time, the American people began to become restless and unsure of how to live in a time of peace. Yet, prior to this restless peace that plagued the people, the government established legislation that would help shape the impending 1919 Red Scare. During the time of the war, there was distrust among the people, and it showed in legislation that was passed. The government had set up many different sedition and espionage acts during the war in order to control disloyalty to the country.
In 1917 the first act to be passed was the Espionage Act, which allowed the government to fine and charge a person for something as small as libel against the military. Then came the Sedition Act of 1918, which seemed to deal with sedition problems more directly than any others. It was used to bring charges against people that spoke against the government itself. Lastly came the most important piece of legislation, which was passed in October 1918. The Aliens act essentially stated that, “All aliens who were anarchists or believed in the violent overthrow of the American government or advocated the assassination of public officials were henceforth to be excluded from admission into the United States” (Murray 14). These acts set the stage for the hysteria that would follow and cause the Red Scare to begin.
The first crusader in the fight against the Reds was Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Palmer was famous for his Palmer Raids and his ruthlessness against communists. During Palmer’s time there was a Coalminer’s’ strike, which turned out to be the opportunity that Palmer was waiting for. This strike was organized by the Union of Russian Workers. This union was founded in 1907 and contained people that were “atheists, communists and anarchists” (Murray 196). Their desire to overturn the government made them the perfect target for the sedition acts enacted by the government. Under this legislation, Palmer and his raiders went in and confiscated truckloads of propaganda from this organization. Over 200 men and women were violently removed from the premises. This is just one example of Palmer’s many raids. Palmer’s actions were just the start to the nationwide hysteria that would sweep into people’s homes.
Next to come within this hysteria was Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. McCarthy’s Red Scare did not come until around twenty-eight years after Palmer’s. McCarthy and Palmer were quite different from one another despite their mutual goal to drive out communism. Palmer was the Attorneys General while McCarthy was a Senator. Aside from this difference, their leadership styles differed. Palmer preferred action while McCarthy preferred words; Palmer led his raids while McCarthy distanced himself. When Palmer was “fighting” during his Red Scare, he had political support because most of his claims were backed by hard evidence. McCarthy, on the other hand, had little to no evidence, and that is what hurt his investigations, his popularity, and his reputation. McCarthy’s Red Scare came to be considered a “Witch Hunt”.
The reason it was called a Witch Hunt was because no one was safe. During his time, McCarthy attacked people within politics and people outside of the realms of politics. He went as far as going after Hollywood actors and actresses. McCarthy went after many big names of the time; yet, he unfortunately was going after the wrong ones. There were those, such as Charlie Chaplin, that were both powerful and did take part in the Hollywood Communist party, whom McCarthy never pursued.
One of the most damning and immortalizing works on how people viewed McCarthy’s actions as a witch hunt is the play The Crucible. This play is about the witch trials that took place in Salem, Massachusetts. The Crucible, written by Arthur Miller, was a response to McCarthyism and how outrageous it became. It was believed at the time that McCarthy was a crazy, power hungry man. Yet in later years, it has been seen with the opening of Soviet documents and the Venona files that perhaps McCarthy was not all that wrong after all.
So what was the Red Scare? “Red Scare was a period of general fear of communists” (“Red Scare” def. 1). The Red Scare was more than just that simple definition; it was a mass hysteria that caused misunderstandings and hate amongst the people. The last Red Scare was both powered by politics and national emotions. The Red Scare of 1974 took place during the Cold War. The people did not seem to understand that the way the United States’ social network is set up made a hostile takeover impossible. The country’s society was far too complex and fluid to get enough people to help in the communist cause. Even though it probably crossed some minds at the time, the fear from the war caused radicals to become more powerful than they should have been. So the public believed they needed protection from the Reds coming to overthrow the government.
Demagogues are able to use fear to gain power for themselves or their causes. This is exactly what McCarthy did while he was Senator. Yet in order to understand the issue, it is important to understand the man and where he came from.
Joseph R. McCarthy was born November 14, 1908 in the small town of Grand Chute, Wisconsin. His whole family was from this small town. His grandfather was an Irish immigrant who settled in the area after first going to New York. While there, Stephen McCarthy married a Bavarian immigrant named Margaret Stoffel. This was unusual for the time because normally Irish did not marry outside of the Irish community. Yet they lived a happy full life together. They had ten children, and Tim McCarthy, who was Joseph McCarthy’s father, was the son that received one portion of their land after they died. Tim went on to marry Bridget Tierney, and they lived a simple life surrounded by Tim McCarthy’s brothers and sister.
Tim and Bridget were the parents of Joseph McCarthy, who was their fifth child. McCarthy was his mother’s favorite because of his appearance. McCarthy was described as a “gawky ugly duckling” (Oshinsky 3). The emotional abuse about his looks led to McCarthy’s many fights. He usually lost, and would go to his mother for comfort. This “coddling”, as his father called it, was why people believed him to be the favorite son of his mother.
There are two different theories on how McCarthy’s childhood actually was. One was very sad and dark, while the other was happy and normal for the time. The first theory was that his life was dark and lonely. In this theory, McCarthy was a chubby boy abused by his peers, namely his brothers; this caused him to be rather shy. Also the fact that he was picked on by his older brothers caused him to be something of a mama’s boy in need of her comfort and protection. McCarthy’s father frowned upon this favoritism, whom thought little of the boy and wanted him to learn to take care of himself. It was also stated that McCarthy’s mother’s “coddling” him caused friction between the parents. This childhood could not have been an easy one, and may have led to McCarthy wishing to get away from his family and never look back. Yet there are many contradictions to that theory once McCarthy’s older years are examined.
The book, A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy, by David Oshinsky, had a different take on what McCarthy’s family life was like while he was growing up. The story told here showed McCarthy had a mostly happy childhood. The McCarthy brothers were rough with each other but did not single out little Joe. Oshinsky also suggests that McCarthy was probably his father’s favorite as well as his mother’s. The reasoning behind this was his father believed in a hardworking, no nonsense type of living, and Joe McCarthy was a hard worker. Tim McCarthy expected his sons to be hard workers both in everyday life and on the farm. In the town of Grand Chute, the ability to do hard work was a kind of rite of passage into manhood. “Today sports and school are important. But not then. That was a different time” (Oshinsky 6). So, it is more likely that McCarthy lived a happy, normal life while growing up. Also it was believed that he was a hyperactive youngster. His overwhelming energy may have affected his policy making.
When McCarthy reached the age of fourteen, he dropped out of school in order to help out on the family farm. This was a very big disappointment for his mother. Yet during this time, getting a high school degree in Grand Chute was not a high priority. McCarthy also was not that interested in getting a high school diploma, so he worked on the family farm. His lack of enthusiasm about school may have been a disappointment to his mother, but was not discouraging to his father, who was more than happy to get another worker to help out on the farm. Yet McCarthy’s mother knew that he was meant for something greater.
McCarthy did not last long working on the family farm. He decided to go into business for himself. McCarthy’s small business was raising chickens and he did well for himself. About a year after McCarthy started his business, he had an accident and lost a good portion of his chickens, then became sick and was unable to save his business. Eventually he left Grand Chute to work at a Manawa county grocer at the age of twenty. Even though he was attached to his family and his home town, he was ready to get out and see the rest of the world. While he was in Manawa, Wisconsin, McCarthy was convinced to return to school. The people around him had seen how intelligent he was; they recognized he was destined for greater things than just working in a local grocer. So he attended Little Wolf High School at the age of twenty one. McCarthy proved his intelligence when he was able to finish his entire high school career in a year. After achieving this great accomplishment, McCarthy’s next step was to enter college.
In the year 1930, McCarthy entered Marquette College. He did this for financial and religious reasons. The Great Depression was going on during this time, and it was hard for people of McCarthy’s financial status to enter college; yet he made it work. So Marquette was the perfect choice for McCarthy because it was one of the less expensive colleges for that time. McCarthy started out his freshman year studying engineering, but he switched to law, because he found engineering to be boring. Another reason he switched to law was because all of his best friends were studying law and it seemed to be right for him. He joined the law fraternity, Delta Theta Phi, and served as a bailiff from 1934 to 1935. He proved to be a hard worker in and out of the classroom, and received his degree in 1935. He moved to Waupaca County just north of Appleton. He had a master plan when he got there: he was going to set up his own practice, get himself known, and then run for political office. This was an ambitious and challenging way to live life, but McCarthy would settle for no less. He opened his own practice, which was hard because of the Depression; but he was able to make it work and did his best. To advance his political career, he joined the Junior Chamber of Commerce softball team, sold tickets for political events and became a chairman on the Lions Club Harvest Committee. All of these were small political actions, but were the only options he had in such a small area. Most of the people in Waupaca remember McCarthy as “sloppy and disorganized” (Oshinsky 17). Yet he did not let his habits prevent him from bettering himself.
After only a year in Waupaca, McCarthy was finally able to further his goals. Mike Eberlein came and offered McCarthy a job at his firm in Shawano. This was a good political move for McCarthy. It was in this town that McCarthy tried his hand in more than college government. The same year that he arrived in Shawano, he ran for district attorney as the democratic incumbent. It came as no surprise to anyone that he lost the election, but it was good experience for him. McCarthy ran in this race for experience and to garner public attention. His platform was focused on the idea that the needs of the county were more important than his personal needs. So if McCarthy lost the race, all that mattered was that the county received the best district attorney. This position earned McCarthy mixed reviews, but got him the attention that he wanted. He waited and plotted before he made any other attempts to run for political position.
McCarthy waited two years before he tried for another political office. This time, he was running for circuit judgeship. The only problem McCarthy faced was that his friend and mentor, Mike Eberlein, had wanted to run for the judgeship for years. McCarthy was torn between loyalty and what was best. McCarthy believed that Mike Eberlein did not have a chance against the “powerful incumbent” (Oshinsky 19). McCarthy needed to come up with a way to run without running against his friend. So he announced that he was running for the judgeship without telling Mike Eberlein and did so before Mike Eberlein could announce his wishes. This little act caused the friendship to become very strained. Their relationship did not improve until after McCarthy became Senator (Oshinsky 20).
McCarthy still had to win against Edgar Werner, who was more experienced. The main advantage that McCarthy had over Werner was age. Werner was unpopular with the younger generation of lawyers, and that was damning to his campaign. Despite this advantage, McCarthy still needed to find some way to get ahead of his opponent. So McCarthy went about attacking Werner’s age and his salary. According to legend, McCarthy found Werner’s birth certificate, which proved that Werner was younger than he claimed to be. McCarthy needed something to make his opponent look bad in order to get votes. Werner rebutted McCarthy’s story by showing that the birth certificate that McCarthy had was wrong. When this tactic failed, McCarthy still needed to go after Werner. He did this by attacking Werner’s salary. McCarthy pointed out that Werner made a good amount of money and should just retire.
In the end, McCarthy won the election and took office without really talking about his legal practices. This defeat led Werner to retire, feeling humiliated. McCarthy had shown very little respect for this man who had served his community to the best of his ability. This was the second time in McCarthy’s career where he showed that he could be ruthless and did not care who was hurt as long as he got what he wanted.
McCarthy took office at the age of twenty-nine, making him the youngest circuit judge in decades. Unfortunately, his judgeship was met with a lot of controversy. More importantly, he became bored with the judgeship because it was not politically “big” enough for him. So he decided to join the Marines and go to war. He did not have to do this because of his political position, but his boredom got the better of him and off to war he went.
While in the war, McCarthy’s true colors started to show. He only wanted to get into the war to help his political career. He did this quite sufficiently – by lying. He lied about how many missions he had been on in order to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross. This was just one of the many ploys that he pulled to help himself look better to the people back home. One of his fellow captains tried to show the people what a disgrace McCarthy really was; unfortunately no one listened to him. The people around McCarthy knew he was very interested in going to Washington D.C. and being part of the government, and for some reason, they supported him.
In 1944, while still at war, McCarthy ran for the seat of Wisconsin Senator. This was met with some opposition because he still held the office of the circuit judge back home. It was stated in Wisconsin law that McCarthy should not hold another office, because he would neglect the one that he already held. This was what the secretary of state thought, but he was overruled by the attorney general, who allowed McCarthy to run. McCarthy ran knowing that he had no way of winning; he just did it, as he had before to get the experience. But where did McCarthy get all of his money for the campaign?
“Under Wisconsin law, a candidate could not contribute more than $5,000 to his own campaign” (Oshinsky 35). McCarthy lacked a lot of supporters willing to help pay for his campaign. Yet McCarthy had one of the best funded campaigns in Wisconsin history. The way he did this was by putting money given to his campaign under the names of people in his family. This was one of many ways McCarthy abused the system. Even so, all of the money and prestige that he received in the war was not enough to help him. He also tried to get out of paying taxes while running for senator; but in the end he paid them with interest. He was proving himself an unreliable and untrustworthy man. The defeat for the senatorship did not discourage McCarthy, but it ultimately led to his decision to leave the armed forces.
McCarthy asked for another leave from the war in 1944, claiming that he needed to return and take care of his judiciary duties. This leave was denied, and led to McCarthy getting his official discharge and leaving his post in 1945. He did this not for his judgeship or the people that he was serving, but for himself. There was another Senate seat about to be “up for grabs,” and McCarthy was not going to miss it. Once out of the war, McCarthy started planning his 1946 campaign.
McCarthy did not have an easy time running for the senate seat. He had to choose which political party was really the one he wanted to be a part of. When McCarthy started in politics, he was in favor of the New Deal and very much a Democrat. Yet, when running for the circuit judge, he ran as a Republican. In the end, he ran on the Republican ticket and had to change his ideals. He went from supporting the ideals of the New Deal to becoming very conservative against the very thing he once supported. These Republican ideals became his belief until he died years later.
McCarthy won the Senate election for 1946. McCarthy’s victory could have been considered a landslide, with his winning all but two of the counties within his running district. This victory was almost a two to one margin, which was quite an accomplishment.
McCarthy’s first two years as Senator were quite good. He was mostly well liked and got things done, though there were a few senators who disliked him. The disdain that McCarthy received from fellow senators earned him a poor reputation in and out of the government. His bad reputation was slowly defeating him, and the lack of support from his fellow Republicans really hurt his pride. The most important issue McCarthy faced was the loss of popularity with his constituents back home. He needed to find a way to win back their hearts or face not getting re-elected. So began his nationwide attack on the Communist threat within the country.
McCarthy started his dark path against the communists with his famous Wheeling speech. McCarthy gave this speech at a dinner being hosted by the Ohio County Women’s Republic Club. The speech was a clever campaign strategy that McCarthy used to bring attention to himself. In this speech, McCarthy claimed that there were around two hundred and five government workers that were working for the Communist regime. McCarthy’s speech was yet another sign of how corrupt McCarthy was because his speech was plagiarized from one given to the House earlier that year. In fact, Richard Nixon gave the same speech to the House of Representatives earlier that year.
McCarthy’s Wheeling speech became one of his claims to fame and the start of his Red Scare. The speech did not receive the national attention that McCarthy desired, but he would not let the subject die. While in Salt Lake City, Utah, he restated that he had a list of people in the government that were a threat to the American way. While giving this speech, his lie seemed to grow; he now claimed that he had two hundred and seven names of communist conspirators. This was only two more than the original number; it seemed like a small thing, but it was only the beginning. The small lie showed that McCarthy was willing to exaggerate to get attention.
Another part of McCarthy’s Wheeling speech that was shocking was his blatant attack on Secretary of Defense George Catlett Marshall. McCarthy’s speech was made into a book a year later: America’s Retreat from Victory. The book aired dirty laundry on Marshall. While McCarthy’s actions may seem deceitful, he was not wrong about the things he was saying about Marshall and his secrets. Yet, he was going after a very popular man and was warned about doing so: “Marshall has been built into a great hero in the eyes of the people that you will destroy yourself politically if you lay hands on the laurels of this great man” (McCarthy 3). This warning did not stop him, nor did it really come to fruition, and McCarthy became an unstoppable force. With the Wheeling speech and McCarthy’s book against Marshall and the Marshall Plan, McCarthy started his Red Scare Witch Hunt.
This witch hunt began in the state department, where McCarthy said most of the “spies” were located. When investigations began many lives were destroyed. People were put on trial, and it hurt their reputations, many lost their jobs. These people were accused of disloyalty and treason. No one was killed for their “crime,” but many lost their jobs, and some even lost their families. It is true that some of the people charged were actually guilty, but more were not.
Another problem was McCarthy and his blacklisting of people. Blacklisting led to the destruction of the lives of people who had no direct connection to politics; they were just very outspoken in their opinions. Many of the people that were blacklisted were people that worked in the entertainment business. Many actors and actresses were put on these lists, proving that McCarthy would go after anyone. Communism had actually been a strong presence in Hollywood since probably before World War Two. In the article “Red Hollywood”, it is revealed that high ranking writers and actors in Hollywood were sympathetic to the communist cause dating back to at least 1934, if not earlier. It was Stalin’s desire to use Hollywood to help overthrow the Capitalist government of the United States. Even actors such as Charlie Chaplin were for communism. Chaplin’s support went so far as stating, “Thank God for Communism” (Jeffreys 3).
The Hollywood Communist party was the first to come up with idea of blacklisting before the government got to it. They blacklisted actors such as John Wayne and even the future president Ronald Reagan. It was not until 1947 that McCarthy and the government really looked into the lives of the Hollywood communists. The investigation only came up with nineteen communist followers that were in the Hollywood folds. These nineteen people were even able to gain sympathy from famous people such as Katharine Hepburn. The nineteen of them were able to convince people that McCarthy was wrongly accusing them. They said that the government was trying to impinge on their right to freedom of speech. Yet it was later revealed that all nineteen were in fact communists.
Nine of the accused came clean about what they were doing while ten refused to do so; these ten came to be known as the ‘Hollywood Ten’. These ten were then sentenced to one year in prison for the crime of contempt of court. After these trials, Hollywood put a ban on hiring anyone who was even thought to be a communist. The ban brought destruction to the lives of many, even those who were not communists. With these changes, the careers of the ‘Hollywood Ten’ should have ended as well; yet this was not the case. Many of the communists were protected by friends and family and went on to become even more famous. One such instance was with the screenwriter, Dalton Trumbo, who was able to win an Oscar after the whole ordeal. This story is just one example of how McCarthy and his tactics hurt the fight against communism more than anything else.
After McCarthy’s claims that the State Department was and had been employing people that were questionable, an all-out investigation was started. This investigation was handled by the Tydings Committee, headed by democratic senator Millard Tydings. The Tydings committee was a subcommittee to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, founded in 1950. The committee’s main objective was to looking into McCarthy’s claims about disloyalty in the State Department. The unspoken objective was the desire to put an end to “McCarthy’s charges” (Buckley 67) and stop McCarthy before more damage could be done. With this newly appointed task, out of the Tydings Committee came the famous nine public cases that brought McCarthy a great deal of power.
McCarthy had dug himself into a hole with his Wheeling speech and subsequent speeches that followed. He kept getting into trouble because he kept changing the number of communist spies. Finally, in front of the Senate, he said that there were eighty-one people on his list. Yet there were many who did not fully believe him and kept asking him for the actual names of the people that he was bringing charges against. He at first was very reluctant to reveal these names, but in the end nine names were given and nine cases were publicly tried by the Tydings Committee. These nine cases made McCarthy famous.
McCarthy did not necessarily have strong cases against all of the nine accused; he had reasonable doubt in the character of all of them. Yet he did have a good case against one man, Owen Lattimore. Lattimore was known for writing pro-communist papers and was even friends with known communist party members. The committee did not see it that way, though, and in the end said that McCarthy’s condemning witness nothing more than a person speaking hearsay and that Lattimore was cleared of all charges. This pattern held true for all nine of the public cases: the Tydings Committee would hear the testimony, and then clear the people that were being charged. The Tydings Committee’s final verdict was that McCarthy’s claims were just a “fraud and a hoax” (Buckley 62). But this was not the end to McCarthy and his fight against communism.
McCarthy also faced other opposition from within the government. President Truman was in office during McCarthy’s rise to power and watched with deep misgivings about the situation. At the time, Truman’s administration was unsure how to respond to McCarthy’s claims; they could either examine his findings, or ignore McCarthy’s claims. Either way was a trap. The first way would indicate that McCarthy was not lying, and give the nation reason to believe that there was substance to the claims of disloyalty within the State Department. The second option could potentially have looked like a cover up, which the administration did not need, as the people already mistrusted them for past issues. In the end, they allowed the investigations to take place, in hopes of quieting McCarthy. But Truman had to deal with McCarthy much more than he had ever wanted. Truman was often asked: “Does State know if McCarthy has anything the House of Representatives didn’t have two years ago?” (Oshinsky 111). Truman became furious at the implication that a Senator was able to get his hands on information that even the House was unable to obtain. He was angry enough to write a letter to McCarthy about what he thought, but an assistant, thankfully, stopped him from sending it. The assistant warned Truman that the tone of the letter was damaging and that not everything that was in it was based on fact. Sending the letter would have hurt Truman more than it would have helped him, and could possibly have destroyed his credibility. So though Truman disliked McCarthy, he had no choice but to sit by and hope for the best.
The next president to deal with McCarthy was Dwight Eisenhower, who took office in 1953. Eisenhower’s victory was one that brought change, because he was the first Republican to be elected in twenty years. He even had gone campaigning with McCarthy through Wisconsin. This was a bad experience for Eisenhower, who developed a great dislike for McCarthy. He had actually tried to escape McCarthy by having Wisconsin taken off of his campaign itinerary, but the Republican National Committee would not allow it.
While on this part of his campaign trail, Eisenhower stated that he did not agree with McCarthy’s methods, but by the end he had to be careful not to touch the subject because McCarthy was rude in return. While campaigning with McCarthy, Eisenhower was faced with a personal issue. McCarthy had, and still was openly attacking Marshall and his plan. While on the trail Eisenhower refused to defend Marshall from McCarthy for fear of what McCarthy might do to him. This refusal caused Eisenhower personal injury and the loss of respect from others. People started questioning his courage. This unfortunately was not the last time that Eisenhower stood by and allowed McCarthy free reign.
While Eisenhower was in power, the Senate appointed McCarthy chairman of a committee in order to try and appease him during his second term as Senator. McCarthy was made chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operation. The Senate gave him this position in the hopes that McCarthy could do no more harm than he already had in that job. It was becoming clear that even Senators within McCarthy’s own party were starting to fear just how far McCarthy was willing to go. So they were trying to stop him in the only way they knew how. Unfortunately, the Committee of which McCarthy was chair had the subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Investigation, which McCarthy used to full advantage by further investigating for communists within the government itself.
Not all of McCarthy’s opposition came from his fellow Senators or inside the government. He faced many people that held positions of power in the media, particularly, that did not agree with his actions. One of McCarthy’s most persistent attackers was Robert C. Hartnett, S.J. (Society of Jesuit). Hartnett was the editor in chief of the magazine, America, during the McCarthy era. Hartnett was not a fearful man, and held his own opinions higher than that of others. He proved this by attacking McCarthy while others were too afraid to do so. He seemed to have the same up and down career as McCarthy did. While McCarthy was in office and going after communists, Hartnett was going after McCarthy. While McCarthy was facing problems with fellow senators, Hartnett was facing issues with fellow Catholics. It seemed that during this era, Catholics agreed with McCarthy and supported him. This caused problems in Hartnett’s fight against McCarthy, but it did not stop him. Yet in the end, both men seemed to be losing everything. When McCarthy and McCarthyism came to an end, so did Hartnett’s anti-McCarthy writings. It was said that Hartnett seemed to be living in a fog – that he was very confused. The most heartbreaking similarity between the two men was that when they left their jobs, they left with no friends and extremely exhausted.
The most famous attacks against McCarthy came from Edward Murrow. Murrow, along with co-producer Fred Friendly, publicized SEE IT NOW, a report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. This report was really a retaliation against McCarthy for an unspoken threat that he and his people made against Murrow. Earlier in his life, Murrow helped sponsor a seminar on “American Professors Trained by Soviets, Teach in U.S. Schools,” (Oshinsky 398); this apparently made him a threat to McCarthy and his cause. McCarthy never openly said anything about Murrow, but the threat was still there, and Murrow refused to sit in fear. So he went on air and openly attacked McCarthy’s methods for his fight against Communism. This episode contained mainly video clips of McCarthy, but nonetheless got the point across: “this is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent” (Oshinsky 399). It was also not the only episode of See It Now that was dedicated to anti-McCarthy propaganda. It was, however, the See It Now episode that would become the most famous, with its immortalized send off, “good night and good luck.” Years later, this story was turned into the movie Good Night, and Good Luck.
The last and just as famous attack on McCarthy came from the playwright, Arthur Miller. Miller’s attack was not as open as the other two but was just as powerful. He critiqued McCarthy in his play, The Crucible. The play was meant as a parallel to the Red Scare. The plot was based on the Salem Witch Hunts. This was Miller’s way of saying that what McCarthy was doing was nothing more than a modern day witch hunt. But McCarthy’s methods soon gained a name of their own: McCarthyism.
The term McCarthyism was coined during this time, possibly during the nine public cases. McCarthyism is a derogatory term that means to wrongfully accuse someone of wrong doing or disloyalty. This term was extremely damaging for McCarthy because it was derived from his own name. The term of McCarthyism now seems to mean a time of hysteria that brings out the worst in people. With it comes a time when brother will give up brother to protect himself from some unseen force attacking his homeland. McCarthy’s ability to use words to strike fear into people was one of his strong points, but McCarthy’s inability to stop while ahead was also his undoing.
McCarthy’s “fatal” action was his attack on the United States army. McCarthy had been receiving information that something was amiss within the Army Signal Corps at Fort Monmouth. It was when he started his investigation that he signed his own political death warrant. His “death blow” came when he was interrogating General Zwicker. Zwicker was a hero from World War Two, another national hero that McCarthy went after openly and without remorse. While McCarthy was questioning Zwicker, a fight began to brew. McCarthy asked loaded questions and snapped when Zwicker answered in kind. Near the end of the question session, McCarthy started asking questions about Zwicker’s former superior that Zwicker could not answer without incriminating himself. It was then that McCarthy ruined himself. He openly attacked Zwicker’s intelligence and told him that he was not worthy of wearing a uniform. When Zwicker’s superiors – superiors the White House – heard about this incident, it brought McCarthy’s career to an end.
McCarthy added yet another nail to his coffin with an outburst during the Army-McCarthy hearings. These hearings were the Army’s retaliation to McCarthy’s wrongful treatment of top members of the United States Army. The Committee hoped to learn whether McCarthy and his committee had gone too far, and whether there were members of the Army that tried to either blackmail or bribe their way out of McCarthy’s investigations. These investigations did not end well for McCarthy; he showed his true colors while Roy Cohn, one of his fellow members on the subcommittee, was on the stand. Joe Welch was questioning Cohn; his line of questioning was about Cohn’s belief. He was asking what Cohn believed about getting rid of the communist problem and how fast he was willing to do so, and when he asked the question: “And whenever you learn of them from now on, Mr. Cohn, I beg of you, will you tell somebody about them quick?” (Oshinsky 461), all hell broke loose. McCarthy jumped into the questioning and started attacking Welch. Welch tried to get McCarthy to listen to him but was unable to sooth the rampaging beast that McCarthy had become. Welch finally stopped his line of questions and told McCarthy to call his next witness. This was considered to be one of the cruelest things that McCarthy had ever done. Later on Welch admitted that he was almost in tears because of the way McCarthy was treating him. McCarthy’s outburst cost him dearly.
McCarthy was in the end censured by his fellow senators and left the senate feeling betrayed and mistreated. At his last meeting with his subcommittee, he let out his frustration by making himself into a martyr. His last order of business was to apologize to the public for failing to take down the communist problem within the nation. McCarthy was humiliated by the censure, but his physical decline was even more of a problem. He stopped caring about everything and his life turned into a living nightmare. His only saving grace was his wife, who stayed by his side through it all. They even adopted a daughter in 1957 and named her Tierney Elizabeth McCarthy. This seemed to help bring McCarthy back to life. Yet that did not last long; he got into a bad business deal and later lost everything that he had been saving. This led him back to drinking, which he eventually killed him on May 2, 1957.
Now that the Venona Documents have been released, we know that there were in fact Communists within the government like McCarthy believed. Yet McCarthy and his methods were so ruthless and irresponsible that they actually hurt the government’s investigations against communism. But seeing these documents, it is possible to see that McCarthy was not wrong; he simply conducted his investigation in the wrong way.
McCarthy as a person was not a good man. There are many examples in McCarthy’s biography that show McCarthy as a self-centered and power hungry man. He was a compulsive liar, telling falsehoods many times even before he became a senator. Yet, McCarthy was only human; he had a family and loved them as best that he could. He had a devoted wife and adopted a little girl who helped almost heal him after his fall from grace with the government and the public. Lastly, the uncovering of the Venona documents shows that McCarthy was not completely wrong. It was also shown that within Hollywood, there were communists, some that he was able to stop and others that continued to be predominant within the workings of the entertainment business. So what is the final verdict?
It was quoted that: “‘there were a lot of spies in the government, but not all in the State Department,” Lamphere said. However, “The problem was that McCarthy lied about his information and figures. He made charges against people that weren’t true. McCarthyism harmed the counterintelligence effort against the Soviet threat because of the revulsion it caused. All along, Hoover was helping him,” (Kessler 1). In short, McCarthy’s desire for power ended up hurting everyone and stopped the government from finding real threats. McCarthy was a man of many ambitions, lies, right ideas, and poor methods. | <urn:uuid:39d5c0b8-d53c-4690-ab15-afba82346673> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://essaydocs.org/senator-joe-r-mccarthy-the-man-and-the-legend.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00186.warc.gz | en | 0.994035 | 8,348 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.3790682554244995,
-0.046040426939725876,
-0.11426175385713577,
-0.026850037276744843,
0.09397909045219421,
0.11264671385288239,
0.4927791357040405,
0.23611529171466827,
-0.4349839687347412,
-0.04394783824682236,
0.3244367837905884,
0.5781028866767883,
0.05881386250257492,
0.486016213893... | 3 | Senator Joe McCarthy and his Red Scare was one of the last “witch hunts” to take place in the United States. McCarthy’s tactics in his search for communists led to the destruction of his already weak reputation while he was in office. It is often taught that McCarthy was an overzealous madman that was out for fame and glory without concern for who he hurt. The purpose of this paper is not to show McCarthy as “a good guy”; rather, it is to show him in a different light. Even though McCarthy’s methods were reprehensible, given new information released by the Soviet Union he was not far from his mark. Yet, in order to understand how McCarthy was able to gain his power, one must understand the time and in which he rose to power.
The first Red Scare that took place in the United States happened around the time of 1919, shortly after the First World War. During this time, the American people began to become restless and unsure of how to live in a time of peace. Yet, prior to this restless peace that plagued the people, the government established legislation that would help shape the impending 1919 Red Scare. During the time of the war, there was distrust among the people, and it showed in legislation that was passed. The government had set up many different sedition and espionage acts during the war in order to control disloyalty to the country.
In 1917 the first act to be passed was the Espionage Act, which allowed the government to fine and charge a person for something as small as libel against the military. Then came the Sedition Act of 1918, which seemed to deal with sedition problems more directly than any others. It was used to bring charges against people that spoke against the government itself. Lastly came the most important piece of legislation, which was passed in October 1918. The Aliens act essentially stated that, “All aliens who were anarchists or believed in the violent overthrow of the American government or advocated the assassination of public officials were henceforth to be excluded from admission into the United States” (Murray 14). These acts set the stage for the hysteria that would follow and cause the Red Scare to begin.
The first crusader in the fight against the Reds was Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Palmer was famous for his Palmer Raids and his ruthlessness against communists. During Palmer’s time there was a Coalminer’s’ strike, which turned out to be the opportunity that Palmer was waiting for. This strike was organized by the Union of Russian Workers. This union was founded in 1907 and contained people that were “atheists, communists and anarchists” (Murray 196). Their desire to overturn the government made them the perfect target for the sedition acts enacted by the government. Under this legislation, Palmer and his raiders went in and confiscated truckloads of propaganda from this organization. Over 200 men and women were violently removed from the premises. This is just one example of Palmer’s many raids. Palmer’s actions were just the start to the nationwide hysteria that would sweep into people’s homes.
Next to come within this hysteria was Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. McCarthy’s Red Scare did not come until around twenty-eight years after Palmer’s. McCarthy and Palmer were quite different from one another despite their mutual goal to drive out communism. Palmer was the Attorneys General while McCarthy was a Senator. Aside from this difference, their leadership styles differed. Palmer preferred action while McCarthy preferred words; Palmer led his raids while McCarthy distanced himself. When Palmer was “fighting” during his Red Scare, he had political support because most of his claims were backed by hard evidence. McCarthy, on the other hand, had little to no evidence, and that is what hurt his investigations, his popularity, and his reputation. McCarthy’s Red Scare came to be considered a “Witch Hunt”.
The reason it was called a Witch Hunt was because no one was safe. During his time, McCarthy attacked people within politics and people outside of the realms of politics. He went as far as going after Hollywood actors and actresses. McCarthy went after many big names of the time; yet, he unfortunately was going after the wrong ones. There were those, such as Charlie Chaplin, that were both powerful and did take part in the Hollywood Communist party, whom McCarthy never pursued.
One of the most damning and immortalizing works on how people viewed McCarthy’s actions as a witch hunt is the play The Crucible. This play is about the witch trials that took place in Salem, Massachusetts. The Crucible, written by Arthur Miller, was a response to McCarthyism and how outrageous it became. It was believed at the time that McCarthy was a crazy, power hungry man. Yet in later years, it has been seen with the opening of Soviet documents and the Venona files that perhaps McCarthy was not all that wrong after all.
So what was the Red Scare? “Red Scare was a period of general fear of communists” (“Red Scare” def. 1). The Red Scare was more than just that simple definition; it was a mass hysteria that caused misunderstandings and hate amongst the people. The last Red Scare was both powered by politics and national emotions. The Red Scare of 1974 took place during the Cold War. The people did not seem to understand that the way the United States’ social network is set up made a hostile takeover impossible. The country’s society was far too complex and fluid to get enough people to help in the communist cause. Even though it probably crossed some minds at the time, the fear from the war caused radicals to become more powerful than they should have been. So the public believed they needed protection from the Reds coming to overthrow the government.
Demagogues are able to use fear to gain power for themselves or their causes. This is exactly what McCarthy did while he was Senator. Yet in order to understand the issue, it is important to understand the man and where he came from.
Joseph R. McCarthy was born November 14, 1908 in the small town of Grand Chute, Wisconsin. His whole family was from this small town. His grandfather was an Irish immigrant who settled in the area after first going to New York. While there, Stephen McCarthy married a Bavarian immigrant named Margaret Stoffel. This was unusual for the time because normally Irish did not marry outside of the Irish community. Yet they lived a happy full life together. They had ten children, and Tim McCarthy, who was Joseph McCarthy’s father, was the son that received one portion of their land after they died. Tim went on to marry Bridget Tierney, and they lived a simple life surrounded by Tim McCarthy’s brothers and sister.
Tim and Bridget were the parents of Joseph McCarthy, who was their fifth child. McCarthy was his mother’s favorite because of his appearance. McCarthy was described as a “gawky ugly duckling” (Oshinsky 3). The emotional abuse about his looks led to McCarthy’s many fights. He usually lost, and would go to his mother for comfort. This “coddling”, as his father called it, was why people believed him to be the favorite son of his mother.
There are two different theories on how McCarthy’s childhood actually was. One was very sad and dark, while the other was happy and normal for the time. The first theory was that his life was dark and lonely. In this theory, McCarthy was a chubby boy abused by his peers, namely his brothers; this caused him to be rather shy. Also the fact that he was picked on by his older brothers caused him to be something of a mama’s boy in need of her comfort and protection. McCarthy’s father frowned upon this favoritism, whom thought little of the boy and wanted him to learn to take care of himself. It was also stated that McCarthy’s mother’s “coddling” him caused friction between the parents. This childhood could not have been an easy one, and may have led to McCarthy wishing to get away from his family and never look back. Yet there are many contradictions to that theory once McCarthy’s older years are examined.
The book, A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy, by David Oshinsky, had a different take on what McCarthy’s family life was like while he was growing up. The story told here showed McCarthy had a mostly happy childhood. The McCarthy brothers were rough with each other but did not single out little Joe. Oshinsky also suggests that McCarthy was probably his father’s favorite as well as his mother’s. The reasoning behind this was his father believed in a hardworking, no nonsense type of living, and Joe McCarthy was a hard worker. Tim McCarthy expected his sons to be hard workers both in everyday life and on the farm. In the town of Grand Chute, the ability to do hard work was a kind of rite of passage into manhood. “Today sports and school are important. But not then. That was a different time” (Oshinsky 6). So, it is more likely that McCarthy lived a happy, normal life while growing up. Also it was believed that he was a hyperactive youngster. His overwhelming energy may have affected his policy making.
When McCarthy reached the age of fourteen, he dropped out of school in order to help out on the family farm. This was a very big disappointment for his mother. Yet during this time, getting a high school degree in Grand Chute was not a high priority. McCarthy also was not that interested in getting a high school diploma, so he worked on the family farm. His lack of enthusiasm about school may have been a disappointment to his mother, but was not discouraging to his father, who was more than happy to get another worker to help out on the farm. Yet McCarthy’s mother knew that he was meant for something greater.
McCarthy did not last long working on the family farm. He decided to go into business for himself. McCarthy’s small business was raising chickens and he did well for himself. About a year after McCarthy started his business, he had an accident and lost a good portion of his chickens, then became sick and was unable to save his business. Eventually he left Grand Chute to work at a Manawa county grocer at the age of twenty. Even though he was attached to his family and his home town, he was ready to get out and see the rest of the world. While he was in Manawa, Wisconsin, McCarthy was convinced to return to school. The people around him had seen how intelligent he was; they recognized he was destined for greater things than just working in a local grocer. So he attended Little Wolf High School at the age of twenty one. McCarthy proved his intelligence when he was able to finish his entire high school career in a year. After achieving this great accomplishment, McCarthy’s next step was to enter college.
In the year 1930, McCarthy entered Marquette College. He did this for financial and religious reasons. The Great Depression was going on during this time, and it was hard for people of McCarthy’s financial status to enter college; yet he made it work. So Marquette was the perfect choice for McCarthy because it was one of the less expensive colleges for that time. McCarthy started out his freshman year studying engineering, but he switched to law, because he found engineering to be boring. Another reason he switched to law was because all of his best friends were studying law and it seemed to be right for him. He joined the law fraternity, Delta Theta Phi, and served as a bailiff from 1934 to 1935. He proved to be a hard worker in and out of the classroom, and received his degree in 1935. He moved to Waupaca County just north of Appleton. He had a master plan when he got there: he was going to set up his own practice, get himself known, and then run for political office. This was an ambitious and challenging way to live life, but McCarthy would settle for no less. He opened his own practice, which was hard because of the Depression; but he was able to make it work and did his best. To advance his political career, he joined the Junior Chamber of Commerce softball team, sold tickets for political events and became a chairman on the Lions Club Harvest Committee. All of these were small political actions, but were the only options he had in such a small area. Most of the people in Waupaca remember McCarthy as “sloppy and disorganized” (Oshinsky 17). Yet he did not let his habits prevent him from bettering himself.
After only a year in Waupaca, McCarthy was finally able to further his goals. Mike Eberlein came and offered McCarthy a job at his firm in Shawano. This was a good political move for McCarthy. It was in this town that McCarthy tried his hand in more than college government. The same year that he arrived in Shawano, he ran for district attorney as the democratic incumbent. It came as no surprise to anyone that he lost the election, but it was good experience for him. McCarthy ran in this race for experience and to garner public attention. His platform was focused on the idea that the needs of the county were more important than his personal needs. So if McCarthy lost the race, all that mattered was that the county received the best district attorney. This position earned McCarthy mixed reviews, but got him the attention that he wanted. He waited and plotted before he made any other attempts to run for political position.
McCarthy waited two years before he tried for another political office. This time, he was running for circuit judgeship. The only problem McCarthy faced was that his friend and mentor, Mike Eberlein, had wanted to run for the judgeship for years. McCarthy was torn between loyalty and what was best. McCarthy believed that Mike Eberlein did not have a chance against the “powerful incumbent” (Oshinsky 19). McCarthy needed to come up with a way to run without running against his friend. So he announced that he was running for the judgeship without telling Mike Eberlein and did so before Mike Eberlein could announce his wishes. This little act caused the friendship to become very strained. Their relationship did not improve until after McCarthy became Senator (Oshinsky 20).
McCarthy still had to win against Edgar Werner, who was more experienced. The main advantage that McCarthy had over Werner was age. Werner was unpopular with the younger generation of lawyers, and that was damning to his campaign. Despite this advantage, McCarthy still needed to find some way to get ahead of his opponent. So McCarthy went about attacking Werner’s age and his salary. According to legend, McCarthy found Werner’s birth certificate, which proved that Werner was younger than he claimed to be. McCarthy needed something to make his opponent look bad in order to get votes. Werner rebutted McCarthy’s story by showing that the birth certificate that McCarthy had was wrong. When this tactic failed, McCarthy still needed to go after Werner. He did this by attacking Werner’s salary. McCarthy pointed out that Werner made a good amount of money and should just retire.
In the end, McCarthy won the election and took office without really talking about his legal practices. This defeat led Werner to retire, feeling humiliated. McCarthy had shown very little respect for this man who had served his community to the best of his ability. This was the second time in McCarthy’s career where he showed that he could be ruthless and did not care who was hurt as long as he got what he wanted.
McCarthy took office at the age of twenty-nine, making him the youngest circuit judge in decades. Unfortunately, his judgeship was met with a lot of controversy. More importantly, he became bored with the judgeship because it was not politically “big” enough for him. So he decided to join the Marines and go to war. He did not have to do this because of his political position, but his boredom got the better of him and off to war he went.
While in the war, McCarthy’s true colors started to show. He only wanted to get into the war to help his political career. He did this quite sufficiently – by lying. He lied about how many missions he had been on in order to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross. This was just one of the many ploys that he pulled to help himself look better to the people back home. One of his fellow captains tried to show the people what a disgrace McCarthy really was; unfortunately no one listened to him. The people around McCarthy knew he was very interested in going to Washington D.C. and being part of the government, and for some reason, they supported him.
In 1944, while still at war, McCarthy ran for the seat of Wisconsin Senator. This was met with some opposition because he still held the office of the circuit judge back home. It was stated in Wisconsin law that McCarthy should not hold another office, because he would neglect the one that he already held. This was what the secretary of state thought, but he was overruled by the attorney general, who allowed McCarthy to run. McCarthy ran knowing that he had no way of winning; he just did it, as he had before to get the experience. But where did McCarthy get all of his money for the campaign?
“Under Wisconsin law, a candidate could not contribute more than $5,000 to his own campaign” (Oshinsky 35). McCarthy lacked a lot of supporters willing to help pay for his campaign. Yet McCarthy had one of the best funded campaigns in Wisconsin history. The way he did this was by putting money given to his campaign under the names of people in his family. This was one of many ways McCarthy abused the system. Even so, all of the money and prestige that he received in the war was not enough to help him. He also tried to get out of paying taxes while running for senator; but in the end he paid them with interest. He was proving himself an unreliable and untrustworthy man. The defeat for the senatorship did not discourage McCarthy, but it ultimately led to his decision to leave the armed forces.
McCarthy asked for another leave from the war in 1944, claiming that he needed to return and take care of his judiciary duties. This leave was denied, and led to McCarthy getting his official discharge and leaving his post in 1945. He did this not for his judgeship or the people that he was serving, but for himself. There was another Senate seat about to be “up for grabs,” and McCarthy was not going to miss it. Once out of the war, McCarthy started planning his 1946 campaign.
McCarthy did not have an easy time running for the senate seat. He had to choose which political party was really the one he wanted to be a part of. When McCarthy started in politics, he was in favor of the New Deal and very much a Democrat. Yet, when running for the circuit judge, he ran as a Republican. In the end, he ran on the Republican ticket and had to change his ideals. He went from supporting the ideals of the New Deal to becoming very conservative against the very thing he once supported. These Republican ideals became his belief until he died years later.
McCarthy won the Senate election for 1946. McCarthy’s victory could have been considered a landslide, with his winning all but two of the counties within his running district. This victory was almost a two to one margin, which was quite an accomplishment.
McCarthy’s first two years as Senator were quite good. He was mostly well liked and got things done, though there were a few senators who disliked him. The disdain that McCarthy received from fellow senators earned him a poor reputation in and out of the government. His bad reputation was slowly defeating him, and the lack of support from his fellow Republicans really hurt his pride. The most important issue McCarthy faced was the loss of popularity with his constituents back home. He needed to find a way to win back their hearts or face not getting re-elected. So began his nationwide attack on the Communist threat within the country.
McCarthy started his dark path against the communists with his famous Wheeling speech. McCarthy gave this speech at a dinner being hosted by the Ohio County Women’s Republic Club. The speech was a clever campaign strategy that McCarthy used to bring attention to himself. In this speech, McCarthy claimed that there were around two hundred and five government workers that were working for the Communist regime. McCarthy’s speech was yet another sign of how corrupt McCarthy was because his speech was plagiarized from one given to the House earlier that year. In fact, Richard Nixon gave the same speech to the House of Representatives earlier that year.
McCarthy’s Wheeling speech became one of his claims to fame and the start of his Red Scare. The speech did not receive the national attention that McCarthy desired, but he would not let the subject die. While in Salt Lake City, Utah, he restated that he had a list of people in the government that were a threat to the American way. While giving this speech, his lie seemed to grow; he now claimed that he had two hundred and seven names of communist conspirators. This was only two more than the original number; it seemed like a small thing, but it was only the beginning. The small lie showed that McCarthy was willing to exaggerate to get attention.
Another part of McCarthy’s Wheeling speech that was shocking was his blatant attack on Secretary of Defense George Catlett Marshall. McCarthy’s speech was made into a book a year later: America’s Retreat from Victory. The book aired dirty laundry on Marshall. While McCarthy’s actions may seem deceitful, he was not wrong about the things he was saying about Marshall and his secrets. Yet, he was going after a very popular man and was warned about doing so: “Marshall has been built into a great hero in the eyes of the people that you will destroy yourself politically if you lay hands on the laurels of this great man” (McCarthy 3). This warning did not stop him, nor did it really come to fruition, and McCarthy became an unstoppable force. With the Wheeling speech and McCarthy’s book against Marshall and the Marshall Plan, McCarthy started his Red Scare Witch Hunt.
This witch hunt began in the state department, where McCarthy said most of the “spies” were located. When investigations began many lives were destroyed. People were put on trial, and it hurt their reputations, many lost their jobs. These people were accused of disloyalty and treason. No one was killed for their “crime,” but many lost their jobs, and some even lost their families. It is true that some of the people charged were actually guilty, but more were not.
Another problem was McCarthy and his blacklisting of people. Blacklisting led to the destruction of the lives of people who had no direct connection to politics; they were just very outspoken in their opinions. Many of the people that were blacklisted were people that worked in the entertainment business. Many actors and actresses were put on these lists, proving that McCarthy would go after anyone. Communism had actually been a strong presence in Hollywood since probably before World War Two. In the article “Red Hollywood”, it is revealed that high ranking writers and actors in Hollywood were sympathetic to the communist cause dating back to at least 1934, if not earlier. It was Stalin’s desire to use Hollywood to help overthrow the Capitalist government of the United States. Even actors such as Charlie Chaplin were for communism. Chaplin’s support went so far as stating, “Thank God for Communism” (Jeffreys 3).
The Hollywood Communist party was the first to come up with idea of blacklisting before the government got to it. They blacklisted actors such as John Wayne and even the future president Ronald Reagan. It was not until 1947 that McCarthy and the government really looked into the lives of the Hollywood communists. The investigation only came up with nineteen communist followers that were in the Hollywood folds. These nineteen people were even able to gain sympathy from famous people such as Katharine Hepburn. The nineteen of them were able to convince people that McCarthy was wrongly accusing them. They said that the government was trying to impinge on their right to freedom of speech. Yet it was later revealed that all nineteen were in fact communists.
Nine of the accused came clean about what they were doing while ten refused to do so; these ten came to be known as the ‘Hollywood Ten’. These ten were then sentenced to one year in prison for the crime of contempt of court. After these trials, Hollywood put a ban on hiring anyone who was even thought to be a communist. The ban brought destruction to the lives of many, even those who were not communists. With these changes, the careers of the ‘Hollywood Ten’ should have ended as well; yet this was not the case. Many of the communists were protected by friends and family and went on to become even more famous. One such instance was with the screenwriter, Dalton Trumbo, who was able to win an Oscar after the whole ordeal. This story is just one example of how McCarthy and his tactics hurt the fight against communism more than anything else.
After McCarthy’s claims that the State Department was and had been employing people that were questionable, an all-out investigation was started. This investigation was handled by the Tydings Committee, headed by democratic senator Millard Tydings. The Tydings committee was a subcommittee to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, founded in 1950. The committee’s main objective was to looking into McCarthy’s claims about disloyalty in the State Department. The unspoken objective was the desire to put an end to “McCarthy’s charges” (Buckley 67) and stop McCarthy before more damage could be done. With this newly appointed task, out of the Tydings Committee came the famous nine public cases that brought McCarthy a great deal of power.
McCarthy had dug himself into a hole with his Wheeling speech and subsequent speeches that followed. He kept getting into trouble because he kept changing the number of communist spies. Finally, in front of the Senate, he said that there were eighty-one people on his list. Yet there were many who did not fully believe him and kept asking him for the actual names of the people that he was bringing charges against. He at first was very reluctant to reveal these names, but in the end nine names were given and nine cases were publicly tried by the Tydings Committee. These nine cases made McCarthy famous.
McCarthy did not necessarily have strong cases against all of the nine accused; he had reasonable doubt in the character of all of them. Yet he did have a good case against one man, Owen Lattimore. Lattimore was known for writing pro-communist papers and was even friends with known communist party members. The committee did not see it that way, though, and in the end said that McCarthy’s condemning witness nothing more than a person speaking hearsay and that Lattimore was cleared of all charges. This pattern held true for all nine of the public cases: the Tydings Committee would hear the testimony, and then clear the people that were being charged. The Tydings Committee’s final verdict was that McCarthy’s claims were just a “fraud and a hoax” (Buckley 62). But this was not the end to McCarthy and his fight against communism.
McCarthy also faced other opposition from within the government. President Truman was in office during McCarthy’s rise to power and watched with deep misgivings about the situation. At the time, Truman’s administration was unsure how to respond to McCarthy’s claims; they could either examine his findings, or ignore McCarthy’s claims. Either way was a trap. The first way would indicate that McCarthy was not lying, and give the nation reason to believe that there was substance to the claims of disloyalty within the State Department. The second option could potentially have looked like a cover up, which the administration did not need, as the people already mistrusted them for past issues. In the end, they allowed the investigations to take place, in hopes of quieting McCarthy. But Truman had to deal with McCarthy much more than he had ever wanted. Truman was often asked: “Does State know if McCarthy has anything the House of Representatives didn’t have two years ago?” (Oshinsky 111). Truman became furious at the implication that a Senator was able to get his hands on information that even the House was unable to obtain. He was angry enough to write a letter to McCarthy about what he thought, but an assistant, thankfully, stopped him from sending it. The assistant warned Truman that the tone of the letter was damaging and that not everything that was in it was based on fact. Sending the letter would have hurt Truman more than it would have helped him, and could possibly have destroyed his credibility. So though Truman disliked McCarthy, he had no choice but to sit by and hope for the best.
The next president to deal with McCarthy was Dwight Eisenhower, who took office in 1953. Eisenhower’s victory was one that brought change, because he was the first Republican to be elected in twenty years. He even had gone campaigning with McCarthy through Wisconsin. This was a bad experience for Eisenhower, who developed a great dislike for McCarthy. He had actually tried to escape McCarthy by having Wisconsin taken off of his campaign itinerary, but the Republican National Committee would not allow it.
While on this part of his campaign trail, Eisenhower stated that he did not agree with McCarthy’s methods, but by the end he had to be careful not to touch the subject because McCarthy was rude in return. While campaigning with McCarthy, Eisenhower was faced with a personal issue. McCarthy had, and still was openly attacking Marshall and his plan. While on the trail Eisenhower refused to defend Marshall from McCarthy for fear of what McCarthy might do to him. This refusal caused Eisenhower personal injury and the loss of respect from others. People started questioning his courage. This unfortunately was not the last time that Eisenhower stood by and allowed McCarthy free reign.
While Eisenhower was in power, the Senate appointed McCarthy chairman of a committee in order to try and appease him during his second term as Senator. McCarthy was made chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operation. The Senate gave him this position in the hopes that McCarthy could do no more harm than he already had in that job. It was becoming clear that even Senators within McCarthy’s own party were starting to fear just how far McCarthy was willing to go. So they were trying to stop him in the only way they knew how. Unfortunately, the Committee of which McCarthy was chair had the subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Investigation, which McCarthy used to full advantage by further investigating for communists within the government itself.
Not all of McCarthy’s opposition came from his fellow Senators or inside the government. He faced many people that held positions of power in the media, particularly, that did not agree with his actions. One of McCarthy’s most persistent attackers was Robert C. Hartnett, S.J. (Society of Jesuit). Hartnett was the editor in chief of the magazine, America, during the McCarthy era. Hartnett was not a fearful man, and held his own opinions higher than that of others. He proved this by attacking McCarthy while others were too afraid to do so. He seemed to have the same up and down career as McCarthy did. While McCarthy was in office and going after communists, Hartnett was going after McCarthy. While McCarthy was facing problems with fellow senators, Hartnett was facing issues with fellow Catholics. It seemed that during this era, Catholics agreed with McCarthy and supported him. This caused problems in Hartnett’s fight against McCarthy, but it did not stop him. Yet in the end, both men seemed to be losing everything. When McCarthy and McCarthyism came to an end, so did Hartnett’s anti-McCarthy writings. It was said that Hartnett seemed to be living in a fog – that he was very confused. The most heartbreaking similarity between the two men was that when they left their jobs, they left with no friends and extremely exhausted.
The most famous attacks against McCarthy came from Edward Murrow. Murrow, along with co-producer Fred Friendly, publicized SEE IT NOW, a report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. This report was really a retaliation against McCarthy for an unspoken threat that he and his people made against Murrow. Earlier in his life, Murrow helped sponsor a seminar on “American Professors Trained by Soviets, Teach in U.S. Schools,” (Oshinsky 398); this apparently made him a threat to McCarthy and his cause. McCarthy never openly said anything about Murrow, but the threat was still there, and Murrow refused to sit in fear. So he went on air and openly attacked McCarthy’s methods for his fight against Communism. This episode contained mainly video clips of McCarthy, but nonetheless got the point across: “this is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent” (Oshinsky 399). It was also not the only episode of See It Now that was dedicated to anti-McCarthy propaganda. It was, however, the See It Now episode that would become the most famous, with its immortalized send off, “good night and good luck.” Years later, this story was turned into the movie Good Night, and Good Luck.
The last and just as famous attack on McCarthy came from the playwright, Arthur Miller. Miller’s attack was not as open as the other two but was just as powerful. He critiqued McCarthy in his play, The Crucible. The play was meant as a parallel to the Red Scare. The plot was based on the Salem Witch Hunts. This was Miller’s way of saying that what McCarthy was doing was nothing more than a modern day witch hunt. But McCarthy’s methods soon gained a name of their own: McCarthyism.
The term McCarthyism was coined during this time, possibly during the nine public cases. McCarthyism is a derogatory term that means to wrongfully accuse someone of wrong doing or disloyalty. This term was extremely damaging for McCarthy because it was derived from his own name. The term of McCarthyism now seems to mean a time of hysteria that brings out the worst in people. With it comes a time when brother will give up brother to protect himself from some unseen force attacking his homeland. McCarthy’s ability to use words to strike fear into people was one of his strong points, but McCarthy’s inability to stop while ahead was also his undoing.
McCarthy’s “fatal” action was his attack on the United States army. McCarthy had been receiving information that something was amiss within the Army Signal Corps at Fort Monmouth. It was when he started his investigation that he signed his own political death warrant. His “death blow” came when he was interrogating General Zwicker. Zwicker was a hero from World War Two, another national hero that McCarthy went after openly and without remorse. While McCarthy was questioning Zwicker, a fight began to brew. McCarthy asked loaded questions and snapped when Zwicker answered in kind. Near the end of the question session, McCarthy started asking questions about Zwicker’s former superior that Zwicker could not answer without incriminating himself. It was then that McCarthy ruined himself. He openly attacked Zwicker’s intelligence and told him that he was not worthy of wearing a uniform. When Zwicker’s superiors – superiors the White House – heard about this incident, it brought McCarthy’s career to an end.
McCarthy added yet another nail to his coffin with an outburst during the Army-McCarthy hearings. These hearings were the Army’s retaliation to McCarthy’s wrongful treatment of top members of the United States Army. The Committee hoped to learn whether McCarthy and his committee had gone too far, and whether there were members of the Army that tried to either blackmail or bribe their way out of McCarthy’s investigations. These investigations did not end well for McCarthy; he showed his true colors while Roy Cohn, one of his fellow members on the subcommittee, was on the stand. Joe Welch was questioning Cohn; his line of questioning was about Cohn’s belief. He was asking what Cohn believed about getting rid of the communist problem and how fast he was willing to do so, and when he asked the question: “And whenever you learn of them from now on, Mr. Cohn, I beg of you, will you tell somebody about them quick?” (Oshinsky 461), all hell broke loose. McCarthy jumped into the questioning and started attacking Welch. Welch tried to get McCarthy to listen to him but was unable to sooth the rampaging beast that McCarthy had become. Welch finally stopped his line of questions and told McCarthy to call his next witness. This was considered to be one of the cruelest things that McCarthy had ever done. Later on Welch admitted that he was almost in tears because of the way McCarthy was treating him. McCarthy’s outburst cost him dearly.
McCarthy was in the end censured by his fellow senators and left the senate feeling betrayed and mistreated. At his last meeting with his subcommittee, he let out his frustration by making himself into a martyr. His last order of business was to apologize to the public for failing to take down the communist problem within the nation. McCarthy was humiliated by the censure, but his physical decline was even more of a problem. He stopped caring about everything and his life turned into a living nightmare. His only saving grace was his wife, who stayed by his side through it all. They even adopted a daughter in 1957 and named her Tierney Elizabeth McCarthy. This seemed to help bring McCarthy back to life. Yet that did not last long; he got into a bad business deal and later lost everything that he had been saving. This led him back to drinking, which he eventually killed him on May 2, 1957.
Now that the Venona Documents have been released, we know that there were in fact Communists within the government like McCarthy believed. Yet McCarthy and his methods were so ruthless and irresponsible that they actually hurt the government’s investigations against communism. But seeing these documents, it is possible to see that McCarthy was not wrong; he simply conducted his investigation in the wrong way.
McCarthy as a person was not a good man. There are many examples in McCarthy’s biography that show McCarthy as a self-centered and power hungry man. He was a compulsive liar, telling falsehoods many times even before he became a senator. Yet, McCarthy was only human; he had a family and loved them as best that he could. He had a devoted wife and adopted a little girl who helped almost heal him after his fall from grace with the government and the public. Lastly, the uncovering of the Venona documents shows that McCarthy was not completely wrong. It was also shown that within Hollywood, there were communists, some that he was able to stop and others that continued to be predominant within the workings of the entertainment business. So what is the final verdict?
It was quoted that: “‘there were a lot of spies in the government, but not all in the State Department,” Lamphere said. However, “The problem was that McCarthy lied about his information and figures. He made charges against people that weren’t true. McCarthyism harmed the counterintelligence effort against the Soviet threat because of the revulsion it caused. All along, Hoover was helping him,” (Kessler 1). In short, McCarthy’s desire for power ended up hurting everyone and stopped the government from finding real threats. McCarthy was a man of many ambitions, lies, right ideas, and poor methods. | 8,171 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Those who have been subjected to child abuse or neglect often subject their own children to abuse through physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. They often feel that it is very important to maintain control over their environment.
It allows them to feel secure and safe. An individual who is committing a criminal act is disregarding what someone else is telling them is wrong. Although an action may be condemned, an individual who has suffered from abuse may choose to disregard the law. They may view this as a means of doing what they want to do and maintaining control over their own actions and their own lives.
Child abuse affects both men and women and may cause both men and women to act out. Studies have shown that over one quarter of the women who are incarcerated in the United States have suffered from abuse and neglect as children. The same study indicated that the instance of child abuse in male prison inmates was about half of what it was for female inmates.
Research has indicated that without child abuse intervention, a child will be much more likely to take part in criminal activities later in their lives. Child abuse intervention is required in order to control and assist with the negative child abuse effects, such as criminality. | <urn:uuid:056e24fe-16d0-402b-ae64-c888c771c434> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://children-laws.laws.com/child-abuse/child-abuse-laws/statistics-linking-child-abuse-and-later-criminality | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00141.warc.gz | en | 0.985031 | 242 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.05807691067457199,
-0.04856593534350395,
0.20652678608894348,
-0.27961453795433044,
-0.0865858718752861,
0.26250118017196655,
0.4610689580440521,
-0.10148423910140991,
0.08293618261814117,
0.15413880348205566,
0.2902560532093048,
0.1535835564136505,
0.07752955704927444,
0.31947264075279... | 5 | Those who have been subjected to child abuse or neglect often subject their own children to abuse through physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. They often feel that it is very important to maintain control over their environment.
It allows them to feel secure and safe. An individual who is committing a criminal act is disregarding what someone else is telling them is wrong. Although an action may be condemned, an individual who has suffered from abuse may choose to disregard the law. They may view this as a means of doing what they want to do and maintaining control over their own actions and their own lives.
Child abuse affects both men and women and may cause both men and women to act out. Studies have shown that over one quarter of the women who are incarcerated in the United States have suffered from abuse and neglect as children. The same study indicated that the instance of child abuse in male prison inmates was about half of what it was for female inmates.
Research has indicated that without child abuse intervention, a child will be much more likely to take part in criminal activities later in their lives. Child abuse intervention is required in order to control and assist with the negative child abuse effects, such as criminality. | 240 | ENGLISH | 1 |
DAILY LIFE IN ANCIENT EGYPT
By Tim Lambert
The rise of Ancient Egypt
Egypt was said to be the gift of the Nile. Each summer the Nile flooded and provided water to grow crops. For irrigation Egyptians used a device called shaduf. it was a 'see-saw' with a leather container at one end, which was filled with water and a counterweight at the other. When the Nile flooded it also deposited silt over the land near the banks, which made the land very fertile once the water had subsided. The Nile also provided a way of transporting people and goods. Prevailing winds in Egypt blew south so boats traveling in that direction used sails. Boats heading north used oars.
Society in Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egypt was ruled by a king. By about 1500 BCE he was called the Pharaoh (from the word per ao meaning great house. Originally it meant the palace he lived in but it came to mean the ruler himself). The Pharaoh was assisted by a kind of prime minister called a vizier (sometimes there was more than one). Furthermore, for administration Egypt was divided into areas called nomes.
Below the Pharaoh were the nobility, priests, scribes and merchants. Then came soldiers and craftsmen then peasants and finally slaves. A slave's life was very hard. Ordinary Egyptians who were not slaves also had to work for the Pharaoh each year building or mending irrigation canals. This was done when the Nile flooded and farm work was impossible. Farmers also had to pay part of their crops to the Pharaoh in tax.
In Egypt women had a great deal of freedom. They could come and go as they pleased. They could own property and they could sign contracts. Women could also divorce their husbands.
However most women worked in the home. There was a great deal of work to do as most homes were largely self-sufficient. The woman made the family's clothes and prepared food such as grinding grain to flour to make bread. Even in a rich family, the woman was kept busy organizing the slaves. There were some women doctors in Egypt. Merit Ptah was a famous woman doctor who lived around 2,700 BC. A woman called Sobekneferu ruled Egypt around 1800 BCE. Later a woman named Hatshepsut ruled Egypt c. 1479-1458 BCE. Another woman, Twosret ruled Egypt c. 1191-1189 BCE.
Food and Farming in Ancient Egypt
The staple diet of the ordinary people in Ancient Egypt was bread and beer. The bread was baked outside. Because of the desert sand was often blown into the dough. In time eating bread with grains of sand in it wore down people's teeth. In Ancient Egypt as in all early civilizations, meat was a luxury and only the rich could afford to eat it frequently. The Egyptians ate sheep, pigs, cows, and goats but meat often came from ducks and geese. However fish were plentiful in Egypt. The Egyptians ate many vegetables including, marrows, beans, onions, lentils, leeks, radishes, garlic, and lettuces. They also ate fruit like melons, dates, and figs. Pomegranates were quite expensive and were eaten mainly by the rich. The Egyptians also grew herbs and spices and they made cooking oil. Beer was made from crumbled barley bread and barley with water so it was lumpy. It was strained before it was drunk. Even so, it was still lumpy so it had to be drunk through a wooden straw with a filter. Better off Egyptians drank wine.
Ancient Egyptian farmers dug irrigation canals to take water from the Nile when it flooded and to hold it when the flood subsided. In Ancient Egypt, oxen pulled plows and farmers used simple tools such as hoes, sickles, rakes and winnowing fans (used to throw wheat into the air to separate light chaff from heavier grain).
In Egypt there were three seasons. From July to October was the season when the Nile flooded. Seeds were planted from November to February. The harvest lasted from March to June. Egyptians divided days into 24 hours and they measured time with water clocks. (Water was allowed to drip into a container at a steady rate. The container was marked at intervals and it took one hour for the water to rise from one mark to another).
Like all early civilizations Ancient Egypt was an agricultural society. Most people lived in the countryside and made their living by farming. The most important crops were wheat and barley.
The history of food
The history of drinks
Clothes in Ancient Egypt
Not surprisingly given the hot climate Egyptians wore only light clothing. Men wore a loincloth and a kind of kilt. Women wore dresses with shoulder straps. Clothes were made of linen or cotton. Later in Egyptian history clothes became more elaborate and colorful.
Egyptians shaved their hair and wore wigs. Children had their heads shaved to prevent lice (although they usually had a braid left at the side of their heads). It was normal for children to go naked. Most people went barefoot much of the time but they sometimes wore sandals made from papyrus.
Egyptians wore jewelry. Those who could afford it wore jewelry of gold, silver and precious stones. Poor people wore jewelry made of copper or bronze. Both men and women wore makeup.
The history of clothes
Houses in Ancient Egypt
Rich Egyptians lived in large, comfortable houses with many rooms. Walls were painted and floors had colored tiles. Most wealthy houses had enclosed gardens with pools. Inside their homes rich Egyptians had wooden furniture such as beds, chairs, tables and chests for storage. However instead of pillows they used wooden headrests. Toilets consisted of a clay pot filled with sand. It was emptied regularly.
Ordinary people in Ancient Egypt lived in simpler homes made of mud bricks with perhaps four rooms. People may have slept on the flat roof when it was hot and they did most of their work outside because of the heat. Furniture was very basic. Ordinary Egyptians sat on brick benches around the walls. They used reed chests or wooden pegs on walls to store things.
The history of houses
Pastimes in Ancient Egypt
For entertainment the Egyptians loved parties. If a rich person invited you to a feast you would be entertained by singers, musicians, dancers, jugglers, wrestlers, and jesters. Musicians played wooden flutes, harps, lutes, drums, and clappers. At a rich person's banquet, guests were given a cone of perfumed fat to put on their heads. It slowly melted leaving the wearer smelling nice.
Egyptians loved hunting and fishing. (For the rich hunting was for pleasure. For the poor it was for food). Men caught birds with nets or by throwing curved sticks. Fish were caught with hooks or harpoons.
Men and women went swimming. Men also enjoyed boxing, wrestling, and archery. They also played a game that involved standing on a boat and trying to knock the opposing team into the water with a stick. Egyptians also played a board game called senet. The board was divided into squares with counters. You threw sticks rather than dice. Ancient Egyptian children played similar games to the ones children play today. They also played with dolls, toy soldiers, wooden animals, ball, marbles, spinning tops and knucklebones (which were thrown like dice).
The history of games and leisure
Education in Ancient Egypt
Most boys and girls in Egypt did not go to school. Instead, boys learned farming or other trades from their fathers. Girls learned sewing, cooking and other skills from their mothers. However, boys from wealthy families sometimes went to school and learned to be scribes. They learned by copying and memorizing and discipline was strict. Teachers beat naughty boys. The boys learned reading and writing and also mathematics. Girls from well off families were sometimes taught at home.
Ancient Egyptian writing consisted of symbols called hieroglyphs. Originally they were pictures but in time they evolved into standard symbols. However the hieroglyphs were very complicated and so they were only used for religious books and for carving on buildings. For everyday use a simpler form of writing called hieratic was developed.
The history of education
Weapons in Ancient Egypt
Egyptian soldiers went into battle protected only by wooden or leather shields. They fought with spears, swords, axes, daggers and maces. They also used slings and bows and arrows. Most men fought on foot but after about 1,700 BCE the army also had chariots. Each chariot carried two men, one to drive and one to shoot arrows. (In Ancient Egypt horses were mainly used for war. Donkeys were used as pack animals). Only the most important soldiers wore armor made of bronze. Prisoners of war were usually made slaves.
The history of weapons
Medicine in Ancient Egypt
The first doctor known to history was Sekhet-eanach who 'healed the pharaoh's nostrils'. (We do not know what was wrong with them). The second doctor we know of was Imhotep (c. 2,600 BCE) who was vizier or prime minister to the pharaoh. He was also a doctor and he was so famous that after his death he was worshiped as a god.
Much of Egyptian medicine still relied on magic. However, at least they could keep written records of which treatments worked and which did not. In this way, medicine could advance. The earliest known medical book is the Ebers Papyrus, which was written about 1500 BC. Doctors in Ancient Egyptian used a huge range of drugs obtained from herbs and minerals. They were drunk with wine or beer or sometimes mixed with dough to form a 'pill'. Egyptian doctors also used ointments for wounds and they treated chest complaints by getting the patient to inhale the steam. The Egyptians believed that the human body was full of passages that acted like irrigation canals. The Egyptians knew that irrigation canals sometimes became blocked. They reasoned that if the passages in a human body became blocked it might cause illness. To open them Egyptians used laxatives and induced vomiting.
However the Egyptians still believed that spells would help the sick and they carried amulets to ward off disease. Nevertheless, they were beginning to seek a physical cause for illness.
The Egyptians did have some knowledge of anatomy from making mummies. To embalm a dead body they first removed the principal organs, which would otherwise rot. However Ancient Egyptian surgery was limited to such things as treating wounds and broken bones and dealing with boils and abscesses. The Egyptians used clamps, sutures, and cauterization (burning with red hot metal). They had surgical instruments like probes, saws, forceps, scalpels, and scissors.
They also knew that honey helped to prevent wounds becoming infected. (It is a natural antiseptic). They also dressed wounds with willow bark, which has the same effect. The Ancient Egyptians were clean people. They washed daily and changed their clothes regularly, which must have helped their health.
The history of medicine.
Religion in Ancient Egypt
The Ancient Egyptians were polytheists. That is, they worshiped many gods. Gods and goddesses were usually depicted as human beings though sometimes they had animal heads. Among Ancient Egyptian gods were Amun-Re, the sun god and the leader of the gods. Nut was the sky goddess. Her brother Geb was the earth god. Osiris was in charge of the underworld. His wife was Isis and his son was Horus (who was sometimes depicted with a falcons head). Hathor was the goddess of joy and love. She was also the goddess of music and dance.
They also worshiped Anubis, god of the dead and mummification. He was a man with a jackal's head and Egyptians believed he guarded the places where the dead were buried. Other gods included Thoth, a man with an ibis head, who was the god of the moon and wisdom. Ptah was the god of craftsmen. Taweret, a pregnant hippo, was the goddess of childbirth. Maat was the goddess of justice and truth. Hapi was the god who made the Nile flood. The Ancient Egyptians had a goddess of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Her name was Seshat.
The Ancient Egyptians believed that the gods 'lived' in temples (the gods spirit was believed to inhabit a statue). Three times a day priests cleaned the statue, changed its clothes and placed fresh food before it for it to 'eat'. (After a while priests removed the food and ate it). After death Egyptians believed they would be judged. Their heart was placed in a balance and weighed against an ostrich feather (a symbol of truth and justice). If the heart was good it would balance the feather and the person was granted eternal happiness. If it was evil the feather would outweigh it. In that case, the heart was fed to a monster called Anmit, who was a part lion, part crocodile, and part hippopotamus. If Anmit ate your heart you ceased to exist.
Ancient Egyptians tried to preserve dead bodies by mummifying them so the owners could use them in the next life. The dead were also buried with 'grave goods' to use in the next life. Animals, especially cats, were also mummified. To mummify a body the Egyptians first removed its internal organs (otherwise they would rot). They rinsed the cavities with palm wine then covered the body with a salt paste called natron to dry it. After 70 days the body was washed and wrapped in linen bandages.
A Brief History of Ancient Egypt
Daily life in Ancient Greece
Daily life in Rome
Daily life in The Middle Ages
Daily life in The 16th Century
Daily life in The 17th Century
Last revised 2019 | <urn:uuid:f405d2f1-3266-4637-8a7f-85cf9d1a80c2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://localhistories.org/egypt.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607407.48/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122191620-20200122220620-00351.warc.gz | en | 0.989064 | 2,848 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.15838374197483063,
1.0486949682235718,
0.34372928738594055,
0.2998114228248596,
-0.6003227233886719,
-0.3297465443611145,
0.4749106764793396,
-0.09144648909568787,
-0.2728840708732605,
0.4479066729545593,
-0.05694097280502319,
-0.6941204071044922,
0.13594326376914978,
-0.061010334640741... | 3 | DAILY LIFE IN ANCIENT EGYPT
By Tim Lambert
The rise of Ancient Egypt
Egypt was said to be the gift of the Nile. Each summer the Nile flooded and provided water to grow crops. For irrigation Egyptians used a device called shaduf. it was a 'see-saw' with a leather container at one end, which was filled with water and a counterweight at the other. When the Nile flooded it also deposited silt over the land near the banks, which made the land very fertile once the water had subsided. The Nile also provided a way of transporting people and goods. Prevailing winds in Egypt blew south so boats traveling in that direction used sails. Boats heading north used oars.
Society in Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egypt was ruled by a king. By about 1500 BCE he was called the Pharaoh (from the word per ao meaning great house. Originally it meant the palace he lived in but it came to mean the ruler himself). The Pharaoh was assisted by a kind of prime minister called a vizier (sometimes there was more than one). Furthermore, for administration Egypt was divided into areas called nomes.
Below the Pharaoh were the nobility, priests, scribes and merchants. Then came soldiers and craftsmen then peasants and finally slaves. A slave's life was very hard. Ordinary Egyptians who were not slaves also had to work for the Pharaoh each year building or mending irrigation canals. This was done when the Nile flooded and farm work was impossible. Farmers also had to pay part of their crops to the Pharaoh in tax.
In Egypt women had a great deal of freedom. They could come and go as they pleased. They could own property and they could sign contracts. Women could also divorce their husbands.
However most women worked in the home. There was a great deal of work to do as most homes were largely self-sufficient. The woman made the family's clothes and prepared food such as grinding grain to flour to make bread. Even in a rich family, the woman was kept busy organizing the slaves. There were some women doctors in Egypt. Merit Ptah was a famous woman doctor who lived around 2,700 BC. A woman called Sobekneferu ruled Egypt around 1800 BCE. Later a woman named Hatshepsut ruled Egypt c. 1479-1458 BCE. Another woman, Twosret ruled Egypt c. 1191-1189 BCE.
Food and Farming in Ancient Egypt
The staple diet of the ordinary people in Ancient Egypt was bread and beer. The bread was baked outside. Because of the desert sand was often blown into the dough. In time eating bread with grains of sand in it wore down people's teeth. In Ancient Egypt as in all early civilizations, meat was a luxury and only the rich could afford to eat it frequently. The Egyptians ate sheep, pigs, cows, and goats but meat often came from ducks and geese. However fish were plentiful in Egypt. The Egyptians ate many vegetables including, marrows, beans, onions, lentils, leeks, radishes, garlic, and lettuces. They also ate fruit like melons, dates, and figs. Pomegranates were quite expensive and were eaten mainly by the rich. The Egyptians also grew herbs and spices and they made cooking oil. Beer was made from crumbled barley bread and barley with water so it was lumpy. It was strained before it was drunk. Even so, it was still lumpy so it had to be drunk through a wooden straw with a filter. Better off Egyptians drank wine.
Ancient Egyptian farmers dug irrigation canals to take water from the Nile when it flooded and to hold it when the flood subsided. In Ancient Egypt, oxen pulled plows and farmers used simple tools such as hoes, sickles, rakes and winnowing fans (used to throw wheat into the air to separate light chaff from heavier grain).
In Egypt there were three seasons. From July to October was the season when the Nile flooded. Seeds were planted from November to February. The harvest lasted from March to June. Egyptians divided days into 24 hours and they measured time with water clocks. (Water was allowed to drip into a container at a steady rate. The container was marked at intervals and it took one hour for the water to rise from one mark to another).
Like all early civilizations Ancient Egypt was an agricultural society. Most people lived in the countryside and made their living by farming. The most important crops were wheat and barley.
The history of food
The history of drinks
Clothes in Ancient Egypt
Not surprisingly given the hot climate Egyptians wore only light clothing. Men wore a loincloth and a kind of kilt. Women wore dresses with shoulder straps. Clothes were made of linen or cotton. Later in Egyptian history clothes became more elaborate and colorful.
Egyptians shaved their hair and wore wigs. Children had their heads shaved to prevent lice (although they usually had a braid left at the side of their heads). It was normal for children to go naked. Most people went barefoot much of the time but they sometimes wore sandals made from papyrus.
Egyptians wore jewelry. Those who could afford it wore jewelry of gold, silver and precious stones. Poor people wore jewelry made of copper or bronze. Both men and women wore makeup.
The history of clothes
Houses in Ancient Egypt
Rich Egyptians lived in large, comfortable houses with many rooms. Walls were painted and floors had colored tiles. Most wealthy houses had enclosed gardens with pools. Inside their homes rich Egyptians had wooden furniture such as beds, chairs, tables and chests for storage. However instead of pillows they used wooden headrests. Toilets consisted of a clay pot filled with sand. It was emptied regularly.
Ordinary people in Ancient Egypt lived in simpler homes made of mud bricks with perhaps four rooms. People may have slept on the flat roof when it was hot and they did most of their work outside because of the heat. Furniture was very basic. Ordinary Egyptians sat on brick benches around the walls. They used reed chests or wooden pegs on walls to store things.
The history of houses
Pastimes in Ancient Egypt
For entertainment the Egyptians loved parties. If a rich person invited you to a feast you would be entertained by singers, musicians, dancers, jugglers, wrestlers, and jesters. Musicians played wooden flutes, harps, lutes, drums, and clappers. At a rich person's banquet, guests were given a cone of perfumed fat to put on their heads. It slowly melted leaving the wearer smelling nice.
Egyptians loved hunting and fishing. (For the rich hunting was for pleasure. For the poor it was for food). Men caught birds with nets or by throwing curved sticks. Fish were caught with hooks or harpoons.
Men and women went swimming. Men also enjoyed boxing, wrestling, and archery. They also played a game that involved standing on a boat and trying to knock the opposing team into the water with a stick. Egyptians also played a board game called senet. The board was divided into squares with counters. You threw sticks rather than dice. Ancient Egyptian children played similar games to the ones children play today. They also played with dolls, toy soldiers, wooden animals, ball, marbles, spinning tops and knucklebones (which were thrown like dice).
The history of games and leisure
Education in Ancient Egypt
Most boys and girls in Egypt did not go to school. Instead, boys learned farming or other trades from their fathers. Girls learned sewing, cooking and other skills from their mothers. However, boys from wealthy families sometimes went to school and learned to be scribes. They learned by copying and memorizing and discipline was strict. Teachers beat naughty boys. The boys learned reading and writing and also mathematics. Girls from well off families were sometimes taught at home.
Ancient Egyptian writing consisted of symbols called hieroglyphs. Originally they were pictures but in time they evolved into standard symbols. However the hieroglyphs were very complicated and so they were only used for religious books and for carving on buildings. For everyday use a simpler form of writing called hieratic was developed.
The history of education
Weapons in Ancient Egypt
Egyptian soldiers went into battle protected only by wooden or leather shields. They fought with spears, swords, axes, daggers and maces. They also used slings and bows and arrows. Most men fought on foot but after about 1,700 BCE the army also had chariots. Each chariot carried two men, one to drive and one to shoot arrows. (In Ancient Egypt horses were mainly used for war. Donkeys were used as pack animals). Only the most important soldiers wore armor made of bronze. Prisoners of war were usually made slaves.
The history of weapons
Medicine in Ancient Egypt
The first doctor known to history was Sekhet-eanach who 'healed the pharaoh's nostrils'. (We do not know what was wrong with them). The second doctor we know of was Imhotep (c. 2,600 BCE) who was vizier or prime minister to the pharaoh. He was also a doctor and he was so famous that after his death he was worshiped as a god.
Much of Egyptian medicine still relied on magic. However, at least they could keep written records of which treatments worked and which did not. In this way, medicine could advance. The earliest known medical book is the Ebers Papyrus, which was written about 1500 BC. Doctors in Ancient Egyptian used a huge range of drugs obtained from herbs and minerals. They were drunk with wine or beer or sometimes mixed with dough to form a 'pill'. Egyptian doctors also used ointments for wounds and they treated chest complaints by getting the patient to inhale the steam. The Egyptians believed that the human body was full of passages that acted like irrigation canals. The Egyptians knew that irrigation canals sometimes became blocked. They reasoned that if the passages in a human body became blocked it might cause illness. To open them Egyptians used laxatives and induced vomiting.
However the Egyptians still believed that spells would help the sick and they carried amulets to ward off disease. Nevertheless, they were beginning to seek a physical cause for illness.
The Egyptians did have some knowledge of anatomy from making mummies. To embalm a dead body they first removed the principal organs, which would otherwise rot. However Ancient Egyptian surgery was limited to such things as treating wounds and broken bones and dealing with boils and abscesses. The Egyptians used clamps, sutures, and cauterization (burning with red hot metal). They had surgical instruments like probes, saws, forceps, scalpels, and scissors.
They also knew that honey helped to prevent wounds becoming infected. (It is a natural antiseptic). They also dressed wounds with willow bark, which has the same effect. The Ancient Egyptians were clean people. They washed daily and changed their clothes regularly, which must have helped their health.
The history of medicine.
Religion in Ancient Egypt
The Ancient Egyptians were polytheists. That is, they worshiped many gods. Gods and goddesses were usually depicted as human beings though sometimes they had animal heads. Among Ancient Egyptian gods were Amun-Re, the sun god and the leader of the gods. Nut was the sky goddess. Her brother Geb was the earth god. Osiris was in charge of the underworld. His wife was Isis and his son was Horus (who was sometimes depicted with a falcons head). Hathor was the goddess of joy and love. She was also the goddess of music and dance.
They also worshiped Anubis, god of the dead and mummification. He was a man with a jackal's head and Egyptians believed he guarded the places where the dead were buried. Other gods included Thoth, a man with an ibis head, who was the god of the moon and wisdom. Ptah was the god of craftsmen. Taweret, a pregnant hippo, was the goddess of childbirth. Maat was the goddess of justice and truth. Hapi was the god who made the Nile flood. The Ancient Egyptians had a goddess of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Her name was Seshat.
The Ancient Egyptians believed that the gods 'lived' in temples (the gods spirit was believed to inhabit a statue). Three times a day priests cleaned the statue, changed its clothes and placed fresh food before it for it to 'eat'. (After a while priests removed the food and ate it). After death Egyptians believed they would be judged. Their heart was placed in a balance and weighed against an ostrich feather (a symbol of truth and justice). If the heart was good it would balance the feather and the person was granted eternal happiness. If it was evil the feather would outweigh it. In that case, the heart was fed to a monster called Anmit, who was a part lion, part crocodile, and part hippopotamus. If Anmit ate your heart you ceased to exist.
Ancient Egyptians tried to preserve dead bodies by mummifying them so the owners could use them in the next life. The dead were also buried with 'grave goods' to use in the next life. Animals, especially cats, were also mummified. To mummify a body the Egyptians first removed its internal organs (otherwise they would rot). They rinsed the cavities with palm wine then covered the body with a salt paste called natron to dry it. After 70 days the body was washed and wrapped in linen bandages.
A Brief History of Ancient Egypt
Daily life in Ancient Greece
Daily life in Rome
Daily life in The Middle Ages
Daily life in The 16th Century
Daily life in The 17th Century
Last revised 2019 | 2,868 | ENGLISH | 1 |
- Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin, known as one of the most famous American s of the 18th century, was born on January 17, 1706. Franklin was born and raised in Boston, Massachusetts, along with his 16 siblings. He became known for his various jobs, starting out as a printer and publisher, and moving on to become an author, inventor and scientist, and diplomat. During Franklin s 84 years of life, he stated many famous quotes which still seem to be relevant today, such as the quote written above. This quote must have been stated while Franklin was involved in politics, separating the American colonies from Great Britain, or while helping with the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.
Benjamin Franklin was a man more concerned with the problems of daily life rather than his public service. He made many contributions to society by establishing institutions including a fire department, library, an insurance company, a hospital and an academy, which soon became the University of Pennsylvania. Franklin s contributions show that he felt strongly about morals and the happiness of others. The quote explains how morals are concerned with right or wrong and the distinctions between them. A moral man is fair and has good principles. He is dependant upon moral law. Franklin is trying to explain that if a man has unfair or unjust morals, he, and others in society will not be satisfied; however, if a man has fair morals, society will be thankful. Franklin states that legislation must also think the same way; they must realize that they must try to make the people of the country happy; therefore, they must make fair laws, with no discrimination towards any human being. He is hinting that legislation can be morally wrong at times because justice is not always given to all people. Franklin believes that if a man does not have good morals in the first place, he will not be able to make reasonable decisions.
Benjamin Franklin made a very valid point during the time this quote was recorded. Society may have had a problem with the injustice of the laws made by the legislation. At the time, man had no freedom of choice; Franklin was trying to fight for the rights of all people. Franklin wanted people to know that the actions of a man could change the morals of society from bad to good in little time if everyone would work together. This quote can still be considered valid today because morals are still the basis of law. If there were no morals in society, there would be no point in having law because society would not be able to distinguish the difference between right or wrong. For example, a country such as India is considered to have lost its morals due to the corruption. The loss of one man s morals must have led to the loss of morals entirely. A domino effect has taken place in the country because the legislation may feel that their morals are fair or just; although, they are not. Due to the loss of morals, the country may be headed towards its downfall. Another example in today s North American society is the problems parents are having trying to cope with, and understand their children. Parents today do not seem to be teaching their children the same morals that they were taught when they were the same age. Good principals must always be taught to children, especially during today s changing times. Today s teenagers are considered to be trouble makers; although that may be because parents are not spending enough time teaching their children the proper morals of life. Morality was always, and will always be an important part of society because it is the basis of law. | <urn:uuid:9232dca1-57df-4cf6-9825-406b78ac4e99> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://essay.ua-referat.com/Franklin_3 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00107.warc.gz | en | 0.985981 | 713 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.29165804386138916,
0.26800233125686646,
-0.2383193075656891,
-0.3749890923500061,
-0.17785201966762543,
0.20472773909568787,
0.5504574775695801,
0.4408128261566162,
-0.14544904232025146,
-0.11547433584928513,
0.1501375436782837,
0.04870261251926422,
-0.2850016951560974,
0.16245788335800... | 2 | - Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin, known as one of the most famous American s of the 18th century, was born on January 17, 1706. Franklin was born and raised in Boston, Massachusetts, along with his 16 siblings. He became known for his various jobs, starting out as a printer and publisher, and moving on to become an author, inventor and scientist, and diplomat. During Franklin s 84 years of life, he stated many famous quotes which still seem to be relevant today, such as the quote written above. This quote must have been stated while Franklin was involved in politics, separating the American colonies from Great Britain, or while helping with the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.
Benjamin Franklin was a man more concerned with the problems of daily life rather than his public service. He made many contributions to society by establishing institutions including a fire department, library, an insurance company, a hospital and an academy, which soon became the University of Pennsylvania. Franklin s contributions show that he felt strongly about morals and the happiness of others. The quote explains how morals are concerned with right or wrong and the distinctions between them. A moral man is fair and has good principles. He is dependant upon moral law. Franklin is trying to explain that if a man has unfair or unjust morals, he, and others in society will not be satisfied; however, if a man has fair morals, society will be thankful. Franklin states that legislation must also think the same way; they must realize that they must try to make the people of the country happy; therefore, they must make fair laws, with no discrimination towards any human being. He is hinting that legislation can be morally wrong at times because justice is not always given to all people. Franklin believes that if a man does not have good morals in the first place, he will not be able to make reasonable decisions.
Benjamin Franklin made a very valid point during the time this quote was recorded. Society may have had a problem with the injustice of the laws made by the legislation. At the time, man had no freedom of choice; Franklin was trying to fight for the rights of all people. Franklin wanted people to know that the actions of a man could change the morals of society from bad to good in little time if everyone would work together. This quote can still be considered valid today because morals are still the basis of law. If there were no morals in society, there would be no point in having law because society would not be able to distinguish the difference between right or wrong. For example, a country such as India is considered to have lost its morals due to the corruption. The loss of one man s morals must have led to the loss of morals entirely. A domino effect has taken place in the country because the legislation may feel that their morals are fair or just; although, they are not. Due to the loss of morals, the country may be headed towards its downfall. Another example in today s North American society is the problems parents are having trying to cope with, and understand their children. Parents today do not seem to be teaching their children the same morals that they were taught when they were the same age. Good principals must always be taught to children, especially during today s changing times. Today s teenagers are considered to be trouble makers; although that may be because parents are not spending enough time teaching their children the proper morals of life. Morality was always, and will always be an important part of society because it is the basis of law. | 721 | ENGLISH | 1 |
John F Kennedy is not automatically associated with civil rights issues as Kennedy’s presidency is more famed for the Cuban Missile Crisis and issues surrounding the Cold War. Also, no obvious civil rights legislation was signed by Kennedy. However, Kennedy did have a major input into civil rights history – though posthumously.
John Kennedy came from a rich and privileged Irish-American family. Even so, the family had to leave Boston, the city they are most famously associated with, and moved to New York. In Boston, the family had been held at arms length by those rich families who saw their Irish background as vulgar and the family’s wealth as lacking ‘class’. The Kennedy’s hoped that the more cosmopolitan New York would allow them to access high society. This introduction to bigotry and discrimination should have given Kennedy some kind of empathetic understanding of what life was like for African Americans. However, the opposite would appear to be true.
Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. The route from bill to act nearly served to tear apart the Republicans and the Democrats were almost united to a politician in their opposition to the bill/act. Kennedy had aspirations to be the Democrats next presidential candidate in the 1960 election. If he was seen to be taking the party line and demonstrating strong leadership with regards to opposing the bill, this would do his chances no harm whatsoever. This proved to be the case and Kennedy lead the Democrats to victory over Richard Nixon in 1960.
However, during the presidential campaign and after he was nominated for the Democrats, Kennedy made it clear in his speeches that he was a supporter of civil rights. Historians are divided as to why he was ‘suddenly’ converted. Some saw the opposition to the 1957 Act as understandable from a political point of view. Others have adopted a more cynical view which is that Kennedy recognised that he needed the ‘Black Vote’ if he was to beat Nixon. Hence why he said in his campaign speeches that discrimination stained America as it lead the west’s stance against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He also said that a decent president could end unacceptable housing conditions by using federal power. His call of sympathy to Martin Luther King’s wife, Coretta, when King was in prison was well publicised by the Democrats.
Now as president, Kennedy could either ignore discrimination or he could act. He had promised in his campaign speeches to act swiftly if elected. The 1960 report by the Civil Rights Commission made it very plain in clear statistics just how bad discrimination had affected the African American community.
57% of African American housing was judged to be unacceptable
African American life expectancy was 7 years less than whites
African American infant mortality was twice as great as whites
African Americans found it all but impossible to get mortgages from mortgage lenders.
Property values would drop a great deal if an African American family moved into a neighbourhood that was not a ghetto.
Regardless of his promises, in 1961 Kennedy did nothing to help and push forward the civil rights issue. Why? International factors meant that the president could never focus attention on domestic issues in that year. He also knew that there was no great public support for such legislation. Opinion polls indicated that in 1960 and 1961, civil rights was at the bottom of the list when people were asked “what needs to be done in America to advance society ?” Kennedy was also concentrating his domestic attention on improving health care and helping the lowest wage earners. Civil rights issues would only cloud the issue and disrupt progress in these areas. Kennedy also argued that improving health care and wages for the poor would effectively be civil rights legislation as they would benefit the most from these two.
What did Kennedy do to advance the cause of civil rights?
Kennedy put pressure on federal government organisations to employ more African Americans in America’s equivalent of Britain’s Civil Service. Any who were employed were usually in the lowest paid posts and in jobs that had little prospect of professional progress. The FBI only employed 48 African Americans out of a total of 13,649 and these 48 were nearly all chauffeurs. Kennedy did more than any president before him to have more African Americans appointed to federal government posts. In total, he appointed 40 to senior federal positions including five as federal judges.
Kennedy appointed his brother (Robert) as Attorney General which put him at the head of the Justice Department. Their tactic was to use the law courts as a way of enforcing already passed civil rights legislation. No southern court could really argue against laws that were already in print – though they were very good at interpreting the law in a cavalier way !! The Justice Department brought 57 law suits against local officials for obstructing African Americans who wished to register their right to vote. Local officials from Louisiana were threatened with prison for contempt when they refused to hand over money to newly desegregated schools. Such a threat prompted others in Atlanta, Memphis and New Orleans to hand over finance without too many problems – few if any were willing to experience the American penal system which had a policy of punishment then as opposed to reforming prisoners.
Kennedy was very good at what would appear to be small gestures. In American football, the Washington Redskins were the last of the big teams to refuse to sign African Americans. Their stadium was federally funded and Kennedy ordered that they were no longer allowed to use the stadium and would have to find a new one. The team very quickly signed up African American players.
Kennedy created the CEEO (Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity). Its job was to ensure that all people employed with the federal government had equal employment opportunities; it also required all those firms that had contracts with the federal government to do the same if they were to win further federal contracts. However, the CEEO was only concerned with those already employed (though it did encourage firms to employ African Americans) and it did nothing to actively get employment opportunities for African Americans. The CEEO was concerned with those in employment within the federal government…….not the unemployed.
Did Kennedy voluntarily pursue the goal of full civil rights in USA or was he ‘pushed’ into action ?
In many senses, Kennedy’s hands were tied by both national and international events. The reaction of the KKK to the Freedom Rides of 1961 was shown on national television and clearly shocked the public. However, 63% of people polled stated that they believed that the Freedom Rides should not have taken place as they were provocative (even though federal law was on the Riders side). Kennedy himself condemned the Riders for their lack of patriotism at a time of international tension over the Berlin Wall, Cuba and the Bay of Pigs fiasco. For many Americans the world scenario was of much greater importance than specific ‘home difficulties’. Involvement in the Freedom Riders affair would have been politically sensitive especially as Kennedy did not have a sizeable public mandate to initiate major change after the narrowest of victories against Nixon.
In 1961, the Interstate Commerce Commission ruled that transport terminals and interstate bus seating should be desegregated – as the 1948 ruling had already ordered. But if the 1948 Supreme Court decision had been flagrantly ignored over the years, why would people suddenly start obeying the Commission’s ruling in 1961 especially when 63% of the people seemed to be against what the Freedom Riders were attempting to achieve ?
In terms of voter registration, Kennedy’s administration did nothing in its first year in office. On the advice of his Attorney-General brother, Bobby, Kennedy claimed that it was the duty of the states to reform this area and that it was not a federal issue. Here Kennedy was no doubt attempting to win the support of those who believed that federal power was too big and trespassing in too many areas – especially the right of states to govern themselves as laid out in the Constitution.
In the violence seen at Albany in 1961, Kennedy again did nothing as he believed that the trouble had been precipitated by SNCC who were referred to as “sons of bitches” by the president.
In the 1950’s little was seen of black militancy. Progress, albeit on paper, had been made under both Truman and Eisenhower. The lack of obvious improvements under the Kennedy administration saw the start of black militancy. The Nation of Islam had been in existence in the era of Eisenhower, but its real inroads into northern inner cities came in the early 1960’s when little if anything from the federal government was seen to be advancing the cause of African Americans.
Kennedy only became voluntarily active when James Meredith forced his hand. In September 1962, James Meredith applied to a white-only college (the University of Mississippi) to do a doctorate. He was turned down. Here was a man who had served in the US Air Force for 10 years being rejected because of his colour. Meredith got legal add from the NAACP and fought his case. The Supreme Court found in his favour. When he went to enrol, Bobby Kennedy sent 500 marshals to ensure that law and order was maintained. It was not. Nearly 200 of the marshals were injured and two were shot by those who were adamant that Meredith would not go to college. To maintain law and order, something the state government could not do, John Kennedy federalised the Mississippi National Guard and sent federal troops to the university. Meredith did enroll to the university.
But would Kennedy have done anything if Meredith had not taken out legal action against the university? If Meredith had simply accepted his rejection – as illegal as it was – would Kennedy have taken such drastic action ? If Meredith had not existed, would Kennedy have hunted out those educational establishments that were blatantly breaking the law ?
Kennedy was further provoked into action by the 1963 Birmingham affair. The actions ordered by Bull Connor “sickened” Kennedy. The Justice Department was ordered to Birmingham by Bobby Kennedy and improvements quickly took place. Public facilities were desegregated and employment prospects for African Americans in Birmingham did improve somewhat.
Alabama was the last state to have desegregated universities. Kennedy sent in federal troops and federalised the National Guard to enforce the law. Did the events in Birmingham convert him to the civilrights cause? Cynics comment that it may well have been a more concerted attempt by the president to target black voters for the 1964 election.
The 1963 March on Washington was initially opposed by Kennedy as he believed that any march during his presidency would indicate that the leaders of the civil rights campaign were critical of his stance on civil rights. Kennedy also felt that the march could antagonise Congress when it was in the process of discussing his civil rights bill. A march might have been viewed by Congress as external pressure being put on them. Kennedy eventually endorsed the march when it was agreed that the federal government could have an input into it. Malcolm X criticised King’s decision to allow this as he believed that Kennedy was attempting to take over and orchestrate the march. Malcolm X was to nick-name the march “The Farce on Washington”. Historians now view the march as a great success for both King and the federal government as it went well in all aspects – peaceful, informative, well organised etc. The rumours that federal representatives would cut off the PA system if the speeches became too rabble-raising have not been proved.
Was Kennedy a keen civil rights man? In the immediate aftermath of his death, only praise was heaped on the murdered president. To do otherwise would have been considered highly unpatriotic. However, in recent years there has been a re-evaluation of Kennedy and what he did in his presidency. For a man who claimed that poor housing could be ended with the signing of the president’s name, Kennedy did nothing. His Department of Urban Affairs bill was rejected by Congress and eventually only a weak housing act was passed which applied only to future federal housing projects.
Kennedy was a politician and he was acutely aware that Democrats were less than happy with a disproportionate amount of time being spent on civil rights issues when the Cold War was in full flight with Vietnam flaring up and the world settling down after the problems poised by Cuba.
Kennedy was also aware that southern Democrats were still powerful in the party and their wishes could not be totally ignored if the party was not to be split apart – or if Kennedy was not to get the party’s nomination for the 1964 election. However, there is no doubt that the violence that occurred in the South during his presidency horrified and angered him.
For all the charisma that was attached to Kennedy’ name, he had a poor relationship with Congress and without their support nothing would become an act. Kennedy himself said:
|“A good many programmes I care about may go down the drain as a result of this (his relationship with Congress) – we may all go down the drain.”|
Kennedy had to tread a very fine line in the South. His popularity by September 1963 showed that his support had dropped to 44% in the South. It had been 60% in March 1963. At this time, the South was a traditional stronghold of the Democrats. Now in 2001, it is all but Republican to a state – and the move started in the presidency of Kennedy and grew from it almost certainly as a rejection of the stance taken by a Democrat president.
He was also losing support in the north where it was felt that the administration was too concerned with the African Americans and forgetting about the majority of the people – the whites.
In many senses Kennedy was damned if he did and damned if he did not. If he helped the African Americans in the South, he lost the support of the powerful Democrats there. If he did nothing he faced world-wide condemnation especially after the scenes vividly seen in Birmingham. Even civil rights leaders in the South criticised Kennedy for doing too little. In the north, the majority population was white. This group felt that its problems were being ignored while the problems of the African Americans were being addressed. The militant African Americans of the north as seen in the Nation of Islam condemned Kennedy simply because he epitomised white power based in Washington.
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was born in the presidency of John F Kennedy who was elected president in 1960. His support of civil… | <urn:uuid:592d7751-7130-4c29-93cc-92dcb8e420da> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/the-civil-rights-movement-in-america-1945-to-1968/john-kennedy-and-civil-rights/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597458.22/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120052454-20200120080454-00106.warc.gz | en | 0.988737 | 2,923 | 4.25 | 4 | [
-0.5953407287597656,
0.0591992549598217,
0.03106766939163208,
-0.27738243341445923,
0.19038809835910797,
0.6106855273246765,
0.04816760495305061,
-0.23971953988075256,
-0.27004313468933105,
-0.1982227861881256,
-0.034757111221551895,
0.5465518236160278,
-0.0014596546534448862,
0.2202547788... | 10 | John F Kennedy is not automatically associated with civil rights issues as Kennedy’s presidency is more famed for the Cuban Missile Crisis and issues surrounding the Cold War. Also, no obvious civil rights legislation was signed by Kennedy. However, Kennedy did have a major input into civil rights history – though posthumously.
John Kennedy came from a rich and privileged Irish-American family. Even so, the family had to leave Boston, the city they are most famously associated with, and moved to New York. In Boston, the family had been held at arms length by those rich families who saw their Irish background as vulgar and the family’s wealth as lacking ‘class’. The Kennedy’s hoped that the more cosmopolitan New York would allow them to access high society. This introduction to bigotry and discrimination should have given Kennedy some kind of empathetic understanding of what life was like for African Americans. However, the opposite would appear to be true.
Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. The route from bill to act nearly served to tear apart the Republicans and the Democrats were almost united to a politician in their opposition to the bill/act. Kennedy had aspirations to be the Democrats next presidential candidate in the 1960 election. If he was seen to be taking the party line and demonstrating strong leadership with regards to opposing the bill, this would do his chances no harm whatsoever. This proved to be the case and Kennedy lead the Democrats to victory over Richard Nixon in 1960.
However, during the presidential campaign and after he was nominated for the Democrats, Kennedy made it clear in his speeches that he was a supporter of civil rights. Historians are divided as to why he was ‘suddenly’ converted. Some saw the opposition to the 1957 Act as understandable from a political point of view. Others have adopted a more cynical view which is that Kennedy recognised that he needed the ‘Black Vote’ if he was to beat Nixon. Hence why he said in his campaign speeches that discrimination stained America as it lead the west’s stance against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He also said that a decent president could end unacceptable housing conditions by using federal power. His call of sympathy to Martin Luther King’s wife, Coretta, when King was in prison was well publicised by the Democrats.
Now as president, Kennedy could either ignore discrimination or he could act. He had promised in his campaign speeches to act swiftly if elected. The 1960 report by the Civil Rights Commission made it very plain in clear statistics just how bad discrimination had affected the African American community.
57% of African American housing was judged to be unacceptable
African American life expectancy was 7 years less than whites
African American infant mortality was twice as great as whites
African Americans found it all but impossible to get mortgages from mortgage lenders.
Property values would drop a great deal if an African American family moved into a neighbourhood that was not a ghetto.
Regardless of his promises, in 1961 Kennedy did nothing to help and push forward the civil rights issue. Why? International factors meant that the president could never focus attention on domestic issues in that year. He also knew that there was no great public support for such legislation. Opinion polls indicated that in 1960 and 1961, civil rights was at the bottom of the list when people were asked “what needs to be done in America to advance society ?” Kennedy was also concentrating his domestic attention on improving health care and helping the lowest wage earners. Civil rights issues would only cloud the issue and disrupt progress in these areas. Kennedy also argued that improving health care and wages for the poor would effectively be civil rights legislation as they would benefit the most from these two.
What did Kennedy do to advance the cause of civil rights?
Kennedy put pressure on federal government organisations to employ more African Americans in America’s equivalent of Britain’s Civil Service. Any who were employed were usually in the lowest paid posts and in jobs that had little prospect of professional progress. The FBI only employed 48 African Americans out of a total of 13,649 and these 48 were nearly all chauffeurs. Kennedy did more than any president before him to have more African Americans appointed to federal government posts. In total, he appointed 40 to senior federal positions including five as federal judges.
Kennedy appointed his brother (Robert) as Attorney General which put him at the head of the Justice Department. Their tactic was to use the law courts as a way of enforcing already passed civil rights legislation. No southern court could really argue against laws that were already in print – though they were very good at interpreting the law in a cavalier way !! The Justice Department brought 57 law suits against local officials for obstructing African Americans who wished to register their right to vote. Local officials from Louisiana were threatened with prison for contempt when they refused to hand over money to newly desegregated schools. Such a threat prompted others in Atlanta, Memphis and New Orleans to hand over finance without too many problems – few if any were willing to experience the American penal system which had a policy of punishment then as opposed to reforming prisoners.
Kennedy was very good at what would appear to be small gestures. In American football, the Washington Redskins were the last of the big teams to refuse to sign African Americans. Their stadium was federally funded and Kennedy ordered that they were no longer allowed to use the stadium and would have to find a new one. The team very quickly signed up African American players.
Kennedy created the CEEO (Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity). Its job was to ensure that all people employed with the federal government had equal employment opportunities; it also required all those firms that had contracts with the federal government to do the same if they were to win further federal contracts. However, the CEEO was only concerned with those already employed (though it did encourage firms to employ African Americans) and it did nothing to actively get employment opportunities for African Americans. The CEEO was concerned with those in employment within the federal government…….not the unemployed.
Did Kennedy voluntarily pursue the goal of full civil rights in USA or was he ‘pushed’ into action ?
In many senses, Kennedy’s hands were tied by both national and international events. The reaction of the KKK to the Freedom Rides of 1961 was shown on national television and clearly shocked the public. However, 63% of people polled stated that they believed that the Freedom Rides should not have taken place as they were provocative (even though federal law was on the Riders side). Kennedy himself condemned the Riders for their lack of patriotism at a time of international tension over the Berlin Wall, Cuba and the Bay of Pigs fiasco. For many Americans the world scenario was of much greater importance than specific ‘home difficulties’. Involvement in the Freedom Riders affair would have been politically sensitive especially as Kennedy did not have a sizeable public mandate to initiate major change after the narrowest of victories against Nixon.
In 1961, the Interstate Commerce Commission ruled that transport terminals and interstate bus seating should be desegregated – as the 1948 ruling had already ordered. But if the 1948 Supreme Court decision had been flagrantly ignored over the years, why would people suddenly start obeying the Commission’s ruling in 1961 especially when 63% of the people seemed to be against what the Freedom Riders were attempting to achieve ?
In terms of voter registration, Kennedy’s administration did nothing in its first year in office. On the advice of his Attorney-General brother, Bobby, Kennedy claimed that it was the duty of the states to reform this area and that it was not a federal issue. Here Kennedy was no doubt attempting to win the support of those who believed that federal power was too big and trespassing in too many areas – especially the right of states to govern themselves as laid out in the Constitution.
In the violence seen at Albany in 1961, Kennedy again did nothing as he believed that the trouble had been precipitated by SNCC who were referred to as “sons of bitches” by the president.
In the 1950’s little was seen of black militancy. Progress, albeit on paper, had been made under both Truman and Eisenhower. The lack of obvious improvements under the Kennedy administration saw the start of black militancy. The Nation of Islam had been in existence in the era of Eisenhower, but its real inroads into northern inner cities came in the early 1960’s when little if anything from the federal government was seen to be advancing the cause of African Americans.
Kennedy only became voluntarily active when James Meredith forced his hand. In September 1962, James Meredith applied to a white-only college (the University of Mississippi) to do a doctorate. He was turned down. Here was a man who had served in the US Air Force for 10 years being rejected because of his colour. Meredith got legal add from the NAACP and fought his case. The Supreme Court found in his favour. When he went to enrol, Bobby Kennedy sent 500 marshals to ensure that law and order was maintained. It was not. Nearly 200 of the marshals were injured and two were shot by those who were adamant that Meredith would not go to college. To maintain law and order, something the state government could not do, John Kennedy federalised the Mississippi National Guard and sent federal troops to the university. Meredith did enroll to the university.
But would Kennedy have done anything if Meredith had not taken out legal action against the university? If Meredith had simply accepted his rejection – as illegal as it was – would Kennedy have taken such drastic action ? If Meredith had not existed, would Kennedy have hunted out those educational establishments that were blatantly breaking the law ?
Kennedy was further provoked into action by the 1963 Birmingham affair. The actions ordered by Bull Connor “sickened” Kennedy. The Justice Department was ordered to Birmingham by Bobby Kennedy and improvements quickly took place. Public facilities were desegregated and employment prospects for African Americans in Birmingham did improve somewhat.
Alabama was the last state to have desegregated universities. Kennedy sent in federal troops and federalised the National Guard to enforce the law. Did the events in Birmingham convert him to the civilrights cause? Cynics comment that it may well have been a more concerted attempt by the president to target black voters for the 1964 election.
The 1963 March on Washington was initially opposed by Kennedy as he believed that any march during his presidency would indicate that the leaders of the civil rights campaign were critical of his stance on civil rights. Kennedy also felt that the march could antagonise Congress when it was in the process of discussing his civil rights bill. A march might have been viewed by Congress as external pressure being put on them. Kennedy eventually endorsed the march when it was agreed that the federal government could have an input into it. Malcolm X criticised King’s decision to allow this as he believed that Kennedy was attempting to take over and orchestrate the march. Malcolm X was to nick-name the march “The Farce on Washington”. Historians now view the march as a great success for both King and the federal government as it went well in all aspects – peaceful, informative, well organised etc. The rumours that federal representatives would cut off the PA system if the speeches became too rabble-raising have not been proved.
Was Kennedy a keen civil rights man? In the immediate aftermath of his death, only praise was heaped on the murdered president. To do otherwise would have been considered highly unpatriotic. However, in recent years there has been a re-evaluation of Kennedy and what he did in his presidency. For a man who claimed that poor housing could be ended with the signing of the president’s name, Kennedy did nothing. His Department of Urban Affairs bill was rejected by Congress and eventually only a weak housing act was passed which applied only to future federal housing projects.
Kennedy was a politician and he was acutely aware that Democrats were less than happy with a disproportionate amount of time being spent on civil rights issues when the Cold War was in full flight with Vietnam flaring up and the world settling down after the problems poised by Cuba.
Kennedy was also aware that southern Democrats were still powerful in the party and their wishes could not be totally ignored if the party was not to be split apart – or if Kennedy was not to get the party’s nomination for the 1964 election. However, there is no doubt that the violence that occurred in the South during his presidency horrified and angered him.
For all the charisma that was attached to Kennedy’ name, he had a poor relationship with Congress and without their support nothing would become an act. Kennedy himself said:
|“A good many programmes I care about may go down the drain as a result of this (his relationship with Congress) – we may all go down the drain.”|
Kennedy had to tread a very fine line in the South. His popularity by September 1963 showed that his support had dropped to 44% in the South. It had been 60% in March 1963. At this time, the South was a traditional stronghold of the Democrats. Now in 2001, it is all but Republican to a state – and the move started in the presidency of Kennedy and grew from it almost certainly as a rejection of the stance taken by a Democrat president.
He was also losing support in the north where it was felt that the administration was too concerned with the African Americans and forgetting about the majority of the people – the whites.
In many senses Kennedy was damned if he did and damned if he did not. If he helped the African Americans in the South, he lost the support of the powerful Democrats there. If he did nothing he faced world-wide condemnation especially after the scenes vividly seen in Birmingham. Even civil rights leaders in the South criticised Kennedy for doing too little. In the north, the majority population was white. This group felt that its problems were being ignored while the problems of the African Americans were being addressed. The militant African Americans of the north as seen in the Nation of Islam condemned Kennedy simply because he epitomised white power based in Washington.
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was born in the presidency of John F Kennedy who was elected president in 1960. His support of civil… | 2,971 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In Mark Twains’ The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn the main character Huck, makes two very important decisions. The first one is how he treats Jim when he first meets him at Jackson’s Island and the second is to tear up the letter to Miss Watson because he cares deeply for Jim. When Huck first runs away from Pap he goes to Jackson’s Island and thinks that he is the only person there. He soon finds out that this is not true, and that “Miss Watsons Jim”1 , is taking crap there as well. Many people would hate to be alone on an island with a “nigger”2 , but Huck is happy to have someone to talk with. At first Jim thinks he sees Hucks ghost and is scared. Huck gets Jims feelings by changing the subject and saying “It’s good daylight, le’s get breakfast”3 , showing that Huck is not only real but he does not mind that Jim is black. Jim feels that Huck might tell on him for running away, but he then decides that it will be okay to tell him why he ran away from Miss Watson. Jim keeps asking Huck if he is going to tell anyone about his running away, and Huck say’s “People would call me a low down abolitionist and despise me for keeping mum but that don’t make no difference I aint gonna tell”4 . Hucks response truly shows that his ignorance has no showing over his kindness. When taken into consideration good decisions are much more important in the long run than being the smartest person. After traveling with Jim for quite some time Huck begins to feel bad about harboring a runaway slave. He decides to write a letter to Miss Watson explaining the whole story, because Jim had been sold and he does not know where he is. Huck was indeed confused about what he should do so he dropped he dropped to his knees and began to pray. He felt by helping Jim he was committing a sin, but he later realized “you can’t pray a lie”5 . Huck saying this shows that he feels what he has done for Jim is not wrong; instead what others had done to Jim is wrong. Still not sure of what to do about the whole situation Huck writes the letter to Miss Watson, thinking he will be “cleaned of sin”6 and not feel so bad about what he is doing. After writing this letter of confession to Miss Watson, Huck starts to reminisce about the times he had with Jim. As he is thinking he comes across the times Jim would be “standing my watch on top of his’n, stead of calling me so I could go on sleeping”7 . Huck begins to realize that he would not be able to “strike no places to harden me against him”8 , showing that he realizes that Jim has done nothing but good for him. Huck looks at what he is doing and feels ashamed. He takes one final look at the letter before saying “all right then, I’ll go to hell”9 and then rips up the letter of confession. The fact that Huck looked back at his times with Jim before deciding to tear up the letter shows that the decision was obviously made conscientiously through his decisions. Hucks decisions have a major efect on the way he treats Jim at Jackson’s Island and in his decision to tear up the confession letter to Miss Watson. The way that these decisions are made shows that Huck does indeed have a good set of morals, which he uses to make his decisions. With Huck being only a young kid and Jim being much older, I think that it is easy to say that Mark Twain grew up in a area that was just like that when he was a young kid and also I believe that he was against slavery. It was probably something to do with someone he knew or something like that, he probably made friends with a slave and realized that they have lives to. | <urn:uuid:84c336e5-bf62-4b61-bb13-5c58939d6180> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://pennsylvaniaangerclass.com/huckleberry-finn-racism/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00524.warc.gz | en | 0.986425 | 823 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.46358752250671387,
0.07115447521209717,
0.09469208866357803,
-0.25363534688949585,
-0.3728712201118469,
0.18815147876739502,
0.9947567582130432,
-0.08411718904972076,
-0.2202698290348053,
-0.0401371568441391,
-0.04442926496267319,
-0.198191836476326,
0.16517968475818634,
0.2541168332099... | 1 | In Mark Twains’ The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn the main character Huck, makes two very important decisions. The first one is how he treats Jim when he first meets him at Jackson’s Island and the second is to tear up the letter to Miss Watson because he cares deeply for Jim. When Huck first runs away from Pap he goes to Jackson’s Island and thinks that he is the only person there. He soon finds out that this is not true, and that “Miss Watsons Jim”1 , is taking crap there as well. Many people would hate to be alone on an island with a “nigger”2 , but Huck is happy to have someone to talk with. At first Jim thinks he sees Hucks ghost and is scared. Huck gets Jims feelings by changing the subject and saying “It’s good daylight, le’s get breakfast”3 , showing that Huck is not only real but he does not mind that Jim is black. Jim feels that Huck might tell on him for running away, but he then decides that it will be okay to tell him why he ran away from Miss Watson. Jim keeps asking Huck if he is going to tell anyone about his running away, and Huck say’s “People would call me a low down abolitionist and despise me for keeping mum but that don’t make no difference I aint gonna tell”4 . Hucks response truly shows that his ignorance has no showing over his kindness. When taken into consideration good decisions are much more important in the long run than being the smartest person. After traveling with Jim for quite some time Huck begins to feel bad about harboring a runaway slave. He decides to write a letter to Miss Watson explaining the whole story, because Jim had been sold and he does not know where he is. Huck was indeed confused about what he should do so he dropped he dropped to his knees and began to pray. He felt by helping Jim he was committing a sin, but he later realized “you can’t pray a lie”5 . Huck saying this shows that he feels what he has done for Jim is not wrong; instead what others had done to Jim is wrong. Still not sure of what to do about the whole situation Huck writes the letter to Miss Watson, thinking he will be “cleaned of sin”6 and not feel so bad about what he is doing. After writing this letter of confession to Miss Watson, Huck starts to reminisce about the times he had with Jim. As he is thinking he comes across the times Jim would be “standing my watch on top of his’n, stead of calling me so I could go on sleeping”7 . Huck begins to realize that he would not be able to “strike no places to harden me against him”8 , showing that he realizes that Jim has done nothing but good for him. Huck looks at what he is doing and feels ashamed. He takes one final look at the letter before saying “all right then, I’ll go to hell”9 and then rips up the letter of confession. The fact that Huck looked back at his times with Jim before deciding to tear up the letter shows that the decision was obviously made conscientiously through his decisions. Hucks decisions have a major efect on the way he treats Jim at Jackson’s Island and in his decision to tear up the confession letter to Miss Watson. The way that these decisions are made shows that Huck does indeed have a good set of morals, which he uses to make his decisions. With Huck being only a young kid and Jim being much older, I think that it is easy to say that Mark Twain grew up in a area that was just like that when he was a young kid and also I believe that he was against slavery. It was probably something to do with someone he knew or something like that, he probably made friends with a slave and realized that they have lives to. | 784 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Some may assume that feminists and womanists are the same, but they have some differences that should be noted to have a better understanding of what these are about — being a feminist means standing up to the rights of a typical white woman. They believe that they should be given equal privileges as men.
They should be given the right to have a say in politics, buy their own properties, and so much more. Womanists are more concerned about the rights of black women. The main difference is that men are also very supportive of the womanist movement. Womanism is a term that is more recent as compared to feminism as it was just coined recently.
Feminism and womanism are presumed to be the same by many, but this is not the case. Feminism and womanism are not the same as they are two different terms with different meanings. Feminism refers to the state of being feminine. It is a social theory; it can also be termed a political movement which argues that legal and social restrictions on women should be removed in order to bring the issue of equality of sexes (both male and female) in all aspect of public and private life.
Womanism, on the other hand, was coined by Alice Walker. This started as a movement to resist anti-blackness in the feminism movement. A womanist is described as a feminist with color or a black feminist. In summary, feminism purse equality between both sexes in society and womanism purse equality for black women in society. I hope you find this information helpful.
Some may assume that feminism and womanism are the same, but actually, these are different from each other. Feminism is said to be what a lot of women from the middle to upper-class use. These are usually white women who believe that they deserve equal rights with men. Womanism is focused on the oppression that was experienced by black women.
In feminism, women believed that they were not being treated equally by men, but in womanism, black men are supportive of the rights that they believe black women should also get. Feminists usually decide on the rights that they want based on their experience while black women usually create a criterion based on the realities that they have experienced.
Some people may assume that feminists and womanists are the same but there are some differences between the two. The main difference between the two is that feminism was started out by white women while womanism was started by women of color. Feminism started out in the year 1940 wherein women had to fight for equal rights because men were viewed as the “stronger” gender. Womanism is more modern.
It stemmed from the year 1983 when Alice Walker, a poet, used it. She has described womanism as the desire of black women to get equal rights so that they can survive as a whole. Take note that this does not consider racism. It just focuses on the rights of black women. | <urn:uuid:893e4b4f-fa3d-4e32-b9c2-0ecbd690336c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.proprofs.com/discuss/q/1722751/what-is-the-difference-between-feminism-and | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00210.warc.gz | en | 0.987064 | 592 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
0.0242321640253067,
-0.14125259220600128,
-0.38210904598236084,
0.2421267330646515,
-0.23632444441318512,
0.23611490428447723,
0.3199467658996582,
0.03616008907556534,
0.1693691611289978,
-0.03457937389612198,
-0.1488538384437561,
-0.06072960048913956,
-0.01738368533551693,
-0.195892006158... | 2 | Some may assume that feminists and womanists are the same, but they have some differences that should be noted to have a better understanding of what these are about — being a feminist means standing up to the rights of a typical white woman. They believe that they should be given equal privileges as men.
They should be given the right to have a say in politics, buy their own properties, and so much more. Womanists are more concerned about the rights of black women. The main difference is that men are also very supportive of the womanist movement. Womanism is a term that is more recent as compared to feminism as it was just coined recently.
Feminism and womanism are presumed to be the same by many, but this is not the case. Feminism and womanism are not the same as they are two different terms with different meanings. Feminism refers to the state of being feminine. It is a social theory; it can also be termed a political movement which argues that legal and social restrictions on women should be removed in order to bring the issue of equality of sexes (both male and female) in all aspect of public and private life.
Womanism, on the other hand, was coined by Alice Walker. This started as a movement to resist anti-blackness in the feminism movement. A womanist is described as a feminist with color or a black feminist. In summary, feminism purse equality between both sexes in society and womanism purse equality for black women in society. I hope you find this information helpful.
Some may assume that feminism and womanism are the same, but actually, these are different from each other. Feminism is said to be what a lot of women from the middle to upper-class use. These are usually white women who believe that they deserve equal rights with men. Womanism is focused on the oppression that was experienced by black women.
In feminism, women believed that they were not being treated equally by men, but in womanism, black men are supportive of the rights that they believe black women should also get. Feminists usually decide on the rights that they want based on their experience while black women usually create a criterion based on the realities that they have experienced.
Some people may assume that feminists and womanists are the same but there are some differences between the two. The main difference between the two is that feminism was started out by white women while womanism was started by women of color. Feminism started out in the year 1940 wherein women had to fight for equal rights because men were viewed as the “stronger” gender. Womanism is more modern.
It stemmed from the year 1983 when Alice Walker, a poet, used it. She has described womanism as the desire of black women to get equal rights so that they can survive as a whole. Take note that this does not consider racism. It just focuses on the rights of black women. | 589 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Pandemic - of all potential threats, the smallest may prove the most lethal
The earliest living things are over three billion years old and they have proven to be both a help and a threat to us. Bacteria and viruses have always been a part of our evolution. Every so often one will come along that simply overwhelms us and rather than just making us sick will kill thousands if not millions.
There are a variety of bacteria and viruses and multiple times when their variations have affected and killed many humans. It is this range and variability that makes them so effective and deadly.
I will focus one infection that on two occasions wreaked havoc as a way to illustrate the issues and give some sense of the challenges biologists face to fight them and how we are often part of the problem.
The name influenza is Italian as it was thought that astrological influences caused the issue, they did not know it was a disease caused by a virus but they did realise that its effect would end after a period of time, you either recovered or died. Isolating people was already in practice but the new method by Venetian controlled ports would see ships from countries considered to be high risk made to anchor for 40 days before entering the port. From this we get quarantine which means 40 days.
Flu’s are contagious which is an indicator of how likely someone exposed to the virus is likely to become infected. When the levels of infection are stable as you might see during the summer months that flu can be considered endemic, when it spreads and rapidly increases, the outbreak can be called an epidemic and when an epidemic spreads beyond national borders and continents it is called a pandemic which means “all people”
That is interesting because flu pandemics are almost never the kind that comes from people, they typically come from other animals like bats, horses or seals but mostly from birds and pigs.
Flu type B & C only affect humans, but type A infects the animals mentioned above too.
Flu virus type A has two further variations that improve its chances of beating our immune defenses and typically give the specific virus its name H and N.
In 1918 a bird virus developed that was also able to infect humans, it was the H1N1 strain of Influenza A virus. Those infected would have sought treatment believing it was the same as a type B or C flu virus, but it was far more contagious as humans had never been exposed to it before.
The flu appears to have started in the US and rapidly spread first in hospitals where it was first treated and them by hospital staff to other facilities. As it occurred during World War I, the virus was transported from the US to Europe among 2 million troops that crossed the Atlantic, in far less than 40 days, allowing the virus to spread on board and then across Europe. It got its name from the news coverage centered in the Spanish press as the nations at war suppressed news about the deadly virus spreading through their populations. It resulted in more deaths than World War I itself with estimates from 50 to 100 million fatalities. As a result, as much as a third of the world population would be infected. While that made it the worst outbreak in history, anyone who survived was unlikely to get it again and so less likely to spread it should they come into contact that was not infected.
This is the main reason contagious viruses tend to be short-lived. It is also the reason vaccines can be so useful to prevent the outbreak in the first place. Viruses need to spread to survive if an infected person comes into contact with two people with no immunity both will become infected and can infect more people, but if one had immunity the chances of it spreading are drastically reduced.
Vaccinating a high percentage can prevent anyone from becoming infected as the chance of spreading to an infected person is so low. This is herd immunity and has been the reason we have managed to eradicate some infections like Smallpox which despite being very contagious and quite deadly is no longer a threat. However, when vaccination levels fall as they have done thanks to false information and fear about vaccines, everyone becomes more vulnerable, especially those who can’t or did not get vaccinated.
Trade and transport have long been an amplifying factor for pandemics as seen during WW1 but today should a virus like H1N1 occur again, the entire world would be infected far quicker.
If you have the flu, you should stay home. Taking antibiotics for a flu virus does not work and could make things worse.
Bill Gates believes a pandemic poses a greater and more realistic risk to humanity in the short term.
Consider the impact of a pandemic that forces countries to shut their borders. It would cause important supplies to run short and prices to skyrocket. Medical facilities would be swamped. Work would grind to a halt as people either stayed away or could not work. The economy would crash and the chances of recovery difficult for patients and the countries affected alike.
You might think that this is a warning about a threat from long ago, but a variation of that same H1N1 virus mutated in 2009 and in just 12 months over 60 million infections were reported in the US alone with over 12 000 deaths, globally over 500 000 people died. This virus was still H1N1 but had recombined with four other flu viruses.
It was first identified on April 12, 2009, in the US which had posted the full genome before the end of that month and activated all the emergency plans and stockpiles of supplies for such an event and still it rapidly spread.
It seems obvious that we should prepare for the next outbreak, but many countries for a variety of reasons are not suitably prepared. Neither is business. Each year the regular flu season sees managers stress to keep all the posts covered as staff fall ill. During an epidemic, it would get much worse, yet few companies have a plan that can address such a situation.
South Africa is under pressure from a slow economy, severe damage from corruption, massive unemployment and stretched health care as we deal with the HIV epidemic. Should a new flu virus be found it would not take long to arrive in SA. South Africa’s plans were formulated in 2007 and the handling of the HIV crisis suggests the medical professionals are well placed to deal with an outbreak.
Business may not be sufficiently prepared and it is very likely that citizens are not. Hopefully, thanks to this that risk is now also a little less. You could always try the board game and see if you are ready.
Data ssystems use a great deal of energy and tech providers must start reducing emissions.Read More
Arthur Goldstuck shares his observations on new trends revealed at this year's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.Read More
Tertiary education may no longer be enoughRead More
It should be a simple task, but clothing sizes can make a purchase complicated.Read More
Did you know we can store energy in dams, blocks, trains and flywheels?Read More
While things look bad, it also suggests things can only get better.Read More
Using what you have to build a modern billion-dollar businessRead More
Just because it is free does not mean there is no cost thoughRead More
The movie is set in November 2019 and was released in 1982, what will the world look like in another 37 years?Read More | <urn:uuid:6e7f83dc-25dd-465c-b505-5d76cb9e1220> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.capetalk.co.za/features/110/business-unusual/368890/pandemics-bizun | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251773463.72/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128030221-20200128060221-00227.warc.gz | en | 0.982077 | 1,503 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.23233512043952942,
0.15357717871665955,
0.08984391391277313,
0.18052899837493896,
0.3611067533493042,
0.20283818244934082,
0.8136589527130127,
0.4089055061340332,
0.30930638313293457,
-0.07698367536067963,
-0.17326290905475616,
-0.09209780395030975,
0.4727628231048584,
0.358059167861938... | 1 | Pandemic - of all potential threats, the smallest may prove the most lethal
The earliest living things are over three billion years old and they have proven to be both a help and a threat to us. Bacteria and viruses have always been a part of our evolution. Every so often one will come along that simply overwhelms us and rather than just making us sick will kill thousands if not millions.
There are a variety of bacteria and viruses and multiple times when their variations have affected and killed many humans. It is this range and variability that makes them so effective and deadly.
I will focus one infection that on two occasions wreaked havoc as a way to illustrate the issues and give some sense of the challenges biologists face to fight them and how we are often part of the problem.
The name influenza is Italian as it was thought that astrological influences caused the issue, they did not know it was a disease caused by a virus but they did realise that its effect would end after a period of time, you either recovered or died. Isolating people was already in practice but the new method by Venetian controlled ports would see ships from countries considered to be high risk made to anchor for 40 days before entering the port. From this we get quarantine which means 40 days.
Flu’s are contagious which is an indicator of how likely someone exposed to the virus is likely to become infected. When the levels of infection are stable as you might see during the summer months that flu can be considered endemic, when it spreads and rapidly increases, the outbreak can be called an epidemic and when an epidemic spreads beyond national borders and continents it is called a pandemic which means “all people”
That is interesting because flu pandemics are almost never the kind that comes from people, they typically come from other animals like bats, horses or seals but mostly from birds and pigs.
Flu type B & C only affect humans, but type A infects the animals mentioned above too.
Flu virus type A has two further variations that improve its chances of beating our immune defenses and typically give the specific virus its name H and N.
In 1918 a bird virus developed that was also able to infect humans, it was the H1N1 strain of Influenza A virus. Those infected would have sought treatment believing it was the same as a type B or C flu virus, but it was far more contagious as humans had never been exposed to it before.
The flu appears to have started in the US and rapidly spread first in hospitals where it was first treated and them by hospital staff to other facilities. As it occurred during World War I, the virus was transported from the US to Europe among 2 million troops that crossed the Atlantic, in far less than 40 days, allowing the virus to spread on board and then across Europe. It got its name from the news coverage centered in the Spanish press as the nations at war suppressed news about the deadly virus spreading through their populations. It resulted in more deaths than World War I itself with estimates from 50 to 100 million fatalities. As a result, as much as a third of the world population would be infected. While that made it the worst outbreak in history, anyone who survived was unlikely to get it again and so less likely to spread it should they come into contact that was not infected.
This is the main reason contagious viruses tend to be short-lived. It is also the reason vaccines can be so useful to prevent the outbreak in the first place. Viruses need to spread to survive if an infected person comes into contact with two people with no immunity both will become infected and can infect more people, but if one had immunity the chances of it spreading are drastically reduced.
Vaccinating a high percentage can prevent anyone from becoming infected as the chance of spreading to an infected person is so low. This is herd immunity and has been the reason we have managed to eradicate some infections like Smallpox which despite being very contagious and quite deadly is no longer a threat. However, when vaccination levels fall as they have done thanks to false information and fear about vaccines, everyone becomes more vulnerable, especially those who can’t or did not get vaccinated.
Trade and transport have long been an amplifying factor for pandemics as seen during WW1 but today should a virus like H1N1 occur again, the entire world would be infected far quicker.
If you have the flu, you should stay home. Taking antibiotics for a flu virus does not work and could make things worse.
Bill Gates believes a pandemic poses a greater and more realistic risk to humanity in the short term.
Consider the impact of a pandemic that forces countries to shut their borders. It would cause important supplies to run short and prices to skyrocket. Medical facilities would be swamped. Work would grind to a halt as people either stayed away or could not work. The economy would crash and the chances of recovery difficult for patients and the countries affected alike.
You might think that this is a warning about a threat from long ago, but a variation of that same H1N1 virus mutated in 2009 and in just 12 months over 60 million infections were reported in the US alone with over 12 000 deaths, globally over 500 000 people died. This virus was still H1N1 but had recombined with four other flu viruses.
It was first identified on April 12, 2009, in the US which had posted the full genome before the end of that month and activated all the emergency plans and stockpiles of supplies for such an event and still it rapidly spread.
It seems obvious that we should prepare for the next outbreak, but many countries for a variety of reasons are not suitably prepared. Neither is business. Each year the regular flu season sees managers stress to keep all the posts covered as staff fall ill. During an epidemic, it would get much worse, yet few companies have a plan that can address such a situation.
South Africa is under pressure from a slow economy, severe damage from corruption, massive unemployment and stretched health care as we deal with the HIV epidemic. Should a new flu virus be found it would not take long to arrive in SA. South Africa’s plans were formulated in 2007 and the handling of the HIV crisis suggests the medical professionals are well placed to deal with an outbreak.
Business may not be sufficiently prepared and it is very likely that citizens are not. Hopefully, thanks to this that risk is now also a little less. You could always try the board game and see if you are ready.
Data ssystems use a great deal of energy and tech providers must start reducing emissions.Read More
Arthur Goldstuck shares his observations on new trends revealed at this year's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.Read More
Tertiary education may no longer be enoughRead More
It should be a simple task, but clothing sizes can make a purchase complicated.Read More
Did you know we can store energy in dams, blocks, trains and flywheels?Read More
While things look bad, it also suggests things can only get better.Read More
Using what you have to build a modern billion-dollar businessRead More
Just because it is free does not mean there is no cost thoughRead More
The movie is set in November 2019 and was released in 1982, what will the world look like in another 37 years?Read More | 1,521 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Custom Early America Essay Paper Sample
North America, currently comprising of Mexico, Canada, and the United States, takes the third place among the relatively small continents. It was discovered by Columbus who was on a sea venture and accidentally landed in America in 1962. Being an Italian sponsored by Portagese government, he began his exploration of America, and this opened a door for Britain, Spain, France, and Portugal to further their colonies in American soil. The main reason why European kingdoms were establishing colonies were to create new trade routes, to gain religious independence as well as to look for natural resources such as minerals and gold. In other words, colonization was a process aimed at attaining free global exchange among countries. The two native dwellers in America were the Arawokes and the red Indians.
Buy Early America essay paper online
* Final order price might be slightly different depending on the current exchange rate of chosen payment system.
Initially, the English colonies perceived America as a potential base for harassment and conspiracy against Spain. However, this perception changed by the end of sixteenth century when they began to reflect on North America as a colony. In other words, North America had been a potential source of raw materials and fur as well as a good market for their goods. North America offered numerous advantages to the English colonizers. America would also act as home to the poor English who would have immense impact on advancing the wealth of their nation. The first colony was established in Jamestown. However, the first settlers suffered many illnesses that left thousands of them dead. Jamestown was believed to host precious metals that could be of benefit to the English. Despite this, the English settlers were in continuous battle with Indians and diseases. One of the major sources of conflict in Jamestown was food. Since many settlers in Jamestown were more interested in gold and silver, they shied off from farming. Consequently, they started to use the Indians food stocks which in turn caused the supply to be cut off by the governing authorities of the native Indians, also known as Powhatan confederacy. The English people had no option but to feed on frogs, decaying corpses, and snakes. The conflict between Powhatan confederacy and the English intensified when the colonists began clearing land so as to plant tobacco.
After realizing that they would not gain wealth through gold and precious stones as they had earlier perceived, the English ventured into pieces of land that were cleared to allow tobacco plantation. However, they were too lazy to engage in hard labor and therefore resorted to import slaves from Africa. This was te onset of slavery in America which eventually lasted over 200 years later. They further advanced into rice and indigo and later on cotton. The puritan settled along the north of Massachusetts with the aim of advancing their religious independence. They were driven by the fact that England was overcrowded, and improper farming methods could not allow them to advance. They believed that settling in north of Massachusetts would grant a chance to gain greater wealth than they could acquire in England. The British gained much by colonizing America. However, some of the benefits were not realized until a long period of time.
One of the driving forces for European colonists was the vast land in America. As a result, they displaced the Indians and Arawokes that were staying in America and possessed their land. One long-term effect of this move of the colonists was the permanent change of culture in North America. It is worth noting that any area was always colonized forcefully and against the wishes of the actual dwellers. This was no different with North America. Spain, Britain, Portugal, and France utilized its massive weaponry, cavalry, iron, and gunpowder to threaten Indians who lacked the gunpowder.
Colonization of North America had detrimental effects on the native dwellers. Within a short span of time, their life was completely revolutionized in many ways. They lost their land to the colonists, and, at some point, they were forced to adhere to government laws that contradicted their cultural beliefs. The arrival of the colonists also brought diseases and illnesses that were not common to the natives. Since they lacked immunity, most native died because of diseases that were common to the European colonists. The Europeans also brought with them alcohol, horses, and guns. This altered the lifestyle of the natives who could now use horses and gun in their hunt for food. The native Indians were evicted from their lands and forced to live in reservation unless they forsook their cultural identity and become Americans. However, the French colonists dealt differently with the American Indians. They embraced their cultural practice.
The aspect of change brought about by colonization is the increase of trade, also known as Columbian exchange. This change had both negative and positive impacts. The arrival of alcohol was detrimental to the American Indians who had different internal resistance as well as immunities from the Europeans. As a result, the American Indians were severely affected by alcohol even more than tthey had supposed. Being addictives in nature, they ended up being dependent on alcohol which then caused health deterioration. Americans had no horses, sheep, and goats which were brought from the Old World into the New World (America). Similarly, the European settlers also brought Old World crops such as rice, tobacco, and wheat. For instance, the European settlers in the east coast of the US planted apples and wheat which they had brought from their motherland. Cattle and horses from European countries were very helpful to the Native Americans. However, smallpox was the worst catastrophe that ever hit native Americas and which was brought by the European settlers. The Native Americans could not withstand the settlement of Europeans in America. Some of the atrocities that Europeans did to the Native Americans include eviction from land, immense alcoholism, and brutality. In other words, the Columbian exchange was more beneficial to the European colonists than it was to the Native Americans.
The introduction of European animals revolutionized the New World to a greater extent. Columbian exchange also resulted into demographic explosion in America as well as other parts of the world. For instance, the arrival of rice and wheat into the world increased food production levels. Consequently, many people could easily access food, and hence, population exploded in the subsequent centuries. The American Indians had been adapted to a kind of environment which was quite different from the environment created by the European settlers. As a result, the American Indians were adversely affected by the new system which caused many of them to succumb to death. This explains why the demographic distribution in America favors European nationals but not the Native Americans. The reduced population can also be attributed to the fact that many American Indians died of diseases and alcoholism
Environment was adversely affected by the settlement of Europeans in North America. Colonization resulted into overpopulation and consequently destruction of vast land to provide the settlements. The settlers also engaged in destructive land use which led to land degradation. Environmental pollution destroyed the ozone layer, and, as a result, extinct animal species were endangered. The designed agricultural systems were more inclined to the yields produced with no regard to the enormous harm caused to the land. It is documented that American Indian were not civilized hence could not object the environmental degradation that was practiced by the European settlers.
Related history-essays essays
Most popular orders | <urn:uuid:8d7d3f2f-5364-4f84-a2e7-b9de9c315dd0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://primewritings.com/essays/history-essays/early-america.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00241.warc.gz | en | 0.986836 | 1,466 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.29795336723327637,
0.1571439951658249,
0.5629397630691528,
-0.040273267775774,
0.044277604669332504,
-0.2217196226119995,
-0.09740278869867325,
0.1936694234609604,
-0.04793268069624901,
-0.08829838037490845,
0.12381796538829803,
-0.033323682844638824,
-0.21434879302978516,
0.28992766141... | 1 | Custom Early America Essay Paper Sample
North America, currently comprising of Mexico, Canada, and the United States, takes the third place among the relatively small continents. It was discovered by Columbus who was on a sea venture and accidentally landed in America in 1962. Being an Italian sponsored by Portagese government, he began his exploration of America, and this opened a door for Britain, Spain, France, and Portugal to further their colonies in American soil. The main reason why European kingdoms were establishing colonies were to create new trade routes, to gain religious independence as well as to look for natural resources such as minerals and gold. In other words, colonization was a process aimed at attaining free global exchange among countries. The two native dwellers in America were the Arawokes and the red Indians.
Buy Early America essay paper online
* Final order price might be slightly different depending on the current exchange rate of chosen payment system.
Initially, the English colonies perceived America as a potential base for harassment and conspiracy against Spain. However, this perception changed by the end of sixteenth century when they began to reflect on North America as a colony. In other words, North America had been a potential source of raw materials and fur as well as a good market for their goods. North America offered numerous advantages to the English colonizers. America would also act as home to the poor English who would have immense impact on advancing the wealth of their nation. The first colony was established in Jamestown. However, the first settlers suffered many illnesses that left thousands of them dead. Jamestown was believed to host precious metals that could be of benefit to the English. Despite this, the English settlers were in continuous battle with Indians and diseases. One of the major sources of conflict in Jamestown was food. Since many settlers in Jamestown were more interested in gold and silver, they shied off from farming. Consequently, they started to use the Indians food stocks which in turn caused the supply to be cut off by the governing authorities of the native Indians, also known as Powhatan confederacy. The English people had no option but to feed on frogs, decaying corpses, and snakes. The conflict between Powhatan confederacy and the English intensified when the colonists began clearing land so as to plant tobacco.
After realizing that they would not gain wealth through gold and precious stones as they had earlier perceived, the English ventured into pieces of land that were cleared to allow tobacco plantation. However, they were too lazy to engage in hard labor and therefore resorted to import slaves from Africa. This was te onset of slavery in America which eventually lasted over 200 years later. They further advanced into rice and indigo and later on cotton. The puritan settled along the north of Massachusetts with the aim of advancing their religious independence. They were driven by the fact that England was overcrowded, and improper farming methods could not allow them to advance. They believed that settling in north of Massachusetts would grant a chance to gain greater wealth than they could acquire in England. The British gained much by colonizing America. However, some of the benefits were not realized until a long period of time.
One of the driving forces for European colonists was the vast land in America. As a result, they displaced the Indians and Arawokes that were staying in America and possessed their land. One long-term effect of this move of the colonists was the permanent change of culture in North America. It is worth noting that any area was always colonized forcefully and against the wishes of the actual dwellers. This was no different with North America. Spain, Britain, Portugal, and France utilized its massive weaponry, cavalry, iron, and gunpowder to threaten Indians who lacked the gunpowder.
Colonization of North America had detrimental effects on the native dwellers. Within a short span of time, their life was completely revolutionized in many ways. They lost their land to the colonists, and, at some point, they were forced to adhere to government laws that contradicted their cultural beliefs. The arrival of the colonists also brought diseases and illnesses that were not common to the natives. Since they lacked immunity, most native died because of diseases that were common to the European colonists. The Europeans also brought with them alcohol, horses, and guns. This altered the lifestyle of the natives who could now use horses and gun in their hunt for food. The native Indians were evicted from their lands and forced to live in reservation unless they forsook their cultural identity and become Americans. However, the French colonists dealt differently with the American Indians. They embraced their cultural practice.
The aspect of change brought about by colonization is the increase of trade, also known as Columbian exchange. This change had both negative and positive impacts. The arrival of alcohol was detrimental to the American Indians who had different internal resistance as well as immunities from the Europeans. As a result, the American Indians were severely affected by alcohol even more than tthey had supposed. Being addictives in nature, they ended up being dependent on alcohol which then caused health deterioration. Americans had no horses, sheep, and goats which were brought from the Old World into the New World (America). Similarly, the European settlers also brought Old World crops such as rice, tobacco, and wheat. For instance, the European settlers in the east coast of the US planted apples and wheat which they had brought from their motherland. Cattle and horses from European countries were very helpful to the Native Americans. However, smallpox was the worst catastrophe that ever hit native Americas and which was brought by the European settlers. The Native Americans could not withstand the settlement of Europeans in America. Some of the atrocities that Europeans did to the Native Americans include eviction from land, immense alcoholism, and brutality. In other words, the Columbian exchange was more beneficial to the European colonists than it was to the Native Americans.
The introduction of European animals revolutionized the New World to a greater extent. Columbian exchange also resulted into demographic explosion in America as well as other parts of the world. For instance, the arrival of rice and wheat into the world increased food production levels. Consequently, many people could easily access food, and hence, population exploded in the subsequent centuries. The American Indians had been adapted to a kind of environment which was quite different from the environment created by the European settlers. As a result, the American Indians were adversely affected by the new system which caused many of them to succumb to death. This explains why the demographic distribution in America favors European nationals but not the Native Americans. The reduced population can also be attributed to the fact that many American Indians died of diseases and alcoholism
Environment was adversely affected by the settlement of Europeans in North America. Colonization resulted into overpopulation and consequently destruction of vast land to provide the settlements. The settlers also engaged in destructive land use which led to land degradation. Environmental pollution destroyed the ozone layer, and, as a result, extinct animal species were endangered. The designed agricultural systems were more inclined to the yields produced with no regard to the enormous harm caused to the land. It is documented that American Indian were not civilized hence could not object the environmental degradation that was practiced by the European settlers.
Related history-essays essays
Most popular orders | 1,476 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Since America began to be populated by Europeans, numerous buildings and important sites were established. In these early years, the colonists were more interested in survival and later, in forming their own nation, to be too involved in preserving historic buildings. However, many did survive including those in the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and in the earliest Spanish settlements of St. Augustine, Florida and Santa Fe, New Mexico. Spanish missions across the Southwest and California also still stand, as well as 17th-century buildings in New England.
But, over the years, a number of important and interesting sites have been lost, many due to the urbanization of cities and others to decay. The years between 1880 and 1920 changed American cities as they went through a period of industrial progress, and to make room for more important buildings, many of the old ones wore torn down. After World War II, many structures that represented first-of-a-kind technical achievements just years before became outdated and were demolished.
Over the next decades, more buildings were torn down as cities continued to grow. Many of these were demolished due to neglect, others due to health and safety reasons, some due to maintenance and upgrade costs, and more to the expansion and redevelopment of cities and roads.
But still, many historic buildings remained. In 1949, the US National Trust for Historic Preservation, a privately funded non-profit organization began and 28 states joined the organization. In New York City, the destruction of Pennsylvania Station in 1964 shocked many nationwide into supporting preservation. Soon, new laws began to protect buildings and entire districts. In 1966, the National Register of Historic Places was established, providing some protection to historic properties. However, this designation doesn’t prevent the demolition of a historic property if the site is a threat to society due to fire damage, asbestos, and/or neglect.
More recently, there has been a surge in interest in revitalizing historic downtowns that suffered in the last several decades due to the expansion of suburbs. Today, many people are responding to those revitalizations by revisiting downtown spaces for entertainment and buying and renting these character-rich spaces.
Our Vanished Sites Photo Gallery includes many historic landmarks that have been lost over the years, as well as other sites that were popular destinations for visitors and travelers in the last decades. These include many sites on old Route 66, as well as many other destinations that display former lodging facilities, diners, and roadside attractions.
©Kathy Weiser-Alexander, September 2019. | <urn:uuid:b5e0e494-6f79-4d26-922f-1141ed1d1475> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.legendsofamerica.com/lost-landmarks-vanished-sites/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687958.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126074227-20200126104227-00511.warc.gz | en | 0.982396 | 511 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.1551586538553238,
0.1087224930524826,
0.5387806296348572,
0.0832786038517952,
-0.04909541830420494,
0.3999449908733368,
-0.5283438563346863,
0.13114836812019348,
-0.11513718962669373,
0.05097023397684097,
-0.11227039247751236,
0.313205748796463,
-0.12492185831069946,
0.41412553191185,
... | 4 | Since America began to be populated by Europeans, numerous buildings and important sites were established. In these early years, the colonists were more interested in survival and later, in forming their own nation, to be too involved in preserving historic buildings. However, many did survive including those in the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and in the earliest Spanish settlements of St. Augustine, Florida and Santa Fe, New Mexico. Spanish missions across the Southwest and California also still stand, as well as 17th-century buildings in New England.
But, over the years, a number of important and interesting sites have been lost, many due to the urbanization of cities and others to decay. The years between 1880 and 1920 changed American cities as they went through a period of industrial progress, and to make room for more important buildings, many of the old ones wore torn down. After World War II, many structures that represented first-of-a-kind technical achievements just years before became outdated and were demolished.
Over the next decades, more buildings were torn down as cities continued to grow. Many of these were demolished due to neglect, others due to health and safety reasons, some due to maintenance and upgrade costs, and more to the expansion and redevelopment of cities and roads.
But still, many historic buildings remained. In 1949, the US National Trust for Historic Preservation, a privately funded non-profit organization began and 28 states joined the organization. In New York City, the destruction of Pennsylvania Station in 1964 shocked many nationwide into supporting preservation. Soon, new laws began to protect buildings and entire districts. In 1966, the National Register of Historic Places was established, providing some protection to historic properties. However, this designation doesn’t prevent the demolition of a historic property if the site is a threat to society due to fire damage, asbestos, and/or neglect.
More recently, there has been a surge in interest in revitalizing historic downtowns that suffered in the last several decades due to the expansion of suburbs. Today, many people are responding to those revitalizations by revisiting downtown spaces for entertainment and buying and renting these character-rich spaces.
Our Vanished Sites Photo Gallery includes many historic landmarks that have been lost over the years, as well as other sites that were popular destinations for visitors and travelers in the last decades. These include many sites on old Route 66, as well as many other destinations that display former lodging facilities, diners, and roadside attractions.
©Kathy Weiser-Alexander, September 2019. | 528 | ENGLISH | 1 |
U.S. marines occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934. By 1919, Haitian Charlemagne Péralte had organized more than a thousand cacos, or armed guerrillas, to militarily oppose the marine occupation. The marines responded to the resistance with a counterinsurgency campaign that razed villages, killed thousands of Haitians, and destroyed the livelihoods of even more. American organizations such as the NAACP opposed the U.S. occupation of Haiti. They sent delegations that investigated conditions and protested the blatant racism and imperialism of U.S. policy in Haiti in the early 20th century. An article from 1920, by NAACP leader James Weldon Johnson, countered the standard justifications for U.S. occupation of Haiti.
In writing of my visit to Haiti for Crisis readers, I should like to tell all that I learned about political, economic and social conditions there, and to give, as well, the information and impressions I gained about the country and the Haitian people themselves. This, of course, will not be possible, for either of these phases of the subject, fully treated, would make a complete article. I have decided that something about each phase will be more interesting and more comprehensive than all about one. Therefore, what I say will of necessity be rather sketchy.
The Historic Background
I should like the reader, first of all, to take a swift glance at the historical and cultural background of the Haitian people. In order to fully understand present and actual conditions, it is necessary to be familiar with the fact that the Haitian people have a glorious history behind them. Haiti was the first of the American Republics, after the United States, to gain its independence. The story of the war for Haitian independence is one of the most thrilling chapters in the history of the world. If one reads only what alien historians have written, he gains the idea that the Haitian struggle was nothing more than the massacre of outnumbered whites by hordes of semi-savage blacks. There was massacre and savagery but it was on both sides. But the war itself was one which suffers very little in magnitude by comparison with the American Revolution. There were times when the French troops and the Haitian troops engaged, aggregated more than 80,000 men. The French troops were the best that Napoleon could send. The Haitian troops were not a band of lawless guerrillas but were well drilled and well officered. There were battles in which these troops compelled the admiration of the French for their valor, and their commanders, for their military ability and gallantry.
It should also be borne in mind that the Haitian Revolution was not merely a political revolution. It was also a social revolution. There was a complete overturn of both the political and social organization of the country. The man who had been the chattel became the ruler. The great estates of the colonial slave holders were cut up into small parcels and allotted among the former slaves. This last fact has a direct bearing on present conditions in Haiti, to which I shall refer later.
Haiti gained her independence 116 years ago and maintained her complete sovereignty down to 1915, the year of American intervention. None of the Latin-American Republics had the difficulties in maintaining their independence that Haiti encountered. The Black Republic did not receive from the United States the support which it had a right to expect. Haiti had fought France, England and Spain, but the United States was the last of all the strong nations to recognize her independence, when, indeed, she should have been the first.
Even intelligent colored Americans are apt to feel indulgent or embarrassed over the subject of Haitian history. No doubt many of them have smiled or felt ashamed at the generally accepted story about King Christophe in his palace at Sans Souci and his court of dukes and counts. The popular picture of Christophe’s court is that of a semi-savage ludicrously playing at king, surrounded by a nobility that took their titles from the names of things they liked best to eat and drink. Christophe was a remarkable man, and a ruler of great intelligence and energy. He declared himself king because he felt that most could be accomplished for Haiti under the strongest possible form of government. Under his direction, the northern part of Haiti underwent great development. I visited Christophe’s palace at Sans Souci. It has fallen into ruins, but there is still enough left to show that it was indeed a palace. The buildings and grounds were copied after the palace at Versailles, and were constructed by the best European architects and builders. There is no doubt that when it was erected, it was the most palatial residence on the western hemisphere.
But a yet more wonderful testimony of Christophe’s energy and greatness is the citadel which he built with the idea of its being the last stronghold against the French if they should attempt to reconquer Haiti. He built this citadel on the top of a mountain more than three thousand feet high, which towered up above his palace at Sans Souci, and dominated the fertile plains of northern Haiti which stretch around for miles. I made the trip to the citadel. The journey requires more than two hours on horseback up a narrow and precipitous mountain path. After I had ridden for an hour and a half, I reached a sudden turn in the path and caught the first view of the structure. The sight was amazing. It was dumbfounding. I could hardly believe my own eyes. There, from the pinnacle of the mountain, rose the massive walls of solid brick and stone to a height of more than one hundred feet. On three sides of the citadel the walls are sheer with the sides of the mountain. The other side is approached by the path.
This path, Christophe had commanded by fifty solid brass cannon, each one about thirty feet long. How he got these guns up to the top of the mountain nobody seems to know. The Haitian Government has had offers for them as metal, but nobody seems to know how to get them down. Getting them up was a super-human accomplishment, as it is not an easy matter to get up to the citadel with an ordinary basket of lunch. I spent more than two hours going through this vast fortress without pausing a moment, and the more I saw of it, the more the wonder grew on me not only as to the execution but the mere conception of such a work. In many places the walls are from eight to twelve feet thick. An idea of its size may be gained from the fact that it was built to quarter 30,000 soldiers. It is the most wonderful ruin in the western hemisphere, and for the amount of human energy and labor sacrificed, can well be compared to the pyramids of Egypt. As I stood on the highest point, where the sheer drop from the walls was more than 2,000 feet, and looked out over the rich plains of northern Haiti, I was impressed with the thought that if ever a man had the right to feel himself a king, that man was Christophe when he walked around the parapets of his citadel.
It is a people of Negro blood, who have produced a Christophe and a Dessalines, who have given to the world one of its greatest statesmen, Toussaint L’Ouverture, who have behind them a history of which they have every right to be proud, that are now threatened with the loss of their independence; that have now fallen not only under American political domination, but under the domination of American prejudice. Haiti is ruled today by martial law dispensed by Americans. There are nearly three thousand American Marines in Haiti, and American control is maintained by their bayonets. In the five years of American Occupation, more than three thousand innocent Haitians have been slaughtered.
There are three grounds on which the attempt is made to justify American intervention and the military occupation of Haiti. The first is that such a state of anarchy and bloodshed had been reached as could no longer be tolerated by the civilized world; the second, that the Haitians have demonstrated absolute unfitness to govern themselves; and the third, that great benefits have been brought to Haiti by American control.
As to the first: The United States Government has wished to make it appear that it was forced on purely humane grounds to intervene in Haiti because of the tragic overthrow and death of President Vilbrun Guillaume, July 27–8, 1915, and that this government has been compelled to keep a military force in Haiti since that time to pacify the country maintain order. The fact is that for nearly a year before the coup d’état which overthrew Guillaume, the United States had been bringing pressure on Haiti to compel that country to submit to American control. Three diplomatic attempts had been made by three different missions. It was in May, 1915, that the third attempt was made. The United States sent to Haiti Mr. Paul Fuller, Jr., with the title “Envoy Extraordinary”, on a special mission to apprise the Haitian Government that the Guillaume Administration would not be recognized by the United States unless Haiti agreed to sign a covenant similar to the one which this country had with Santo Domingo. The two governments were interchanging views on this proposition when the events of July 27–8 took place.
On July 27, President Guillaume fled to the French Legation. On the same day, political prisoners in the prison at Port-au-Prince were executed. On the next morning, Guillaume was killed, and that afternoon, an American man-of-war dropped anchor at Port-au-Prince and landed American forces. Immediately after the killing of Guillaume, Port-au-Prince was as quiet as though nothing had happened, and it should be borne in mind that through it all, the life of not a single American citizen had been taken or jeopardized. The overthrow of Guillaume and its attending consequences did not constitute the cause of American intervention in Haiti; it merely furnished an opportunity for which this government was waiting. There never have been the grounds for intervention in Haiti that there have been in Mexico.
Fitness To Rule
The unfitness of the Haitian people to govern themselves has been the subject of propaganda for the last century. Books and pamphlets and articles have been written, and lectures have been delivered many times over to prove that the Haitians not only were incapable of advancement, but were steadily retrograding into barbarism. An observation of the city of Port-au-Prince is sufficient to refute this oft made assertion. Port-au-Prince is a clean, well paved, well lighted city. Its newer business buildings are constructed of concrete and brick. The wooden shanties which one so often sees in magazines and books illustrating the business section of the town are relics of the old French régime. The residential section of Port-au-Prince is built on the slopes of the hills that rise back of the city. The homes of the well-to-do people are beautiful villas with well kept grounds, and there are hundreds of them.
This section of Port-au-Prince is superior to the residential section in any of the cities of the Central American republics. In fact, Port-au-Prince is one of the most beautiful of the tropical cities which I have seen. Haiti has been independent for more than a century and if the people had been steadily retrograding into barbarism during all of that time, Port-au-Prince today would be an aggregation of filth and decay instead of the city that it is. In Port-au-Prince one will meet Americans who, in response to the exclamation, “Why I am surprised to see what a fine city Port-au-Prince is!” will answer, “Yes, but you should have seen it before the Occupation.” The implication here is that the American Occupation is responsible for making Port-au-Prince a paved and well kept city. It is true that only one or two of the principal streets of Port-au-Prince were paved at the time of the intervention—five years ago—but the work had already been begun and contracts for paving the whole city had already been let by the Haitian Government. The American Occupation did not pave, and had nothing to do with the paving of a single street in Port-au-Prince. The regulations instituted by the American Health Officer may have something to do with the regularity with which the streets are swept, but my observation showed me that the Haitians have a “sweeping habit” which they must have acquired long years before the American Occupation.
I made a five-day trip through the interior, traveling day and night in an automobile. I noticed in the early morning hours, as I passed cabin after cabin in the rural districts, the women carefully sweeping the yards until they were as clean as a floor. In fact, nowhere in the rural districts of Haiti did I see the filth and squalor which may be observed in any backwoods town in our own South.
The smaller cities of Haiti are replicas of Port-au-Prince. Whatever the Haitians may not be, they are a clean people. Many may be dressed in rags and tatters, but the rags and tatters are periodically washed. A filthy Haitian is a rare exception. On this point, I recall a remark made by a white American who conducts one of the biggest mercantile businesses in Haiti. He was speaking to me about the cleanliness of the Haitians and he made an observation which struck me quite forcible. He showed me statistics to prove that Haiti imports more soap per capita than any country in the world. He told me that three of the largest soap manufacturers in the United States maintain headquarters at Port-au-Prince.
Another point in the propaganda which has been so long circulated to prove the unfitness of the Haitians, is the statement that the people are congenitally and habitually lazy. Not long ago I saw a magazine article on Haiti, and one of the illustrations was a picture of a Haitian man lying asleep in the sun, and under it was the title “the Favorite Attitude of Haiti’s Citizens.” I would wager that the photographer either had to pay or persuade his subject to pose especially for him, because in all of my six weeks in Port-au-Prince, I never saw anybody lying around in the sun asleep. On the contrary, the Haitians are quite a thrifty people. What deceives some observers is the fact that their methods are primitive. The mistake is often made of confounding primitive methods with indolence. Anyone who travels the roads of Haiti will be struck by the sight of scores and hundreds and even thousands of women, boys and girls filing along, mile after mile, with the produce of their farms and gardens on their heads, or loaded on the backs of animals, to dispose of them in the markets of the towns. I do not see how anyone could accuse such people of being lazy. Of course, they might market their stuff more efficiently if they had automobile trucks; they have no automobile trucks, but they are willing to walk. For a woman to walk eight or ten miles with a bundle of produce on her head which may barely realize her a dollar is, undoubtedly, a wasteful expenditure of energy, but it is not a sign of laziness.
The Haitian people have also been accused of being ignorant and degraded. They are not degraded. I had ample opportunity to study the people of the cities, and the people of the country districts, and I found them uniformly kind, courteous and hospitable, living in a simple and wholesome manner. The absence of crime in Haiti is remarkable, and the morality of the people is strikingly high. Port-au-Prince is a city of more than 100,000, but there is no sign of the prostitution that is so flagrant in many Latin-American cities. I was there for six weeks and in all that time, not a single case of a man being accosted by a woman on the street came to my attention. I heard even from the lips of American Marines tributes to the chastity of the Haitian women.
The charge that the Haitians are ignorant is only partly true. They are naturally quick witted and have lively imaginations. The truth, however, is that the great mass of the Haitian people are illiterate. They are perhaps more illiterate than the people of any Latin-American country, but there is a specific reason for this. For a reason which I cannot explain, the French language in the French-American colonial settlements containing a Negro population divided itself into two branches—French and Creole. This is true of Louisiana, Martinique and Guadeloupe, and also of Haiti. The Creole is an Africanized French, and must not be thought of as a mere dialect. The French-speaking person cannot, with the exception of some words, understand Creole unless he learns it. Creole is a distinct language, a graphic and very expressive language, and in some respects, is, for Haiti, a language superior to French.
The upper Haitian classes, say approximately 500,000, speak French, while the masses, probably 2,000,000, speak Creole, and though Haitian Creole is grammatically constructed, it has not been generally, reduced to writing. Therefore, these 2,000,000 people have no way of communication through the written word. They have no books to read. They cannot read the newspapers. They cannot communicate with each other by writing. The children of the masses study French the few years they spend in school, but French never becomes their every-day language. In order for Haiti to abolish illiteracy and thereby reduce the ignorance of her masses, Creole must be made a written, as well as a spoken language for I feel that it is destined to remain the folk language of the country. This offers a fascinating task for the Haitian intellectuals. Before I left, I talked with a group of them concerning it.
I had the opportunity of being received into the homes of the cultured and wealthy people of Port-au-Prince, to attend several of their social affairs and to visit the clubs. Even the most prejudiced writers of Haiti have had to make an exception of this class of Haitians, for they compel it. The majority have been educated in France. They have money. They live in beautiful houses. They are brilliant in conversation and know how to conduct themselves socially. The women dress in fine taste, many of them importing their gowns directly from Paris. Refined people from no part of the world would feel themselves out of place in the best Haitian society. Many of these women are beautiful and all of them vivacious and chic. I was deeply impressed with the women of Haiti, not only the society women, but the peasant women. I should like to give my impressions, but space will not allow.
The third ground offered as justification is that great benefits have been brought to Haiti by American control. I made an honest effort to find out what things the Americans have done for the benefit of Haiti, during the five years of Occupation. I found that only three things could be advanced, and they were: The Improvement of the public hospital at Port-au-Prince; enforcement of rules of modern sanitation; and the building of the great road from Port-au-Prince to Cape Haitian. The improvement in the hospital is a worthy piece of work but cannot be made to justify military occupation. The enforcement of certain rules of sanitation is not quite so important as it sounds, for the reason that Haiti, under native rule, has always been a healthy country and never subject to the epidemics which used to sweep the countries circling the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea.
The building of the road from Port-au-Prince to Cape Haitian is a monumental piece of work, but it is doubtful whether the Occupation had in mind the building of a great highway for the benefit of Haiti, or the construction of a military road which would facilitate the transportation of troops and supplies from one end of the island to the other. At any rate, the manner of building this road was one of the most brutal blunders made by the American Occupation in Haiti. It was built by forced labor. Haitian men were seized on the country roads and taken off their farms and put to work. They were kept in compounds at night and not allowed to go home. They were maltreated, beaten and terrorized. In fact, they were in the same category with the convicts in the Negro chain gangs that are used to build roads in many of our southern states. It was largely out of the methods of building this road that there arose the need for “pacification”. The Haitians rebelled. Many of them made their escape and fled to the hills and armed themselves as best they could for revenge. These refugees make up the greatest part of the “caco” forces, and it has now become the duty and sport of American marines to hunt these “cacos” with rifles and machine guns. I was seated at a table one day in company with an American captain of marines and I heard him describe a “caco” hunt. He told how they finally came upon a crowd of natives having a cock fight and how they let them have it with machine guns.
There was one accomplishment which I did expect to find. I expected to find that the Americans had at least made an attempt to develop and improve the system of public education in Haiti. This, at least, they have done in other countries where they have taken control. But I found that the American Occupation has not advanced public education in Haiti a single step. No new school buildings have been erected or new schools established. Not a single Haitian youth has been sent away for training and not a single American teacher, white or colored, has been sent to Haiti to teach.
The United States has absolutely failed in Haiti. It has failed to accomplish any results that justify its military Occupation of that country, and it has made it impossible for those results ever to be accomplished because of the distrust, bitterness and hatred which it has engendered in the Haitian people. Brutalities and atrocities on the part of American Marines have occurred with sufficient frequency to bring about deep resentment and terror on the part of the Haitian people. There have been needless killings of natives by marines. I was told that some marines had cut a notch in the stocks of their rifles for each native killed. Just before I left Port-au-Prince, an American marine caught a Haitian boy stealing sugar on the wharf, and instead of arresting him, he battered his brains out with the butt of his rifle.
I learned from the lips of American marines, themselves, of a number of cases of rape on Haitian women by marines. But, perhaps, the worst phase of American brutality in Haiti is, after all, not in the individual cases of cruelty, but in the American attitude. This attitude may be illustrated by a remark made by a marine officer at another time when I was seated at a table with some Americans. We were discussing the Haitian situation when he said, “The trouble with this business is that some of these people with a little money and education, think they are as good as we are.” The irony of his remark struck me quite forcible since I had already met a number of cultured Haitians in their homes.
The Americans have carried American prejudice to Haiti. Before their advent, there was no such thing in social circles as race prejudice. Social affairs were attended on the same footing by natives and white foreigners. The men in the American Occupation, when they first went down, also attended Haitian social affairs, but now they have set up their own social circle and established their own club to which no Haitian is invited, no matter what his social standing is. The Haitians now retaliate by never inviting Americans to their social affairs or their clubs. Of course, there are some semi-social affairs at which Haitians and Occupation officials meet, but there is a uniform rule among Haitian ladies not to dance with any American official.
A great deal of this prejudice has been brought about because the Administration has seen fit to send southern white men to Haiti. For instance, the man at the head of the customs service is a man who was formerly a parish clerk in Louisiana. The man who is second in charge of the customs service is a man who was formerly Deputy Collector of Customs at Pascagoula, Miss. The man who is Superintendent of Public Instruction was formerly a school teacher in Louisiana. It seems like a practical joke to send a man from Louisiana where they have not good schools even for white children down to Haiti to organize schools for black children. And the mere idea of white Mississippians going down to civilize Haitians and teach them law and order would be laughable except for the fact that the attempt is actually being made to put the idea into execution. These Southerners have found Haiti to be the veritable promised land of “jobs for deserving democrats”. Many of these men, both military and civilian officials, have moved their families to Haiti. In Port-au-Prince many of them live in fine villas. Many of them who could not keep a hired girl in the United States have a half-dozen servants. All of the civilian heads of departments have automobiles furnished at the expense of the Haitian Government. These automobiles seem to be used chiefly to take the women and children out for an airing each afternoon. It is interesting to see with what disdain, as they ride around, they look down upon the people who pay for the cars. It is also interesting to note that the Haitian officials and even the cabinet officers who are officially the superiors of these various heads have no cars. For example, the Louisiana superintendent has a car, but the Haitian Minister of Public Instruction has none. What the Washington Administration should have known was that in order to do anything worth while for Haiti, it was necessary to send men there who were able and willing to treat Negroes as men, and not because of their ability to speak poor French, or their knowledge of “handling niggers”.
The United States has failed in Haiti. It should get out as well and as quickly as it can and restore to the Haitian people their independence and sovereignty. The colored people of the United States should be interested in seeing that this is done, for Haiti is the one best chance that the Negro has in the world to prove that he is capable of the highest self-government. If Haiti should ultimately lose her independence, that one best chance will be lost.
James Weldon Johnson, “The Truth about Haiti. An N.A.A.C.P. Investigation.” Crisis 5 (September 1920): 217–224.
See Also:“Conclusions and Recommendations by the Committee of Six Disinterested Americans”
“The People Were Very Peaceable”: The U.S. Senate Investigates the Haitian Occupation
Bandits or Patriots?: Documents from Charlemagne Péralte | <urn:uuid:c2b91d81-571d-4017-80e9-2306bc1daa45> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.haitian-truth.org/%E2%80%9Cthe-truth-about-haiti-an-naacp-investigation%E2%80%9D/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00371.warc.gz | en | 0.981136 | 5,580 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.26668235659599304,
0.23214960098266602,
0.31806066632270813,
-0.2499038130044937,
0.4473864436149597,
0.04456257075071335,
-0.41505199670791626,
0.5685786604881287,
0.007310710847377777,
-0.21403834223747253,
0.3938080072402954,
0.0827978253364563,
0.07386092841625214,
0.319592446088790... | 3 | U.S. marines occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934. By 1919, Haitian Charlemagne Péralte had organized more than a thousand cacos, or armed guerrillas, to militarily oppose the marine occupation. The marines responded to the resistance with a counterinsurgency campaign that razed villages, killed thousands of Haitians, and destroyed the livelihoods of even more. American organizations such as the NAACP opposed the U.S. occupation of Haiti. They sent delegations that investigated conditions and protested the blatant racism and imperialism of U.S. policy in Haiti in the early 20th century. An article from 1920, by NAACP leader James Weldon Johnson, countered the standard justifications for U.S. occupation of Haiti.
In writing of my visit to Haiti for Crisis readers, I should like to tell all that I learned about political, economic and social conditions there, and to give, as well, the information and impressions I gained about the country and the Haitian people themselves. This, of course, will not be possible, for either of these phases of the subject, fully treated, would make a complete article. I have decided that something about each phase will be more interesting and more comprehensive than all about one. Therefore, what I say will of necessity be rather sketchy.
The Historic Background
I should like the reader, first of all, to take a swift glance at the historical and cultural background of the Haitian people. In order to fully understand present and actual conditions, it is necessary to be familiar with the fact that the Haitian people have a glorious history behind them. Haiti was the first of the American Republics, after the United States, to gain its independence. The story of the war for Haitian independence is one of the most thrilling chapters in the history of the world. If one reads only what alien historians have written, he gains the idea that the Haitian struggle was nothing more than the massacre of outnumbered whites by hordes of semi-savage blacks. There was massacre and savagery but it was on both sides. But the war itself was one which suffers very little in magnitude by comparison with the American Revolution. There were times when the French troops and the Haitian troops engaged, aggregated more than 80,000 men. The French troops were the best that Napoleon could send. The Haitian troops were not a band of lawless guerrillas but were well drilled and well officered. There were battles in which these troops compelled the admiration of the French for their valor, and their commanders, for their military ability and gallantry.
It should also be borne in mind that the Haitian Revolution was not merely a political revolution. It was also a social revolution. There was a complete overturn of both the political and social organization of the country. The man who had been the chattel became the ruler. The great estates of the colonial slave holders were cut up into small parcels and allotted among the former slaves. This last fact has a direct bearing on present conditions in Haiti, to which I shall refer later.
Haiti gained her independence 116 years ago and maintained her complete sovereignty down to 1915, the year of American intervention. None of the Latin-American Republics had the difficulties in maintaining their independence that Haiti encountered. The Black Republic did not receive from the United States the support which it had a right to expect. Haiti had fought France, England and Spain, but the United States was the last of all the strong nations to recognize her independence, when, indeed, she should have been the first.
Even intelligent colored Americans are apt to feel indulgent or embarrassed over the subject of Haitian history. No doubt many of them have smiled or felt ashamed at the generally accepted story about King Christophe in his palace at Sans Souci and his court of dukes and counts. The popular picture of Christophe’s court is that of a semi-savage ludicrously playing at king, surrounded by a nobility that took their titles from the names of things they liked best to eat and drink. Christophe was a remarkable man, and a ruler of great intelligence and energy. He declared himself king because he felt that most could be accomplished for Haiti under the strongest possible form of government. Under his direction, the northern part of Haiti underwent great development. I visited Christophe’s palace at Sans Souci. It has fallen into ruins, but there is still enough left to show that it was indeed a palace. The buildings and grounds were copied after the palace at Versailles, and were constructed by the best European architects and builders. There is no doubt that when it was erected, it was the most palatial residence on the western hemisphere.
But a yet more wonderful testimony of Christophe’s energy and greatness is the citadel which he built with the idea of its being the last stronghold against the French if they should attempt to reconquer Haiti. He built this citadel on the top of a mountain more than three thousand feet high, which towered up above his palace at Sans Souci, and dominated the fertile plains of northern Haiti which stretch around for miles. I made the trip to the citadel. The journey requires more than two hours on horseback up a narrow and precipitous mountain path. After I had ridden for an hour and a half, I reached a sudden turn in the path and caught the first view of the structure. The sight was amazing. It was dumbfounding. I could hardly believe my own eyes. There, from the pinnacle of the mountain, rose the massive walls of solid brick and stone to a height of more than one hundred feet. On three sides of the citadel the walls are sheer with the sides of the mountain. The other side is approached by the path.
This path, Christophe had commanded by fifty solid brass cannon, each one about thirty feet long. How he got these guns up to the top of the mountain nobody seems to know. The Haitian Government has had offers for them as metal, but nobody seems to know how to get them down. Getting them up was a super-human accomplishment, as it is not an easy matter to get up to the citadel with an ordinary basket of lunch. I spent more than two hours going through this vast fortress without pausing a moment, and the more I saw of it, the more the wonder grew on me not only as to the execution but the mere conception of such a work. In many places the walls are from eight to twelve feet thick. An idea of its size may be gained from the fact that it was built to quarter 30,000 soldiers. It is the most wonderful ruin in the western hemisphere, and for the amount of human energy and labor sacrificed, can well be compared to the pyramids of Egypt. As I stood on the highest point, where the sheer drop from the walls was more than 2,000 feet, and looked out over the rich plains of northern Haiti, I was impressed with the thought that if ever a man had the right to feel himself a king, that man was Christophe when he walked around the parapets of his citadel.
It is a people of Negro blood, who have produced a Christophe and a Dessalines, who have given to the world one of its greatest statesmen, Toussaint L’Ouverture, who have behind them a history of which they have every right to be proud, that are now threatened with the loss of their independence; that have now fallen not only under American political domination, but under the domination of American prejudice. Haiti is ruled today by martial law dispensed by Americans. There are nearly three thousand American Marines in Haiti, and American control is maintained by their bayonets. In the five years of American Occupation, more than three thousand innocent Haitians have been slaughtered.
There are three grounds on which the attempt is made to justify American intervention and the military occupation of Haiti. The first is that such a state of anarchy and bloodshed had been reached as could no longer be tolerated by the civilized world; the second, that the Haitians have demonstrated absolute unfitness to govern themselves; and the third, that great benefits have been brought to Haiti by American control.
As to the first: The United States Government has wished to make it appear that it was forced on purely humane grounds to intervene in Haiti because of the tragic overthrow and death of President Vilbrun Guillaume, July 27–8, 1915, and that this government has been compelled to keep a military force in Haiti since that time to pacify the country maintain order. The fact is that for nearly a year before the coup d’état which overthrew Guillaume, the United States had been bringing pressure on Haiti to compel that country to submit to American control. Three diplomatic attempts had been made by three different missions. It was in May, 1915, that the third attempt was made. The United States sent to Haiti Mr. Paul Fuller, Jr., with the title “Envoy Extraordinary”, on a special mission to apprise the Haitian Government that the Guillaume Administration would not be recognized by the United States unless Haiti agreed to sign a covenant similar to the one which this country had with Santo Domingo. The two governments were interchanging views on this proposition when the events of July 27–8 took place.
On July 27, President Guillaume fled to the French Legation. On the same day, political prisoners in the prison at Port-au-Prince were executed. On the next morning, Guillaume was killed, and that afternoon, an American man-of-war dropped anchor at Port-au-Prince and landed American forces. Immediately after the killing of Guillaume, Port-au-Prince was as quiet as though nothing had happened, and it should be borne in mind that through it all, the life of not a single American citizen had been taken or jeopardized. The overthrow of Guillaume and its attending consequences did not constitute the cause of American intervention in Haiti; it merely furnished an opportunity for which this government was waiting. There never have been the grounds for intervention in Haiti that there have been in Mexico.
Fitness To Rule
The unfitness of the Haitian people to govern themselves has been the subject of propaganda for the last century. Books and pamphlets and articles have been written, and lectures have been delivered many times over to prove that the Haitians not only were incapable of advancement, but were steadily retrograding into barbarism. An observation of the city of Port-au-Prince is sufficient to refute this oft made assertion. Port-au-Prince is a clean, well paved, well lighted city. Its newer business buildings are constructed of concrete and brick. The wooden shanties which one so often sees in magazines and books illustrating the business section of the town are relics of the old French régime. The residential section of Port-au-Prince is built on the slopes of the hills that rise back of the city. The homes of the well-to-do people are beautiful villas with well kept grounds, and there are hundreds of them.
This section of Port-au-Prince is superior to the residential section in any of the cities of the Central American republics. In fact, Port-au-Prince is one of the most beautiful of the tropical cities which I have seen. Haiti has been independent for more than a century and if the people had been steadily retrograding into barbarism during all of that time, Port-au-Prince today would be an aggregation of filth and decay instead of the city that it is. In Port-au-Prince one will meet Americans who, in response to the exclamation, “Why I am surprised to see what a fine city Port-au-Prince is!” will answer, “Yes, but you should have seen it before the Occupation.” The implication here is that the American Occupation is responsible for making Port-au-Prince a paved and well kept city. It is true that only one or two of the principal streets of Port-au-Prince were paved at the time of the intervention—five years ago—but the work had already been begun and contracts for paving the whole city had already been let by the Haitian Government. The American Occupation did not pave, and had nothing to do with the paving of a single street in Port-au-Prince. The regulations instituted by the American Health Officer may have something to do with the regularity with which the streets are swept, but my observation showed me that the Haitians have a “sweeping habit” which they must have acquired long years before the American Occupation.
I made a five-day trip through the interior, traveling day and night in an automobile. I noticed in the early morning hours, as I passed cabin after cabin in the rural districts, the women carefully sweeping the yards until they were as clean as a floor. In fact, nowhere in the rural districts of Haiti did I see the filth and squalor which may be observed in any backwoods town in our own South.
The smaller cities of Haiti are replicas of Port-au-Prince. Whatever the Haitians may not be, they are a clean people. Many may be dressed in rags and tatters, but the rags and tatters are periodically washed. A filthy Haitian is a rare exception. On this point, I recall a remark made by a white American who conducts one of the biggest mercantile businesses in Haiti. He was speaking to me about the cleanliness of the Haitians and he made an observation which struck me quite forcible. He showed me statistics to prove that Haiti imports more soap per capita than any country in the world. He told me that three of the largest soap manufacturers in the United States maintain headquarters at Port-au-Prince.
Another point in the propaganda which has been so long circulated to prove the unfitness of the Haitians, is the statement that the people are congenitally and habitually lazy. Not long ago I saw a magazine article on Haiti, and one of the illustrations was a picture of a Haitian man lying asleep in the sun, and under it was the title “the Favorite Attitude of Haiti’s Citizens.” I would wager that the photographer either had to pay or persuade his subject to pose especially for him, because in all of my six weeks in Port-au-Prince, I never saw anybody lying around in the sun asleep. On the contrary, the Haitians are quite a thrifty people. What deceives some observers is the fact that their methods are primitive. The mistake is often made of confounding primitive methods with indolence. Anyone who travels the roads of Haiti will be struck by the sight of scores and hundreds and even thousands of women, boys and girls filing along, mile after mile, with the produce of their farms and gardens on their heads, or loaded on the backs of animals, to dispose of them in the markets of the towns. I do not see how anyone could accuse such people of being lazy. Of course, they might market their stuff more efficiently if they had automobile trucks; they have no automobile trucks, but they are willing to walk. For a woman to walk eight or ten miles with a bundle of produce on her head which may barely realize her a dollar is, undoubtedly, a wasteful expenditure of energy, but it is not a sign of laziness.
The Haitian people have also been accused of being ignorant and degraded. They are not degraded. I had ample opportunity to study the people of the cities, and the people of the country districts, and I found them uniformly kind, courteous and hospitable, living in a simple and wholesome manner. The absence of crime in Haiti is remarkable, and the morality of the people is strikingly high. Port-au-Prince is a city of more than 100,000, but there is no sign of the prostitution that is so flagrant in many Latin-American cities. I was there for six weeks and in all that time, not a single case of a man being accosted by a woman on the street came to my attention. I heard even from the lips of American Marines tributes to the chastity of the Haitian women.
The charge that the Haitians are ignorant is only partly true. They are naturally quick witted and have lively imaginations. The truth, however, is that the great mass of the Haitian people are illiterate. They are perhaps more illiterate than the people of any Latin-American country, but there is a specific reason for this. For a reason which I cannot explain, the French language in the French-American colonial settlements containing a Negro population divided itself into two branches—French and Creole. This is true of Louisiana, Martinique and Guadeloupe, and also of Haiti. The Creole is an Africanized French, and must not be thought of as a mere dialect. The French-speaking person cannot, with the exception of some words, understand Creole unless he learns it. Creole is a distinct language, a graphic and very expressive language, and in some respects, is, for Haiti, a language superior to French.
The upper Haitian classes, say approximately 500,000, speak French, while the masses, probably 2,000,000, speak Creole, and though Haitian Creole is grammatically constructed, it has not been generally, reduced to writing. Therefore, these 2,000,000 people have no way of communication through the written word. They have no books to read. They cannot read the newspapers. They cannot communicate with each other by writing. The children of the masses study French the few years they spend in school, but French never becomes their every-day language. In order for Haiti to abolish illiteracy and thereby reduce the ignorance of her masses, Creole must be made a written, as well as a spoken language for I feel that it is destined to remain the folk language of the country. This offers a fascinating task for the Haitian intellectuals. Before I left, I talked with a group of them concerning it.
I had the opportunity of being received into the homes of the cultured and wealthy people of Port-au-Prince, to attend several of their social affairs and to visit the clubs. Even the most prejudiced writers of Haiti have had to make an exception of this class of Haitians, for they compel it. The majority have been educated in France. They have money. They live in beautiful houses. They are brilliant in conversation and know how to conduct themselves socially. The women dress in fine taste, many of them importing their gowns directly from Paris. Refined people from no part of the world would feel themselves out of place in the best Haitian society. Many of these women are beautiful and all of them vivacious and chic. I was deeply impressed with the women of Haiti, not only the society women, but the peasant women. I should like to give my impressions, but space will not allow.
The third ground offered as justification is that great benefits have been brought to Haiti by American control. I made an honest effort to find out what things the Americans have done for the benefit of Haiti, during the five years of Occupation. I found that only three things could be advanced, and they were: The Improvement of the public hospital at Port-au-Prince; enforcement of rules of modern sanitation; and the building of the great road from Port-au-Prince to Cape Haitian. The improvement in the hospital is a worthy piece of work but cannot be made to justify military occupation. The enforcement of certain rules of sanitation is not quite so important as it sounds, for the reason that Haiti, under native rule, has always been a healthy country and never subject to the epidemics which used to sweep the countries circling the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea.
The building of the road from Port-au-Prince to Cape Haitian is a monumental piece of work, but it is doubtful whether the Occupation had in mind the building of a great highway for the benefit of Haiti, or the construction of a military road which would facilitate the transportation of troops and supplies from one end of the island to the other. At any rate, the manner of building this road was one of the most brutal blunders made by the American Occupation in Haiti. It was built by forced labor. Haitian men were seized on the country roads and taken off their farms and put to work. They were kept in compounds at night and not allowed to go home. They were maltreated, beaten and terrorized. In fact, they were in the same category with the convicts in the Negro chain gangs that are used to build roads in many of our southern states. It was largely out of the methods of building this road that there arose the need for “pacification”. The Haitians rebelled. Many of them made their escape and fled to the hills and armed themselves as best they could for revenge. These refugees make up the greatest part of the “caco” forces, and it has now become the duty and sport of American marines to hunt these “cacos” with rifles and machine guns. I was seated at a table one day in company with an American captain of marines and I heard him describe a “caco” hunt. He told how they finally came upon a crowd of natives having a cock fight and how they let them have it with machine guns.
There was one accomplishment which I did expect to find. I expected to find that the Americans had at least made an attempt to develop and improve the system of public education in Haiti. This, at least, they have done in other countries where they have taken control. But I found that the American Occupation has not advanced public education in Haiti a single step. No new school buildings have been erected or new schools established. Not a single Haitian youth has been sent away for training and not a single American teacher, white or colored, has been sent to Haiti to teach.
The United States has absolutely failed in Haiti. It has failed to accomplish any results that justify its military Occupation of that country, and it has made it impossible for those results ever to be accomplished because of the distrust, bitterness and hatred which it has engendered in the Haitian people. Brutalities and atrocities on the part of American Marines have occurred with sufficient frequency to bring about deep resentment and terror on the part of the Haitian people. There have been needless killings of natives by marines. I was told that some marines had cut a notch in the stocks of their rifles for each native killed. Just before I left Port-au-Prince, an American marine caught a Haitian boy stealing sugar on the wharf, and instead of arresting him, he battered his brains out with the butt of his rifle.
I learned from the lips of American marines, themselves, of a number of cases of rape on Haitian women by marines. But, perhaps, the worst phase of American brutality in Haiti is, after all, not in the individual cases of cruelty, but in the American attitude. This attitude may be illustrated by a remark made by a marine officer at another time when I was seated at a table with some Americans. We were discussing the Haitian situation when he said, “The trouble with this business is that some of these people with a little money and education, think they are as good as we are.” The irony of his remark struck me quite forcible since I had already met a number of cultured Haitians in their homes.
The Americans have carried American prejudice to Haiti. Before their advent, there was no such thing in social circles as race prejudice. Social affairs were attended on the same footing by natives and white foreigners. The men in the American Occupation, when they first went down, also attended Haitian social affairs, but now they have set up their own social circle and established their own club to which no Haitian is invited, no matter what his social standing is. The Haitians now retaliate by never inviting Americans to their social affairs or their clubs. Of course, there are some semi-social affairs at which Haitians and Occupation officials meet, but there is a uniform rule among Haitian ladies not to dance with any American official.
A great deal of this prejudice has been brought about because the Administration has seen fit to send southern white men to Haiti. For instance, the man at the head of the customs service is a man who was formerly a parish clerk in Louisiana. The man who is second in charge of the customs service is a man who was formerly Deputy Collector of Customs at Pascagoula, Miss. The man who is Superintendent of Public Instruction was formerly a school teacher in Louisiana. It seems like a practical joke to send a man from Louisiana where they have not good schools even for white children down to Haiti to organize schools for black children. And the mere idea of white Mississippians going down to civilize Haitians and teach them law and order would be laughable except for the fact that the attempt is actually being made to put the idea into execution. These Southerners have found Haiti to be the veritable promised land of “jobs for deserving democrats”. Many of these men, both military and civilian officials, have moved their families to Haiti. In Port-au-Prince many of them live in fine villas. Many of them who could not keep a hired girl in the United States have a half-dozen servants. All of the civilian heads of departments have automobiles furnished at the expense of the Haitian Government. These automobiles seem to be used chiefly to take the women and children out for an airing each afternoon. It is interesting to see with what disdain, as they ride around, they look down upon the people who pay for the cars. It is also interesting to note that the Haitian officials and even the cabinet officers who are officially the superiors of these various heads have no cars. For example, the Louisiana superintendent has a car, but the Haitian Minister of Public Instruction has none. What the Washington Administration should have known was that in order to do anything worth while for Haiti, it was necessary to send men there who were able and willing to treat Negroes as men, and not because of their ability to speak poor French, or their knowledge of “handling niggers”.
The United States has failed in Haiti. It should get out as well and as quickly as it can and restore to the Haitian people their independence and sovereignty. The colored people of the United States should be interested in seeing that this is done, for Haiti is the one best chance that the Negro has in the world to prove that he is capable of the highest self-government. If Haiti should ultimately lose her independence, that one best chance will be lost.
James Weldon Johnson, “The Truth about Haiti. An N.A.A.C.P. Investigation.” Crisis 5 (September 1920): 217–224.
See Also:“Conclusions and Recommendations by the Committee of Six Disinterested Americans”
“The People Were Very Peaceable”: The U.S. Senate Investigates the Haitian Occupation
Bandits or Patriots?: Documents from Charlemagne Péralte | 5,549 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A mosaic is a picture or pattern created with many small bits of glass, stone, ceramics or (in rare cases) gemstone. In ancient Greece mosaics were created by using natural stones, often from riverbeds, but by the Roman period they were created out of pre-cut cubes of glass or stone known as tesserae.
Mosaics were often used to decorate floors, walls, and the insides of domes. Constantinople was famous for its many notable mosaics, and St.Peter's Basilica in Rome is decorated in many mosaics, including what appear to be the paintings behind altars. Mosaics can be fixed to other flat objects such as a table but can also be applied to three dimensional objects such as vases. Mortar is used to secure the mosaic material to the surface and grout is used to fill the gaps between the pieces. | <urn:uuid:a6ab08af-0b16-4b26-bd07-ae502b20b18e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://cunnan.lochac.sca.org/index.php/Mosaic | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694908.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127051112-20200127081112-00538.warc.gz | en | 0.988189 | 184 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.19192460179328918,
0.09966010600328445,
0.5615828633308411,
-0.19406619668006897,
-0.4277658462524414,
-0.20917777717113495,
-0.23105035722255707,
0.28485608100891113,
0.17875128984451294,
0.5294062495231628,
-0.4224916398525238,
-0.3637528419494629,
-0.17351777851581573,
0.3629743456840... | 6 | A mosaic is a picture or pattern created with many small bits of glass, stone, ceramics or (in rare cases) gemstone. In ancient Greece mosaics were created by using natural stones, often from riverbeds, but by the Roman period they were created out of pre-cut cubes of glass or stone known as tesserae.
Mosaics were often used to decorate floors, walls, and the insides of domes. Constantinople was famous for its many notable mosaics, and St.Peter's Basilica in Rome is decorated in many mosaics, including what appear to be the paintings behind altars. Mosaics can be fixed to other flat objects such as a table but can also be applied to three dimensional objects such as vases. Mortar is used to secure the mosaic material to the surface and grout is used to fill the gaps between the pieces. | 182 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Influence of Sor Juana and Catalina de Erauso on Colonial Latin American Society
1242 Words5 Pages
Colonial Latin American society in the Seventeenth Century was undergoing a tremendous amount of changes. Society was transforming from a conquering phase into a colonizing phase. New institutions were forming and new people and ideas flooded into the new lands freshly claimed for the Spanish Empire. Two remarkable women, radically different from each other, who lived during this period of change are a lenses through which many of the new institutions and changes can be viewed. Sor Juana and Catalina de Erauso are exceptional women who in no way represent the norm but through their extraordinary tales and by discovering what makes them so extraordinary we can deduce what was the norm and how society functioned during this era of Colonial…show more content…
When she decided to abandon her vows and run away to America there was still the romantic appeal of an unconquered land, the Spanish Wild West. There was not much law and order, and the intuitions that contribute to a healthy and thriving society were not yet in place. Yes there were courts, judges, and the Church but their prestige was much lower than it would grow to become. De Erauso was able to escape the law many times and roam across vast areas land without much in her way, one hundred years later the established institutions that were just in their infancy during her life would have probably put a stop to her journey and life much, much sooner. During this time the name of the game was still conquest, and the newly arrived Spaniards and the Crown were not as enamored with building a civilization as they were with gaining riches and the hidalgo status that went along with it. Many just expected that they would get rich and return to Spain and this attitude was reflected in the lack of institutions in the society at this time along with De Erauso’s memoir.
The Spanish Crown soon saw this lack of influence and control as a problem and sought for a more involved role in their colonies and began to exert a more direct influence. They established of the Council of the Indies in 1524 and the two Viceroyalties of New Spain and Peru soon after (Burkholder | <urn:uuid:a37cdc14-6e62-4ec3-b3ba-fd7814a467f0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.bartleby.com/essay/The-Influence-of-Sor-Juana-and-Catalina-F3XGNWYVC | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604849.31/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121162615-20200121191615-00044.warc.gz | en | 0.986719 | 453 | 3.71875 | 4 | [
0.07871869206428528,
0.20323863625526428,
0.7410690188407898,
-0.011589370667934418,
0.17289143800735474,
0.01717386767268181,
0.08063944429159164,
0.2461112141609192,
0.10521181672811508,
-0.34545373916625977,
0.25125911831855774,
0.07407745718955994,
-0.2836548388004303,
0.00691804802045... | 1 | The Influence of Sor Juana and Catalina de Erauso on Colonial Latin American Society
1242 Words5 Pages
Colonial Latin American society in the Seventeenth Century was undergoing a tremendous amount of changes. Society was transforming from a conquering phase into a colonizing phase. New institutions were forming and new people and ideas flooded into the new lands freshly claimed for the Spanish Empire. Two remarkable women, radically different from each other, who lived during this period of change are a lenses through which many of the new institutions and changes can be viewed. Sor Juana and Catalina de Erauso are exceptional women who in no way represent the norm but through their extraordinary tales and by discovering what makes them so extraordinary we can deduce what was the norm and how society functioned during this era of Colonial…show more content…
When she decided to abandon her vows and run away to America there was still the romantic appeal of an unconquered land, the Spanish Wild West. There was not much law and order, and the intuitions that contribute to a healthy and thriving society were not yet in place. Yes there were courts, judges, and the Church but their prestige was much lower than it would grow to become. De Erauso was able to escape the law many times and roam across vast areas land without much in her way, one hundred years later the established institutions that were just in their infancy during her life would have probably put a stop to her journey and life much, much sooner. During this time the name of the game was still conquest, and the newly arrived Spaniards and the Crown were not as enamored with building a civilization as they were with gaining riches and the hidalgo status that went along with it. Many just expected that they would get rich and return to Spain and this attitude was reflected in the lack of institutions in the society at this time along with De Erauso’s memoir.
The Spanish Crown soon saw this lack of influence and control as a problem and sought for a more involved role in their colonies and began to exert a more direct influence. They established of the Council of the Indies in 1524 and the two Viceroyalties of New Spain and Peru soon after (Burkholder | 451 | ENGLISH | 1 |
First Traffic Signals in Britain
It was to make life easier for MPs that the first traffic signals were installed in Britain – surely not special treatment for our democratically elected representatives? Sited at the corner of Bridge Street and New Palace Yard, by the Palace of Westminster , they were the brainchild of J.P. Knight, an engineer employed by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, and as that provenance suggests they had more in common with railway signals than the traffic lights we know today (first seen for those who would like to know on November 5 1927 , in Wolverhampton ).
Knight’s device used semaphore arms, one either side of a metal post, which when horizontal signalled stop, and lowered to 45 degrees indicated caution should be taken. The mechanism was enhanced by the use of red and green gas-lights during the hours of darkness, red as now meaning stop, but green signifying caution rather than go.
Given the Highway Code was not published until April 1931 it is not immediately clear how the rules for obeying the signals were codified. Perhaps such lack of clarity was a factor in their removal just four years later.
More famous dates here
6499 views since 19th November 2010
From Ray Davies on 10th December 2012
Amazing fact! The first traffic lights in Bangor Gwynedd were installed in 2008! | <urn:uuid:7c7dea9a-901f-41e4-bd38-138cc85fe0bc> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.information-britain.co.uk/famdates.php?id=1201 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597458.22/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120052454-20200120080454-00533.warc.gz | en | 0.982699 | 280 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.4391223192214966,
-0.40524017810821533,
0.47225522994995117,
-0.4023989737033844,
-0.2828490138053894,
0.15312819182872772,
0.14777429401874542,
-0.11003556102514267,
0.04356745257973671,
0.31262674927711487,
-0.07999344915151596,
-0.029213514178991318,
-0.2987697422504425,
0.0368739888... | 1 | First Traffic Signals in Britain
It was to make life easier for MPs that the first traffic signals were installed in Britain – surely not special treatment for our democratically elected representatives? Sited at the corner of Bridge Street and New Palace Yard, by the Palace of Westminster , they were the brainchild of J.P. Knight, an engineer employed by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, and as that provenance suggests they had more in common with railway signals than the traffic lights we know today (first seen for those who would like to know on November 5 1927 , in Wolverhampton ).
Knight’s device used semaphore arms, one either side of a metal post, which when horizontal signalled stop, and lowered to 45 degrees indicated caution should be taken. The mechanism was enhanced by the use of red and green gas-lights during the hours of darkness, red as now meaning stop, but green signifying caution rather than go.
Given the Highway Code was not published until April 1931 it is not immediately clear how the rules for obeying the signals were codified. Perhaps such lack of clarity was a factor in their removal just four years later.
More famous dates here
6499 views since 19th November 2010
From Ray Davies on 10th December 2012
Amazing fact! The first traffic lights in Bangor Gwynedd were installed in 2008! | 301 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Built between 1776 and 1779 the fort was constructed to provide a defensive stronghold in case of pirate attacks, and as a public works project to provide much needed employment during a time of famine and poverty on the island. It became commonly known as the Fortress of Hunger (Fortaleza del hambre). The famine was caused by a number of factors including periods of drought, and the earlier eruption of Timanfaya between 1730 and 1736, which devastated most of the productive agricultural areas on the island. Charles III of Spain, who was concerned for the plight of the islanders, ordered that the fortress be built.
Situated on a cliff above the Port of Naos, the D shaped fort has semi-circular walls facing the sea. On the landward side, the rear wall is protected by two small turrets, with a moat crossed by a lifting drawbridge leading to the main gateway. The fortress is constructed of masonry and ashlar blocks of volcanic origin. The interior which is made up of barrel vaulted rooms was mainly used as a powder store | <urn:uuid:9862f209-0620-4a67-b812-466a2d96e129> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.fluidr.com/photos/tango- | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00165.warc.gz | en | 0.981679 | 218 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.005650597158819437,
0.5460729002952576,
0.39034271240234375,
0.19840465486049652,
0.29024556279182434,
-0.18317826092243195,
0.06663601100444794,
0.13989384472370148,
-0.5243322253227234,
-0.12806931138038635,
-0.26053673028945923,
-0.6995733380317688,
0.10604169964790344,
0.39622882008... | 1 | Built between 1776 and 1779 the fort was constructed to provide a defensive stronghold in case of pirate attacks, and as a public works project to provide much needed employment during a time of famine and poverty on the island. It became commonly known as the Fortress of Hunger (Fortaleza del hambre). The famine was caused by a number of factors including periods of drought, and the earlier eruption of Timanfaya between 1730 and 1736, which devastated most of the productive agricultural areas on the island. Charles III of Spain, who was concerned for the plight of the islanders, ordered that the fortress be built.
Situated on a cliff above the Port of Naos, the D shaped fort has semi-circular walls facing the sea. On the landward side, the rear wall is protected by two small turrets, with a moat crossed by a lifting drawbridge leading to the main gateway. The fortress is constructed of masonry and ashlar blocks of volcanic origin. The interior which is made up of barrel vaulted rooms was mainly used as a powder store | 228 | ENGLISH | 1 |
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Jameh mosque in the past was the most important religious place in the Islamic cities, because it was the place of holding Friday prayer, as one of the most important sacremany in social and religious aspect. Other daily prayers were held in the same mosques, and some other social and religious ceremonies were held in the Jameh mosque such as some educational and judgement activity in a limited conditions. In these situations, the jameh mosque was the most important building in Islamic cities.
The first Jameh mosque in the new Islamic cities were built near the governmental building (Daralemareh), but in the later centuries in some big cities, they were built in bazaars and the governmental building were built in the citadels. The situation of the Jameh mosque in the city and the other important buildings and spaces are the main question of this research.
The main objective of this research is to identify the situation of Jameh mosque in Islamic historical cities. The main data, at first are based upon the plans that were drawn by architects or historians and at the second level the data are based upon the historical reports written by historians. Methodology of this research has been based upon deseriptive and analytical methods. At the same time, the historical- interpretation method is used, because the research is about the historical buildings in the past periods.
The samples are selected from some cities in the Islamic world. Many of documents are gathered in documentary method and simultaneously some data were gathered by field study on the situation of Jameh mosques in cities such as Naeen, Tehran, Qazvin and Isfahan, and Dephi. Independent variable is the culture and the characteristics of the mosques and the dependent variable is the situation of the Jameh mosque and its relation with other buildings and important urban spaces.
Results and Discussion
It is obvious that some relations between Jameh mosque and other important spaces such as bazzar (Market) are seen in many historical cities that we can see them at present. On the other hand, there are some exceptions that the location of the mosques in these cities are shaped accidentally, but it is difficult to imagine that one of the most important space in Islamic cities- Jame mosque-, could be located accidentally in urban fabric. However, the results of this research shows that there are several patterns and relations between Friday mosque and the other important urban elements that were dependent on some factors such as the political situation of a city, the historical period that Friday mosque was built, and the characteristic pattern and elements of a city.
Therefore, there were not only one pattern for location of a Jameh mosque in historical cities, and there were also several patterns in the relations between the physical environment of a mosque and the buildings adjacent to the mosque.
The survey shows that there was a relative clear pattern about the shape and location of Jameh mosque in relation with the other important elements and buildings in a city, particularly in the new primary cities where most of them had a military function, i.e., Kofe, Basreh, and Cairo. In these cities, the Jameh mosque was built near the governmental buildings that it was called, Daralemareh, because there was a strong relation between governmental affairs and religious activity. The rulers wanted to show this relation very much in the first decades and centuries, but for a few reasons at the later centuries, some governmental centers were built in a citadel that were sometimes far from the city centre and Friday mosque
The situation and level of the Friday mosque in relation to its surrounding areas were different. Most of the mosques were at the same level that the other buildings were in the urban texture, while in some periods and in a few countries, the important mosques were built in a higher platform. For example, the Jame Mosque of Delhi was built by Shah Jahan, in a level higher than the adjacent areas. It seems this pattern was used in India because there were some separated and distinct buildings in the middle of a vast and large site. These kinds of buildings were seen from surrounding areas, on the other hand, somebody can say that people from these buildings can see the surrounding areas, as every body in the Jame mosque of Delhi can see the site and buildings located surrounding the mosque. The Jame mosque of Delhi has three entrances in the middle of each side and they are seen from adjacent sites and the plan of these mosques were regular and the outer surface had no pretty outer facades. However, some of the mosques as Jame mosque or Friday mosque in the Isfahan were located in the middle of an urban fabric. This is because it is located in the middle of an urban texture, and their facades can not be seen from distance, and they have only a pretty portal gate and some other important elements.
We can say that the situation of a mosque in relation with the adjacent buildings and site can influence the general form and style of the mosques. Many of the mosques were adhered to the surrounding buildings, while in some others; there were a distance between mosque and the other buildings. | <urn:uuid:df68dda8-b26d-4bcc-ae95-77d40994cb74> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://jhgr.ut.ac.ir/article_55524.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00431.warc.gz | en | 0.987218 | 1,056 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
0.2401634156703949,
0.24999621510505676,
0.17149344086647034,
-0.16119632124900818,
0.30610546469688416,
0.34544825553894043,
0.12490516155958176,
-0.08841873705387115,
0.1703362911939621,
0.016295086592435837,
-0.2105371654033661,
-0.1418265998363495,
-0.23107844591140747,
0.0748182460665... | 4 | عنوان مقاله [English]
The Jameh mosque in the past was the most important religious place in the Islamic cities, because it was the place of holding Friday prayer, as one of the most important sacremany in social and religious aspect. Other daily prayers were held in the same mosques, and some other social and religious ceremonies were held in the Jameh mosque such as some educational and judgement activity in a limited conditions. In these situations, the jameh mosque was the most important building in Islamic cities.
The first Jameh mosque in the new Islamic cities were built near the governmental building (Daralemareh), but in the later centuries in some big cities, they were built in bazaars and the governmental building were built in the citadels. The situation of the Jameh mosque in the city and the other important buildings and spaces are the main question of this research.
The main objective of this research is to identify the situation of Jameh mosque in Islamic historical cities. The main data, at first are based upon the plans that were drawn by architects or historians and at the second level the data are based upon the historical reports written by historians. Methodology of this research has been based upon deseriptive and analytical methods. At the same time, the historical- interpretation method is used, because the research is about the historical buildings in the past periods.
The samples are selected from some cities in the Islamic world. Many of documents are gathered in documentary method and simultaneously some data were gathered by field study on the situation of Jameh mosques in cities such as Naeen, Tehran, Qazvin and Isfahan, and Dephi. Independent variable is the culture and the characteristics of the mosques and the dependent variable is the situation of the Jameh mosque and its relation with other buildings and important urban spaces.
Results and Discussion
It is obvious that some relations between Jameh mosque and other important spaces such as bazzar (Market) are seen in many historical cities that we can see them at present. On the other hand, there are some exceptions that the location of the mosques in these cities are shaped accidentally, but it is difficult to imagine that one of the most important space in Islamic cities- Jame mosque-, could be located accidentally in urban fabric. However, the results of this research shows that there are several patterns and relations between Friday mosque and the other important urban elements that were dependent on some factors such as the political situation of a city, the historical period that Friday mosque was built, and the characteristic pattern and elements of a city.
Therefore, there were not only one pattern for location of a Jameh mosque in historical cities, and there were also several patterns in the relations between the physical environment of a mosque and the buildings adjacent to the mosque.
The survey shows that there was a relative clear pattern about the shape and location of Jameh mosque in relation with the other important elements and buildings in a city, particularly in the new primary cities where most of them had a military function, i.e., Kofe, Basreh, and Cairo. In these cities, the Jameh mosque was built near the governmental buildings that it was called, Daralemareh, because there was a strong relation between governmental affairs and religious activity. The rulers wanted to show this relation very much in the first decades and centuries, but for a few reasons at the later centuries, some governmental centers were built in a citadel that were sometimes far from the city centre and Friday mosque
The situation and level of the Friday mosque in relation to its surrounding areas were different. Most of the mosques were at the same level that the other buildings were in the urban texture, while in some periods and in a few countries, the important mosques were built in a higher platform. For example, the Jame Mosque of Delhi was built by Shah Jahan, in a level higher than the adjacent areas. It seems this pattern was used in India because there were some separated and distinct buildings in the middle of a vast and large site. These kinds of buildings were seen from surrounding areas, on the other hand, somebody can say that people from these buildings can see the surrounding areas, as every body in the Jame mosque of Delhi can see the site and buildings located surrounding the mosque. The Jame mosque of Delhi has three entrances in the middle of each side and they are seen from adjacent sites and the plan of these mosques were regular and the outer surface had no pretty outer facades. However, some of the mosques as Jame mosque or Friday mosque in the Isfahan were located in the middle of an urban fabric. This is because it is located in the middle of an urban texture, and their facades can not be seen from distance, and they have only a pretty portal gate and some other important elements.
We can say that the situation of a mosque in relation with the adjacent buildings and site can influence the general form and style of the mosques. Many of the mosques were adhered to the surrounding buildings, while in some others; there were a distance between mosque and the other buildings. | 1,022 | ENGLISH | 1 |
On October 28, 1940, Mussolini’s army, already occupying Albania, invades Greece in what will prove to be a disastrous military campaign for the Duce’s forces.
Mussolini surprised everyone with this move against Greece; even his ally, Adolf Hitler, was caught off-guard, especially since the Duce had led Hitler to believe he had no such intention. Hitler denounced the move as a major strategic blunder. According to Hitler, Mussolini should have concentrated on North Africa, continuing the advance into Egypt. Even Mussolini’s own chief of army staff found out about the invasion only after the fact.
Despite being warned off an invasion of Greece by his own generals, despite the lack of preparedness on the part of his military, despite that it would mean getting bogged down in a mountainous country during the rainy season against an army willing to fight tooth and nail to defend its autonomy, Mussolini moved ahead out of sheer hubris, convinced he could defeat the Greeks in a matter of days. He also knew a secret, that millions of lire had been put aside to bribe Greek politicians and generals not to resist the Italian invasion. Whether the money ever made it past the Italian fascist agents delegated with the responsibility is unclear; if it did, it clearly made no difference whatsoever-the Greeks succeeded in pushing the Italian invaders back into Albania after just one week, and the Axis power spent the next three months fighting for its life in a defensive battle.
To make matters worse, virtually half the Italian fleet at Taranto had been crippled by a British carrier-based attack. Mussolini had been humiliated. | <urn:uuid:fcbb6050-72c5-411e-a0c9-43c6d3ed0d3b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/italy-invades-greece | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00004.warc.gz | en | 0.98071 | 333 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.3374955952167511,
0.5752677321434021,
0.12368065863847733,
-0.09546136111021042,
-0.24908575415611267,
-0.2338988184928894,
0.3764657974243164,
0.41003504395484924,
-0.08871320635080338,
-0.004512600135058165,
0.06557539105415344,
-0.2693328261375427,
0.37836983799934387,
0.544936776161... | 16 | On October 28, 1940, Mussolini’s army, already occupying Albania, invades Greece in what will prove to be a disastrous military campaign for the Duce’s forces.
Mussolini surprised everyone with this move against Greece; even his ally, Adolf Hitler, was caught off-guard, especially since the Duce had led Hitler to believe he had no such intention. Hitler denounced the move as a major strategic blunder. According to Hitler, Mussolini should have concentrated on North Africa, continuing the advance into Egypt. Even Mussolini’s own chief of army staff found out about the invasion only after the fact.
Despite being warned off an invasion of Greece by his own generals, despite the lack of preparedness on the part of his military, despite that it would mean getting bogged down in a mountainous country during the rainy season against an army willing to fight tooth and nail to defend its autonomy, Mussolini moved ahead out of sheer hubris, convinced he could defeat the Greeks in a matter of days. He also knew a secret, that millions of lire had been put aside to bribe Greek politicians and generals not to resist the Italian invasion. Whether the money ever made it past the Italian fascist agents delegated with the responsibility is unclear; if it did, it clearly made no difference whatsoever-the Greeks succeeded in pushing the Italian invaders back into Albania after just one week, and the Axis power spent the next three months fighting for its life in a defensive battle.
To make matters worse, virtually half the Italian fleet at Taranto had been crippled by a British carrier-based attack. Mussolini had been humiliated. | 329 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Constitution Day, also known as Citizenship Day, is a holiday that recognizes the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and honors all of those who are citizens, as well as those who have become citizens of the United States. It is observed on September 17 – the day in which the constitution was adopted in 1787. If this holiday falls on a weekend, then it is normally observed by schools on an adjacent weekday.
History of Constitution Day
During the summer of 1787, delegates went to Philadelphia to craft a stronger document than the one in which the country currently operated underneath – the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, but it didn’t allow for many of the features the U.S. government needed. It didn’t allow for a judicial branch and only allowed congress to be one legislature, which was called the Congress of the Confederation. However, while this congress was given some limited powers, it didn’t have the authority to enforce many of them. The United States desperately needed a stronger legal instrument to guide the country and to form a “more perfect Union.”On September 17th, 1787, the constitution was signed, and by the summer of 1788 was ratified by the 13 states and in full effect.
Harry Truman signed a law that made September 17th “Citizenship Day” on February 29th, 1952. On August 2nd, 1956, Congress requested that President Dwight D. Eisenhower declare the week that began September 17th and ended September 23rd as “Constitution Week.” September 17th would remain Citizenship Day until December 2004, when Congress determined that it would also be known as Constitution Day.
Constitution Day Customs & Celebrations
On this day, the President of the United States can choose to issue a proclamation that all governmental bodies must display the Flag of the U.S. on all of their buildings. The President can also ask schools to do the same. It is also customary for various organizations, both civil and educational, to conduct a wide variety of events on this day. These could be as simple as raising an American Flag or as complex as holding a parade. Schools in the United States will often use this day to discuss the Constitution, its history and how it was ratified.
When is Constitution Day (United States)?
|This year (2020)||September 17 (Thursday)||Multiple dates - more|
|Last year (2019)||September 17 (Tuesday)||Multiple dates - more| | <urn:uuid:2df64e14-e52a-4703-835a-0d888f7d7963> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.holidayscalendar.com/event/constitution-day/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00549.warc.gz | en | 0.981076 | 517 | 4 | 4 | [
-0.3201846182346344,
0.047305185347795486,
0.33920419216156006,
-0.10928196460008621,
-0.4193268120288849,
0.22356314957141876,
0.3121887743473053,
0.1420111358165741,
-0.15777140855789185,
0.5744702219963074,
0.30145949125289917,
0.5378850698471069,
-0.038544777780771255,
0.30281725525856... | 1 | Constitution Day, also known as Citizenship Day, is a holiday that recognizes the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and honors all of those who are citizens, as well as those who have become citizens of the United States. It is observed on September 17 – the day in which the constitution was adopted in 1787. If this holiday falls on a weekend, then it is normally observed by schools on an adjacent weekday.
History of Constitution Day
During the summer of 1787, delegates went to Philadelphia to craft a stronger document than the one in which the country currently operated underneath – the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, but it didn’t allow for many of the features the U.S. government needed. It didn’t allow for a judicial branch and only allowed congress to be one legislature, which was called the Congress of the Confederation. However, while this congress was given some limited powers, it didn’t have the authority to enforce many of them. The United States desperately needed a stronger legal instrument to guide the country and to form a “more perfect Union.”On September 17th, 1787, the constitution was signed, and by the summer of 1788 was ratified by the 13 states and in full effect.
Harry Truman signed a law that made September 17th “Citizenship Day” on February 29th, 1952. On August 2nd, 1956, Congress requested that President Dwight D. Eisenhower declare the week that began September 17th and ended September 23rd as “Constitution Week.” September 17th would remain Citizenship Day until December 2004, when Congress determined that it would also be known as Constitution Day.
Constitution Day Customs & Celebrations
On this day, the President of the United States can choose to issue a proclamation that all governmental bodies must display the Flag of the U.S. on all of their buildings. The President can also ask schools to do the same. It is also customary for various organizations, both civil and educational, to conduct a wide variety of events on this day. These could be as simple as raising an American Flag or as complex as holding a parade. Schools in the United States will often use this day to discuss the Constitution, its history and how it was ratified.
When is Constitution Day (United States)?
|This year (2020)||September 17 (Thursday)||Multiple dates - more|
|Last year (2019)||September 17 (Tuesday)||Multiple dates - more| | 547 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.