Split (1)

train · 729k rows

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
This 1894 cartoon of a clergyman turning a blind eye to a man beating his wife was published while women were actively campaigning for equality in divorce laws. It shows two very different views of married life. Church opposition to divorce was staunch: marriage was a sacrament, a union blessed by God, that no man should put asunder. Divorce also allowed a man to avoid supporting and caring for his family. Without that support, mother and children would struggle to survive. Those campaigning for women’s easier access to divorce also believed they were acting in women’s best interests, allowing them to escape from abusive husbands. Using this item Permission of the Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand, Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa, must be obtained before any re-use of this image.	<urn:uuid:59c513bb-e5a1-4154-9d18-39b3ee603aa7>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://teara.govt.nz/en/cartoon/29829/different-views-of-divorce	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700675.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127112805-20200127142805-00183.warc.gz	en	0.984984	171	3.390625	3	[ -0.18973860144615173, 0.495622843503952, -0.5089583396911621, 0.06168152391910553, 0.05482107400894165, 0.4263336658477783, -0.004211511928588152, 0.11288706958293915, 0.07805328071117401, 0.14753645658493042, 0.09436779469251633, 0.00022247160086408257, 0.5736856460571289, 0.0986352264881...	5	This 1894 cartoon of a clergyman turning a blind eye to a man beating his wife was published while women were actively campaigning for equality in divorce laws. It shows two very different views of married life. Church opposition to divorce was staunch: marriage was a sacrament, a union blessed by God, that no man should put asunder. Divorce also allowed a man to avoid supporting and caring for his family. Without that support, mother and children would struggle to survive. Those campaigning for women’s easier access to divorce also believed they were acting in women’s best interests, allowing them to escape from abusive husbands. Using this item Permission of the Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand, Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa, must be obtained before any re-use of this image.	168	ENGLISH	1
Musa (Moses) is the most frequently mentioned person in the Quran. He was born in Egypt about 3,500 years ago and belonged to the tribe of Israel that had migrated to Egypt from Canaan (Palestine) during the time of Yusuf (Joseph). At the time of Musa’s birth, the ruler of Egypt, known as the Pharaoh, oppressed the Israelites, enslaving them and even killing their new-born sons. Hence, to prevent her son from meeting the same fate, Musa’s mother put him in a chest and cast it in River Nile, from where he was picked up by Pharaoh’s household, and Pharaoh’s wife adopted the child. Musa thus had a royal upbringing. In his youth, Musa mistakenly killed a man, and the fear of punishment and injustice caused him to flee Egypt and settle in Madyan (Midian), where he married. During his return journey alongside his family, eight or ten years later, Musa received his first revelation; Allah spoke directly to him, commanding him to preach to Pharaoh and ask him to free the Israelites from bondage. Allah further granted him several miracles as proof of his prophethood, and later, the Torah was revealed to him. Musa’s brother, Harun (Aaron), was also granted prophethood and made his assistant, but despite preaching to Pharaoh and his people for many years, they both were dismissed as magicians, and vehemently opposed and threatened. Finally, on Allah’s command, the Israelites, led by Musa, fled Egypt to escape bondage; they were unsuccessfully pursued by Pharaoh and his soldiers who ended up drowning in the Red Sea. The Israelites, however, were repeatedly ungrateful to Allah, and so were deprived of their native homeland of Canaan for another forty years. Trust Allah to heal your heart Musa’s mother, who was inspired by Allah to cast her infant son in the river, felt greatly distressed when she did so. She became even more apprehensive when Pharaoh’s family picked him up from the river, as Allah says, “The heart of Musa’s mother became void…” (28:10) However, she trusted in Allah to save her infant son. Allah not only saved infant Musa from death but also had his mother appointed as his wet nurse in Pharaoh’s palace! “So We restored him to his mother that she might be comforted and not grieve…” (28:13) Just as Allah comforted Musa’s mother, He provides solace to anyone who trusts Him completely. No sin is unforgivable As a young man, Musa intervened in a fight, and killed one of the two men with just a single blow, without intending to. He then became extremely remorseful, asking Allah for forgiveness, and vowing to never repeat his mistake: “My Lord, for the favor You bestowed upon me, I will never be an assistant to the criminals.” (28:17) Allah not only forgave Musa but also later made him a prophet. Allah loves to pardon and overlook our sins, and no wrong is unforgivable in His sight. Turning to Allah with sincerity is all that is required. Never belittle the common courtesies A good human being is always willing to lend others a helping hand. He or she is never too busy or too shy or to be of use to others, and is ready to extend small kindnesses, even to strangers. When Musa was at the well in Madyan, where the shepherds watered their flocks, he saw two women holding back their flocks to avoid mixing with the men out of modesty. Musa immediately offered to water their flocks, thus saving them plenty of time and effort. Such is the attitude praised by Allah. As Prophet Muhammad said, “Do not belittle any good deed, even meeting your brother with a cheerful face.” (Muslim) Honesty reaps the greatest rewards We all encounter situations in life when telling a lie seems the most convenient course of action; we end up convincing ourselves that the lie will not hurt the other person and so it is okay to utter it. However, the truly trustworthy individuals are those who speak the truth even in the most precarious situations. Musa, for example, could have told the kind old man he met in Madyan that the murder charge against him was false; he, however, narrated the entire incident of how he unintentionally killed a man, and admitted his guilt. Such honesty earned him the respect of the family. As the old man’s daughter said, “O my father, hire him. Indeed, the best one you can hire is the strong and the trustworthy.” (28:26) Do not be hesitant in upholding the truth Many a time, we are hesitant to speak or acknowledge the truth, thinking it might go against us or harm our reputation. However, a courageous person stands for the cause of truth and justice, even if it means putting one’s own life in danger. When the magicians of Pharaoh witnessed the miracle granted to Musa, and realized it was not magic as had been portrayed by Pharaoh, they immediately submitted to Allah, and announced their faith to a stunned public gathering. At this, Pharaoh threatened them, “I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of palm trees!” (20:71) In spite of such merciless threats, the magicians did not renounce their faith, and showed exemplary resolve for the cause of the truth. Long for Paradise, not this world The worldly life is only temporary, and we all shall pass on one day, while the next life will be eternal. For this reason, when faced with a conflict between this life and the next, it is wise to be hereafter-oriented. Do the deeds that shall facilitate you on the Day of Judgement. Pharaoh’s wife was an exemplary woman who went against her tyrant husband to boldly declare faith in Allah. She preferred the blessings of Paradise to her luxurious lifestyle in this world, as she prayed, “My Lord, build for me near You a house in Paradise, and save me from Pharaoh and his deeds.” (66:11) Wealth can be a cause of decline Wealth is a blessing from Allah as it enables you to live in comfort. Wealth, however, is also a great trial as it brings with it the added responsibility to share your blessings with others, and remain humble and grateful to Allah. Qarun (Korah) was an extremely wealthy, yet miserly, Israelite at the time of Musa. He oppressed his own tribe, and refused to help the needy or recognize Allah’s favor upon him, proudly declaring, “This wealth was given to me on account of the knowledge I possess.” (28:78) Due to his sheer arrogance and excessive love of riches, Allah “caused the earth to swallow him and his home” (28:81), bringing about his eternal downfall. Everything happens for a reason There may be some underlying benefit in a tough situation you encounter, even if it is not visible at the time. This is most perfectly illustrated in the journey Musa took alongside Khidr, who was granted special knowledge by Allah. Khidr made a hole in a boat, killed a boy, and constructed a wall without demanding payment, and Musa objected every time. Yet, there was wisdom in each one of these acts: the damaged boat would be of no use to the tyrant king who wanted to seize it; the boy, who would have harmed his parents, would be replaced by a righteous son; and the wall would guard the treasure belonging to two orphan children. In the same way, there may be some good behind a seemingly regrettable or unredeemable situation in your life. It is thus best to place your trust in Allah. Next story: The Warrior King	<urn:uuid:6020d5d6-e3c7-4190-860b-2d1224033e98>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://islamexplained.info/2017/12/15/saviour-of-israelites/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00127.warc.gz	en	0.983351	1,675	3.359375	3	[ -0.22572104632854462, 0.7490330934524536, 0.05068632960319519, 0.042097870260477066, -0.28916603326797485, -0.2845284640789032, 0.603579044342041, 0.017629671841859818, -0.3467375338077545, 0.4591945707798004, 0.16422516107559204, -0.5671499967575073, 0.17495207488536835, -0.29750052094459...	2	Musa (Moses) is the most frequently mentioned person in the Quran. He was born in Egypt about 3,500 years ago and belonged to the tribe of Israel that had migrated to Egypt from Canaan (Palestine) during the time of Yusuf (Joseph). At the time of Musa’s birth, the ruler of Egypt, known as the Pharaoh, oppressed the Israelites, enslaving them and even killing their new-born sons. Hence, to prevent her son from meeting the same fate, Musa’s mother put him in a chest and cast it in River Nile, from where he was picked up by Pharaoh’s household, and Pharaoh’s wife adopted the child. Musa thus had a royal upbringing. In his youth, Musa mistakenly killed a man, and the fear of punishment and injustice caused him to flee Egypt and settle in Madyan (Midian), where he married. During his return journey alongside his family, eight or ten years later, Musa received his first revelation; Allah spoke directly to him, commanding him to preach to Pharaoh and ask him to free the Israelites from bondage. Allah further granted him several miracles as proof of his prophethood, and later, the Torah was revealed to him. Musa’s brother, Harun (Aaron), was also granted prophethood and made his assistant, but despite preaching to Pharaoh and his people for many years, they both were dismissed as magicians, and vehemently opposed and threatened. Finally, on Allah’s command, the Israelites, led by Musa, fled Egypt to escape bondage; they were unsuccessfully pursued by Pharaoh and his soldiers who ended up drowning in the Red Sea. The Israelites, however, were repeatedly ungrateful to Allah, and so were deprived of their native homeland of Canaan for another forty years. Trust Allah to heal your heart Musa’s mother, who was inspired by Allah to cast her infant son in the river, felt greatly distressed when she did so. She became even more apprehensive when Pharaoh’s family picked him up from the river, as Allah says, “The heart of Musa’s mother became void…” (28:10) However, she trusted in Allah to save her infant son. Allah not only saved infant Musa from death but also had his mother appointed as his wet nurse in Pharaoh’s palace! “So We restored him to his mother that she might be comforted and not grieve…” (28:13) Just as Allah comforted Musa’s mother, He provides solace to anyone who trusts Him completely. No sin is unforgivable As a young man, Musa intervened in a fight, and killed one of the two men with just a single blow, without intending to. He then became extremely remorseful, asking Allah for forgiveness, and vowing to never repeat his mistake: “My Lord, for the favor You bestowed upon me, I will never be an assistant to the criminals.” (28:17) Allah not only forgave Musa but also later made him a prophet. Allah loves to pardon and overlook our sins, and no wrong is unforgivable in His sight. Turning to Allah with sincerity is all that is required. Never belittle the common courtesies A good human being is always willing to lend others a helping hand. He or she is never too busy or too shy or to be of use to others, and is ready to extend small kindnesses, even to strangers. When Musa was at the well in Madyan, where the shepherds watered their flocks, he saw two women holding back their flocks to avoid mixing with the men out of modesty. Musa immediately offered to water their flocks, thus saving them plenty of time and effort. Such is the attitude praised by Allah. As Prophet Muhammad said, “Do not belittle any good deed, even meeting your brother with a cheerful face.” (Muslim) Honesty reaps the greatest rewards We all encounter situations in life when telling a lie seems the most convenient course of action; we end up convincing ourselves that the lie will not hurt the other person and so it is okay to utter it. However, the truly trustworthy individuals are those who speak the truth even in the most precarious situations. Musa, for example, could have told the kind old man he met in Madyan that the murder charge against him was false; he, however, narrated the entire incident of how he unintentionally killed a man, and admitted his guilt. Such honesty earned him the respect of the family. As the old man’s daughter said, “O my father, hire him. Indeed, the best one you can hire is the strong and the trustworthy.” (28:26) Do not be hesitant in upholding the truth Many a time, we are hesitant to speak or acknowledge the truth, thinking it might go against us or harm our reputation. However, a courageous person stands for the cause of truth and justice, even if it means putting one’s own life in danger. When the magicians of Pharaoh witnessed the miracle granted to Musa, and realized it was not magic as had been portrayed by Pharaoh, they immediately submitted to Allah, and announced their faith to a stunned public gathering. At this, Pharaoh threatened them, “I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of palm trees!” (20:71) In spite of such merciless threats, the magicians did not renounce their faith, and showed exemplary resolve for the cause of the truth. Long for Paradise, not this world The worldly life is only temporary, and we all shall pass on one day, while the next life will be eternal. For this reason, when faced with a conflict between this life and the next, it is wise to be hereafter-oriented. Do the deeds that shall facilitate you on the Day of Judgement. Pharaoh’s wife was an exemplary woman who went against her tyrant husband to boldly declare faith in Allah. She preferred the blessings of Paradise to her luxurious lifestyle in this world, as she prayed, “My Lord, build for me near You a house in Paradise, and save me from Pharaoh and his deeds.” (66:11) Wealth can be a cause of decline Wealth is a blessing from Allah as it enables you to live in comfort. Wealth, however, is also a great trial as it brings with it the added responsibility to share your blessings with others, and remain humble and grateful to Allah. Qarun (Korah) was an extremely wealthy, yet miserly, Israelite at the time of Musa. He oppressed his own tribe, and refused to help the needy or recognize Allah’s favor upon him, proudly declaring, “This wealth was given to me on account of the knowledge I possess.” (28:78) Due to his sheer arrogance and excessive love of riches, Allah “caused the earth to swallow him and his home” (28:81), bringing about his eternal downfall. Everything happens for a reason There may be some underlying benefit in a tough situation you encounter, even if it is not visible at the time. This is most perfectly illustrated in the journey Musa took alongside Khidr, who was granted special knowledge by Allah. Khidr made a hole in a boat, killed a boy, and constructed a wall without demanding payment, and Musa objected every time. Yet, there was wisdom in each one of these acts: the damaged boat would be of no use to the tyrant king who wanted to seize it; the boy, who would have harmed his parents, would be replaced by a righteous son; and the wall would guard the treasure belonging to two orphan children. In the same way, there may be some good behind a seemingly regrettable or unredeemable situation in your life. It is thus best to place your trust in Allah. Next story: The Warrior King	1,657	ENGLISH	1
The sight of picket signs and crowds of marching protestors evoke images of our country’s struggles during the turbulent 1960s. Many remember news reports and film of rioters jamming sidewalks and streets, protesting various issues during that era. But a few years before then, the small town of Waterloo became embroiled in a controversy of its own; and it all began with milking cows. While most everyone can make the change from standard to daylight savings time with little more than a few bleary-eyed mornings of losing an hour of sleep, farm animals do not know the difference. Therefore, animals would need to be fed at the same time, regardless of clocks being changed over. Cows need to be milked at the same time, too. At the urging of rural farm families in the early spring of 1953, the Waterloo School Board began discussing the issue at their meetings shortly after the holiday season and voted to leave school hours on standard time while everyone else would “spring forward” to daylight savings time on April 26. More than half of Waterloo students were from farm families in 1953, and parents were worried their children would be forced to leave the farm too early under the daylight savings time rules. Regardless of the large number of farm families supporting the board’s decision, there were also a large number of citizens who opposed the move. Opponents argued the rest of the town was switching over and so should the schools. As is common in most small towns, many citizens made the argument personal, citing that the board president himself was the owner of a sizeable dairy farm and he was worried about getting the cows milked on time. A special board meeting was held in the WHS assembly room on April 22, 1953, and was well attended; 25 representatives from several farm families were there to support the board decision. There was also a large contingent of students there who were not in favor of the motion. Many of them had parents to back them up with petitions hoping to change the board’s ruling. During the discussion, rural citizens pointed out at that their children must rise at 6:30 a.m. to get on the school bus. Under daylight savings time, this time would be moved to 5:30 a.m. Opponents pointed out that many area farmers change to daylight savings time during the summer months. Farmers in attendance stated they had to work with the sun. At the urging of two new board members, a motion was made to overturn the ruling made earlier and change the schools over to daylight savings time. By secret ballot, the motion did not pass. Three members were for the motion, but four were against. School hours would remain on standard time. Students milled around following the meeting, many incensed at the decision. Most wanted to do something to show their opposition. “It became a standoff of sorts,” recalls Bob Walhaus, who was a junior at WHS in 1953. “Both sides were saying, ‘Well, why should we be forced to change?’” Students soon came to the consensus they would stage a strike and not attend classes. Word spread quickly, and the strike was not reserved for high schoolers — junior high and even grade school students got involved, as well. “I remember we met in someone’s basement and began painting signs and preparing for the strike,” recalls Jean Kohler Schutt, a WHS student at the time. On Monday morning, April 27, students began congregating outside the school. Books were placed under a tree. A drum and bugle corps assembled, lead by two majorettes. Cars, motorcycles, scooters, and bicycles were decorated. Protest signs read “To Milk or Not to Milk on Standard Time? That is the Question” and “Students NOT Cows Come First.” Perhaps one of the more controversial signs read “Milkers Wanted” and advertised the phone number of the school board president. Students soon labeled the start of school as “Cow Time.” According to newspaper reports from the first day of the strike, the students were enthusiastic. Papers reported that all but about a dozen of the high school students were on strike, joined by more than 80 students from grades 2-8. The Waterloo Republican reported that “the students had a fine time parading up and down Main Street with drums and bugle music.” Newspaper photos showed empty classrooms and the school campus crowded with protestors. Area ice cream parlors reported an increase in business the week of the strike, with protestors pausing from time to time for refreshments. Tuesday morning began with a smaller crowd of students organizing a parade, yet it seemed the effort lacked enthusiasm from the previous day. Schutt said the strike continued for the rest of the week with students “cutting class and running around town.” Walhaus recalls neither the school board nor students seemed willing to “budge” when it came to changing their minds. Indeed, students continued to remain out of school on Wednesday and Thursday. Rumors of strikes in neighboring communities began to surface, including the planned strike of Sparta students when the school board there made a similar ruling. Although there were no parades or large lines of picketers the remainder of the week, students still made their views known in other ways from Wednesday to Friday. “One of the things we did, that I am not particularly proud of, was driving out to the farm of the school board president, Marcellus Hartman,” recalls Bob Walhaus. “We all got in a long line of cars and drove around that farm honking our horns and causing a big scene.” Walhaus happened to be best friends with the son of Mr. Hartman, and he regretted his participation in the strike at times. “Kenneth was forced to go to school and I’m sure he would have rather gone with us because the strike was a lot of fun. I ended up apologizing to him after the strike was over,” he said. With neither side willing to budge, school board members again called a special meeting and held a closed session with only board members in attendance. “The other school board members finally convinced Mr. Hartman that it was in the best interest of the students to change school house to daylight savings time. It was an exciting time for us because it was a small town and we weren’t used to such controversy,” Walhaus said. Word soon spread that the board was changing its mind. Students celebrated with victory drives through towns and again treated themselves at local teen hangouts. As the weekend ended and Monday morning was upon them, it was soon clear that students would be forced to return to their normal routines, regardless of their victorious win. “Our parents supported us. But in the end, they all said ‘Alright. It’s time to get back to work now,’” Walhaus said.	<urn:uuid:78467ca3-c590-40d5-90cb-774b19caa96b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.republictimes.net/remembering-the-cow-time-protest-60-years-later/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00386.warc.gz	en	0.985887	1,457	3.28125	3	[ -0.2989664375782013, -0.2125406563282013, 0.3959510922431946, 0.4079073667526245, 0.15583300590515137, 0.24008360505104065, -0.3038279414176941, 0.07447142153978348, -0.01942622661590576, 0.15479949116706848, -0.15802186727523804, 0.07016168534755707, 0.06292319297790527, 0.214877068996429...	6	The sight of picket signs and crowds of marching protestors evoke images of our country’s struggles during the turbulent 1960s. Many remember news reports and film of rioters jamming sidewalks and streets, protesting various issues during that era. But a few years before then, the small town of Waterloo became embroiled in a controversy of its own; and it all began with milking cows. While most everyone can make the change from standard to daylight savings time with little more than a few bleary-eyed mornings of losing an hour of sleep, farm animals do not know the difference. Therefore, animals would need to be fed at the same time, regardless of clocks being changed over. Cows need to be milked at the same time, too. At the urging of rural farm families in the early spring of 1953, the Waterloo School Board began discussing the issue at their meetings shortly after the holiday season and voted to leave school hours on standard time while everyone else would “spring forward” to daylight savings time on April 26. More than half of Waterloo students were from farm families in 1953, and parents were worried their children would be forced to leave the farm too early under the daylight savings time rules. Regardless of the large number of farm families supporting the board’s decision, there were also a large number of citizens who opposed the move. Opponents argued the rest of the town was switching over and so should the schools. As is common in most small towns, many citizens made the argument personal, citing that the board president himself was the owner of a sizeable dairy farm and he was worried about getting the cows milked on time. A special board meeting was held in the WHS assembly room on April 22, 1953, and was well attended; 25 representatives from several farm families were there to support the board decision. There was also a large contingent of students there who were not in favor of the motion. Many of them had parents to back them up with petitions hoping to change the board’s ruling. During the discussion, rural citizens pointed out at that their children must rise at 6:30 a.m. to get on the school bus. Under daylight savings time, this time would be moved to 5:30 a.m. Opponents pointed out that many area farmers change to daylight savings time during the summer months. Farmers in attendance stated they had to work with the sun. At the urging of two new board members, a motion was made to overturn the ruling made earlier and change the schools over to daylight savings time. By secret ballot, the motion did not pass. Three members were for the motion, but four were against. School hours would remain on standard time. Students milled around following the meeting, many incensed at the decision. Most wanted to do something to show their opposition. “It became a standoff of sorts,” recalls Bob Walhaus, who was a junior at WHS in 1953. “Both sides were saying, ‘Well, why should we be forced to change?’” Students soon came to the consensus they would stage a strike and not attend classes. Word spread quickly, and the strike was not reserved for high schoolers — junior high and even grade school students got involved, as well. “I remember we met in someone’s basement and began painting signs and preparing for the strike,” recalls Jean Kohler Schutt, a WHS student at the time. On Monday morning, April 27, students began congregating outside the school. Books were placed under a tree. A drum and bugle corps assembled, lead by two majorettes. Cars, motorcycles, scooters, and bicycles were decorated. Protest signs read “To Milk or Not to Milk on Standard Time? That is the Question” and “Students NOT Cows Come First.” Perhaps one of the more controversial signs read “Milkers Wanted” and advertised the phone number of the school board president. Students soon labeled the start of school as “Cow Time.” According to newspaper reports from the first day of the strike, the students were enthusiastic. Papers reported that all but about a dozen of the high school students were on strike, joined by more than 80 students from grades 2-8. The Waterloo Republican reported that “the students had a fine time parading up and down Main Street with drums and bugle music.” Newspaper photos showed empty classrooms and the school campus crowded with protestors. Area ice cream parlors reported an increase in business the week of the strike, with protestors pausing from time to time for refreshments. Tuesday morning began with a smaller crowd of students organizing a parade, yet it seemed the effort lacked enthusiasm from the previous day. Schutt said the strike continued for the rest of the week with students “cutting class and running around town.” Walhaus recalls neither the school board nor students seemed willing to “budge” when it came to changing their minds. Indeed, students continued to remain out of school on Wednesday and Thursday. Rumors of strikes in neighboring communities began to surface, including the planned strike of Sparta students when the school board there made a similar ruling. Although there were no parades or large lines of picketers the remainder of the week, students still made their views known in other ways from Wednesday to Friday. “One of the things we did, that I am not particularly proud of, was driving out to the farm of the school board president, Marcellus Hartman,” recalls Bob Walhaus. “We all got in a long line of cars and drove around that farm honking our horns and causing a big scene.” Walhaus happened to be best friends with the son of Mr. Hartman, and he regretted his participation in the strike at times. “Kenneth was forced to go to school and I’m sure he would have rather gone with us because the strike was a lot of fun. I ended up apologizing to him after the strike was over,” he said. With neither side willing to budge, school board members again called a special meeting and held a closed session with only board members in attendance. “The other school board members finally convinced Mr. Hartman that it was in the best interest of the students to change school house to daylight savings time. It was an exciting time for us because it was a small town and we weren’t used to such controversy,” Walhaus said. Word soon spread that the board was changing its mind. Students celebrated with victory drives through towns and again treated themselves at local teen hangouts. As the weekend ended and Monday morning was upon them, it was soon clear that students would be forced to return to their normal routines, regardless of their victorious win. “Our parents supported us. But in the end, they all said ‘Alright. It’s time to get back to work now,’” Walhaus said.	1,396	ENGLISH	1
A ghost town refers to the remains of a former town or city that once prospered but since has become abandoned due to economic reasons, political unrest or natural disasters. Many of the ghost towns exisiting today were built during the 19th-century gold rush, known then as "boomtowns". As mineral deposits were being discovered, towns were built near the mines and housed the miners and other staff. When the minerals were depleted, the residents quickly closed shop and moved to the next boomtown. 5. Virginia City, Montana (675 peak population) Virginia is a town in Madison County, Montana. At its peak in the late 1890s, the town had a population of 675 people. It was previously known as Verina. The development of Virginia City was kickstarted when Alder Gulch discovered gold deposits in the proximity. News spread of the potential for immense wealth, and soon Virginia City was a boomtown. Virginia City had so much wealth and influence that the capital of Montana, initially located in the older town of Bannack, was relocated to Virginia City. In the first years of commercial mining, gold worth more than $30 million was excavated from the mines in Virginia City. Virginia City’s prominence started to decline when the deposits began to dwindle, and other promising prospects were discovered in neighboring Last Chance Gulch where the majority of the miners began to relocate. In 1875, the capitol of Montana was moved to Last Chance Gulch (present-day Helena), rendering Virginia City a ghost town. 4. Cahaba, Alabama - (peak population 1,920) Cahaba, also known as Cahawba, is a ghost town located in the state of Alabama. Unique amongst ghost towns, Cahaba did not start as a mining town but was instead developed due to the fertile soils and availability of water at the confluence of the Cahaba and Alabama rivers. Availability of water made it a prime area for the cultivation of cotton which was a major cash crop at the time. The town of Cahaba grew so much in population and reputation that in 1820 it was made the state capital. This was a controversial decision as the town's low elevation made it prone to flooding. A huge flood in 1865 flooded all important structures in the town, initiating the decline of Cahaba and in turn the state capital's move to neighboring Selma. This caused an exodus of businesses and people which sent Cahaba on the track to become a ghost town within ten years. 3. St. Elmo, Colorado - (peak population 2,000) St. Elmo, located in Chaffee County, Colorado is a very well-preserved ghost town. Founded in 1880, St. Elmo was formerly known as Forest City but was later renamed to avoid confusion with other towns bearing the same name. St. Elmo was surrounded by rich mines where vast deposits of copper, iron, silver, and gold were found. The Murphy Mine, one of the largest in the city, had a daily production of around 75 tons of ore. The city started with a few residents but grew to reach a peak of 2,000 people. In 1881, St. Elmo became a station on the Denver-Pacific narrow gauge railroad and the location was the site of the important Alpine Tunnel, becoming an important trading center with many merchandise stores, sawmills, hotels, and restaurants. It even had a local newspaper in circulation known as the Mountaineer. The decline of St. Elmo began when the mines were depleted, and by the closure of the Alpine Tunnel. This decline was compounded by a fire in 1890 which destroyed a large part of the town. With other miners and traders moving on to the next boomtown, only a few residents remained in the city. Tourism still brings people to the St. Elmo each year and the old mining roads are used, although the old tired roads require some four-wheel driving. 2. Centralia, Pennsylvania - (peak population 2,761) Centralia is a town in Columbia County, Pennsylvania that had a population of 10 in 2010. Centralia was founded in 1856 and was inhabited due to the immense coal deposits. The mining attracted miners and business people from all over, but once the production started to decline, people started moving out. The outbreak of WWI also compounded the problem when a majority of the young locals enlisted in the army. A fire started in 1962 in the coal mines and has been burning beneath the borough ever since, bringing emissions of toxic gas to the once-prosperous town and forcing the relocation of many residents. 1. Bodie, California - (peak population 7,000) Bodie is a ghost town located in Mono County, California. Bodie is one of the most well-known ghost towns in the US and attracts more than 200,000 visitors per year. It is also recognized as a National Historic Landmark by the Department of Interior and is formally identified as Bodie State Historic Park. Bodie town was started in 1859 by a mining prospector named William S. Bodey after he discovered deposits of gold in the area. Although the town was named in his honor, William never saw it grow to become a town. He died the very year of his discovery in a snow storm. In 1861, a mine called the Bunker Hill Mine was started with about 20 miners. However, when the mine was under new management and changed its name to the Standard Mining Company, the mining production grew greatly yielding more than $15 million worth of gold over the next 25 years. This growth in production made Bodie extremely popular and had its population spike to reach a peak of 5,000 people. However, the mines began to experience a decline in production, only four years after the boom. As a result, mining companies were driven to declare bankruptcy and close up shop. The decline of Bodie was compounded by the Great Depression which brought with it high unemployment forcing many of the remaining residents to look for better opportunities elsewhere. In the early 1940s, Bodie town was effectively a ghost town void of any residents. What is a Ghost Town? A ghost town is a phenomenon that occurs when a town or village that used to be population experiences a sudden drop in inhabitants, often fueled by the departure of an industry upon which the town relied. 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:176d9f4f-a8a8-4bc1-a746-a1c7509e90af>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-ghost-towns-of-america.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00261.warc.gz	en	0.983486	1,370	3.515625	4	[ -0.2544054388999939, -0.11348676681518555, 0.14274945855140686, 0.4633941650390625, 0.09948065876960754, -0.17369186878204346, 0.005978844128549099, -0.28488925099372864, -0.5296512246131897, 0.0936325341463089, 0.4398791790008545, -0.34480273723602295, -0.10799679160118103, 0.247399300336...	2	A ghost town refers to the remains of a former town or city that once prospered but since has become abandoned due to economic reasons, political unrest or natural disasters. Many of the ghost towns exisiting today were built during the 19th-century gold rush, known then as "boomtowns". As mineral deposits were being discovered, towns were built near the mines and housed the miners and other staff. When the minerals were depleted, the residents quickly closed shop and moved to the next boomtown. 5. Virginia City, Montana (675 peak population) Virginia is a town in Madison County, Montana. At its peak in the late 1890s, the town had a population of 675 people. It was previously known as Verina. The development of Virginia City was kickstarted when Alder Gulch discovered gold deposits in the proximity. News spread of the potential for immense wealth, and soon Virginia City was a boomtown. Virginia City had so much wealth and influence that the capital of Montana, initially located in the older town of Bannack, was relocated to Virginia City. In the first years of commercial mining, gold worth more than $30 million was excavated from the mines in Virginia City. Virginia City’s prominence started to decline when the deposits began to dwindle, and other promising prospects were discovered in neighboring Last Chance Gulch where the majority of the miners began to relocate. In 1875, the capitol of Montana was moved to Last Chance Gulch (present-day Helena), rendering Virginia City a ghost town. 4. Cahaba, Alabama - (peak population 1,920) Cahaba, also known as Cahawba, is a ghost town located in the state of Alabama. Unique amongst ghost towns, Cahaba did not start as a mining town but was instead developed due to the fertile soils and availability of water at the confluence of the Cahaba and Alabama rivers. Availability of water made it a prime area for the cultivation of cotton which was a major cash crop at the time. The town of Cahaba grew so much in population and reputation that in 1820 it was made the state capital. This was a controversial decision as the town's low elevation made it prone to flooding. A huge flood in 1865 flooded all important structures in the town, initiating the decline of Cahaba and in turn the state capital's move to neighboring Selma. This caused an exodus of businesses and people which sent Cahaba on the track to become a ghost town within ten years. 3. St. Elmo, Colorado - (peak population 2,000) St. Elmo, located in Chaffee County, Colorado is a very well-preserved ghost town. Founded in 1880, St. Elmo was formerly known as Forest City but was later renamed to avoid confusion with other towns bearing the same name. St. Elmo was surrounded by rich mines where vast deposits of copper, iron, silver, and gold were found. The Murphy Mine, one of the largest in the city, had a daily production of around 75 tons of ore. The city started with a few residents but grew to reach a peak of 2,000 people. In 1881, St. Elmo became a station on the Denver-Pacific narrow gauge railroad and the location was the site of the important Alpine Tunnel, becoming an important trading center with many merchandise stores, sawmills, hotels, and restaurants. It even had a local newspaper in circulation known as the Mountaineer. The decline of St. Elmo began when the mines were depleted, and by the closure of the Alpine Tunnel. This decline was compounded by a fire in 1890 which destroyed a large part of the town. With other miners and traders moving on to the next boomtown, only a few residents remained in the city. Tourism still brings people to the St. Elmo each year and the old mining roads are used, although the old tired roads require some four-wheel driving. 2. Centralia, Pennsylvania - (peak population 2,761) Centralia is a town in Columbia County, Pennsylvania that had a population of 10 in 2010. Centralia was founded in 1856 and was inhabited due to the immense coal deposits. The mining attracted miners and business people from all over, but once the production started to decline, people started moving out. The outbreak of WWI also compounded the problem when a majority of the young locals enlisted in the army. A fire started in 1962 in the coal mines and has been burning beneath the borough ever since, bringing emissions of toxic gas to the once-prosperous town and forcing the relocation of many residents. 1. Bodie, California - (peak population 7,000) Bodie is a ghost town located in Mono County, California. Bodie is one of the most well-known ghost towns in the US and attracts more than 200,000 visitors per year. It is also recognized as a National Historic Landmark by the Department of Interior and is formally identified as Bodie State Historic Park. Bodie town was started in 1859 by a mining prospector named William S. Bodey after he discovered deposits of gold in the area. Although the town was named in his honor, William never saw it grow to become a town. He died the very year of his discovery in a snow storm. In 1861, a mine called the Bunker Hill Mine was started with about 20 miners. However, when the mine was under new management and changed its name to the Standard Mining Company, the mining production grew greatly yielding more than $15 million worth of gold over the next 25 years. This growth in production made Bodie extremely popular and had its population spike to reach a peak of 5,000 people. However, the mines began to experience a decline in production, only four years after the boom. As a result, mining companies were driven to declare bankruptcy and close up shop. The decline of Bodie was compounded by the Great Depression which brought with it high unemployment forcing many of the remaining residents to look for better opportunities elsewhere. In the early 1940s, Bodie town was effectively a ghost town void of any residents. What is a Ghost Town? A ghost town is a phenomenon that occurs when a town or village that used to be population experiences a sudden drop in inhabitants, often fueled by the departure of an industry upon which the town relied. 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.	1,428	ENGLISH	1
EDMONTON — Hidden away in British Columbia’s North Shore mountains are the remnants of a Japanese-Canadian logging camp, shrouded by forest and veiled from memory after it was apparently abandoned because of internment during the Second World War. Since 2004, Vancouver archeologist Bob Muckle has been visiting and excavating the site; almost everything had been swallowed by the forest and has been gradually and carefully uncovered. There are as many questions as answers, still, but Muckle has a theory that it was an oasis of Japanese culture, on the fringe of Vancouver, decades ago, that was heretofore unknown. Sherri Kajiwara of the Nikkei National Museum in Burnaby, B.C. says there is no record, yet, of anyone remembering living there, or remembering that their ancestors resided there, although there were plenty of Japanese-Canadians in Canada at the time. “By the 1940s the community was very established and spread across metro Vancouver and the province,” Kajiwara said. Her museum is putting together an exhibit about the history of Japanese-Canadian internment, and one of the main characters is Eikichi Kagetsu, a successful businessman who had logging rights in the area where Muckle found a settlement. Muckle’s involvement with the camp began as a search for an area where he could teach his Capilano University students about proper excavation. He found one, a logging camp, by the looks of it, since there were bits of saw blades around. But, the excavation soon revealed it “was not really a typical logging camp at all.” A typical camp, Muckle explained, would have bunk houses and a mess hall for the men working there. This one has 14 locations that were, to Muckle’s eyes, houses. There is also evidence of a shrine, a garden space and a water reservoir system. “The most significant find is evidence of what may be a Japanese bathhouse,” Muckle noted. “Very few bathhouses have been excavated outside of Japan.” Though he doesn’t “have the smoking gun yet,” Muckle’s hypothesis about the origin and life of the camp is that Japanese-Canadians moved to the logging camp around 1918, and remained there even after logging activity ceased. He was most recently on-site for several weeks in May and June. “In the Vancouver area, where we are, in the 1920s and ’30s there was pretty explicit racism against both Chinese and Japanese, so this would’ve been an escape from that.” Here they lived, with the men commuting into Vancouver for work, Muckle suspects, until February 1942, when they would have left for internment camps, a policy put in place during the Second World War that relocated families from the B.C. coast. The evidence for the timing, and reason, for the camp’s abandonment, even in the absence of clear artifacts from the 1940s, is that the departure seems to have been reasonably orderly. Everyone there just walked away, leaving behind clocks, watches, pocketknives, dishes and stoves. There are about 1,000 artifacts in total: beer bottles and teapot pieces and evaporated milk cans, suggesting the presence of children. “I think (internment) explains why we have so many personal items left behind,” Muckle said. “The dishes tend to be in really good condition, which you wouldn’t expect if people were normally abandoning their site.” And, some items were hidden, such as a valuable stove secreted away off-site and parts of an early-1900s camera that were inside the walls of the bathhouse. “I’m thinking this is probably my last season there,” he said. “I’m going through the process right now of figuring out what’s going to happen to all the artifacts.” Certaintly, some of them are going to go to Kajiwara’s museum. For her part, she’s heard from a number of people about the settlement, as it has received more press, including someone from Japan. “It’s really been quite remarkable that the word has gone out sort of far and wide,” she said. “We’re starting to slowly collect names.” “That whole generation really didn’t talk about the experience for decades and it’s only now, it’s only recently, that the stories have started to be revealed or shared,” she said. “It will be interesting to see if we can track down any of the descendants.”	<urn:uuid:fd556faa-6e7b-455c-8f13-8d858a209bb0>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://nationalpost.com/news/unearthed-japanese-camp-in-b-c-mountains-was-likely-an-escape-from-racism-until-internment-intervened	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00009.warc.gz	en	0.982597	999	3.265625	3	[ 0.10952287912368774, 0.6361851692199707, 0.26960307359695435, 0.016162436455488205, 0.2044474482536316, -0.044911034405231476, -0.14565955102443695, -0.0006164582446217537, -0.3973343074321747, 0.3817139267921448, 0.44232597947120667, -0.5874643921852112, 0.08371195197105408, 0.32159972190...	1	EDMONTON — Hidden away in British Columbia’s North Shore mountains are the remnants of a Japanese-Canadian logging camp, shrouded by forest and veiled from memory after it was apparently abandoned because of internment during the Second World War. Since 2004, Vancouver archeologist Bob Muckle has been visiting and excavating the site; almost everything had been swallowed by the forest and has been gradually and carefully uncovered. There are as many questions as answers, still, but Muckle has a theory that it was an oasis of Japanese culture, on the fringe of Vancouver, decades ago, that was heretofore unknown. Sherri Kajiwara of the Nikkei National Museum in Burnaby, B.C. says there is no record, yet, of anyone remembering living there, or remembering that their ancestors resided there, although there were plenty of Japanese-Canadians in Canada at the time. “By the 1940s the community was very established and spread across metro Vancouver and the province,” Kajiwara said. Her museum is putting together an exhibit about the history of Japanese-Canadian internment, and one of the main characters is Eikichi Kagetsu, a successful businessman who had logging rights in the area where Muckle found a settlement. Muckle’s involvement with the camp began as a search for an area where he could teach his Capilano University students about proper excavation. He found one, a logging camp, by the looks of it, since there were bits of saw blades around. But, the excavation soon revealed it “was not really a typical logging camp at all.” A typical camp, Muckle explained, would have bunk houses and a mess hall for the men working there. This one has 14 locations that were, to Muckle’s eyes, houses. There is also evidence of a shrine, a garden space and a water reservoir system. “The most significant find is evidence of what may be a Japanese bathhouse,” Muckle noted. “Very few bathhouses have been excavated outside of Japan.” Though he doesn’t “have the smoking gun yet,” Muckle’s hypothesis about the origin and life of the camp is that Japanese-Canadians moved to the logging camp around 1918, and remained there even after logging activity ceased. He was most recently on-site for several weeks in May and June. “In the Vancouver area, where we are, in the 1920s and ’30s there was pretty explicit racism against both Chinese and Japanese, so this would’ve been an escape from that.” Here they lived, with the men commuting into Vancouver for work, Muckle suspects, until February 1942, when they would have left for internment camps, a policy put in place during the Second World War that relocated families from the B.C. coast. The evidence for the timing, and reason, for the camp’s abandonment, even in the absence of clear artifacts from the 1940s, is that the departure seems to have been reasonably orderly. Everyone there just walked away, leaving behind clocks, watches, pocketknives, dishes and stoves. There are about 1,000 artifacts in total: beer bottles and teapot pieces and evaporated milk cans, suggesting the presence of children. “I think (internment) explains why we have so many personal items left behind,” Muckle said. “The dishes tend to be in really good condition, which you wouldn’t expect if people were normally abandoning their site.” And, some items were hidden, such as a valuable stove secreted away off-site and parts of an early-1900s camera that were inside the walls of the bathhouse. “I’m thinking this is probably my last season there,” he said. “I’m going through the process right now of figuring out what’s going to happen to all the artifacts.” Certaintly, some of them are going to go to Kajiwara’s museum. For her part, she’s heard from a number of people about the settlement, as it has received more press, including someone from Japan. “It’s really been quite remarkable that the word has gone out sort of far and wide,” she said. “We’re starting to slowly collect names.” “That whole generation really didn’t talk about the experience for decades and it’s only now, it’s only recently, that the stories have started to be revealed or shared,” she said. “It will be interesting to see if we can track down any of the descendants.”	932	ENGLISH	1
Exhibition Operation North Sea 1944 - '45 Did you know that, during World War II, Belgium didn’t actually have an army anymore? In 1940, the King capitulated with the result that also the army was officially disbanded. But plenty of soldiers and volunteers were willing to fight for freedom from England. In England, the Belgian government concluded an agreement with the British government. Under this agreement, the British army was to incorporate a number of Belgian ‘sections’. Thus, the Royal Navy acquired a ‘Section Belge’. Also the Royal Air Force (RAF) acquired a Belgian section with pilots who had been flown to England via France, Morocco and Portugal in 1940. During the war, elite troops were trained as commandos in Scotland and young fishermen received combat training in the north-east of England. Most of these sections also took part in the Battle of the Scheldt.	<urn:uuid:da524a15-7c31-4fed-886c-2cc51780bf96>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.belgiancoast.co.uk/en/exhibition-operation-north-sea-1944-45/no-army	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00140.warc.gz	en	0.981259	188	3.65625	4	[ 0.08280406147241592, 0.44515854120254517, 0.46559885144233704, -0.5103884339332581, 0.18784376978874207, -0.14238479733467102, -0.007286718115210533, 0.05983859300613403, -0.2601493000984192, 0.07175280153751373, 0.15606696903705597, -0.5721048712730408, 0.5021464228630066, 0.2307434529066...	1	Exhibition Operation North Sea 1944 - '45 Did you know that, during World War II, Belgium didn’t actually have an army anymore? In 1940, the King capitulated with the result that also the army was officially disbanded. But plenty of soldiers and volunteers were willing to fight for freedom from England. In England, the Belgian government concluded an agreement with the British government. Under this agreement, the British army was to incorporate a number of Belgian ‘sections’. Thus, the Royal Navy acquired a ‘Section Belge’. Also the Royal Air Force (RAF) acquired a Belgian section with pilots who had been flown to England via France, Morocco and Portugal in 1940. During the war, elite troops were trained as commandos in Scotland and young fishermen received combat training in the north-east of England. Most of these sections also took part in the Battle of the Scheldt.	191	ENGLISH	1
who invented maths? There was no single person who invented mathematics. Mathematics was used, and technically invented, by many cultures around the world. These cultures used their own form of mathematics, which could be considered 'math' in their time and how they used it. These cultures include the Mayans, Indians, Greeks, and Chinese, India and Greece. These forms of math spread throughout the world, and eventually became the math we know today. However, there are many topics under 'math'. We do know the sole inventor of Algebra, but Algebra isn't math as a whole, so the inventor can only be credited for Algebra, the certain subject of math that helps people solve real world problems. The inventor was Arabic scholar Al-Khwarizmi (c. 780 - c. 850). He invented what is known today as 'Algebra'. Though many cultures before Al-Khwarizmi had used different forms of algebraic methods (such as the Babylonians), Al-Khwarizmi is still considered the "father of Algebra" because of his extensive work, knowledge, and wisdom to know that he was using, and inventing, Algebra. Well technically no one has ever invented math but I know that the Greeks had started a way of counting numbers.	<urn:uuid:255e61ca-f36c-434d-8917-2f65c9cdf90e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.meritnation.com/ask-answer/question/who-invented-maths/data-handling/2728569	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00160.warc.gz	en	0.985189	265	3.421875	3	[ -0.3919723629951477, 0.1229160949587822, 0.3159904181957245, -0.11017750203609467, -0.9747047424316406, -0.12889599800109863, 0.5103853940963745, 0.32296422123908997, -0.03322539106011391, -0.0612998828291893, -0.013207164593040943, -0.0805206447839737, 0.0718778520822525, 0.03710146248340...	4	who invented maths? There was no single person who invented mathematics. Mathematics was used, and technically invented, by many cultures around the world. These cultures used their own form of mathematics, which could be considered 'math' in their time and how they used it. These cultures include the Mayans, Indians, Greeks, and Chinese, India and Greece. These forms of math spread throughout the world, and eventually became the math we know today. However, there are many topics under 'math'. We do know the sole inventor of Algebra, but Algebra isn't math as a whole, so the inventor can only be credited for Algebra, the certain subject of math that helps people solve real world problems. The inventor was Arabic scholar Al-Khwarizmi (c. 780 - c. 850). He invented what is known today as 'Algebra'. Though many cultures before Al-Khwarizmi had used different forms of algebraic methods (such as the Babylonians), Al-Khwarizmi is still considered the "father of Algebra" because of his extensive work, knowledge, and wisdom to know that he was using, and inventing, Algebra. Well technically no one has ever invented math but I know that the Greeks had started a way of counting numbers.	262	ENGLISH	1
Studying for school is always a topic going through a students head. When should I start, how should I do it or how do I even study? The Youtube video, “The 9 BEST Scientific Study Tips,” had a lot of information about how you can study and be efficient. The first tip is to start your studying in short chunks. Your brain retains more information then when you span it out in increments, rather than having one three-hour-long study session. Whenever you play a sport or an instrument, you span out your practices over days, rather than the night before the competition. Studying should be done in a routine. These times should be designated for studying, and only studying. There are many different types of methods to study your material. Scientists have shown that rereading your notes and highlighting key points can be ineffective. It has been proven that instead of doing this method, using notecards/flashcards are excellent memory reinforcements. After you figure out your way of studying, set goals for what you are studying for. Go through the material you need and study like your going to teach it to a class. Practice always makes perfect whenever you are studying. Question yourself and make practice tests until you feel like you have the material down. Whenever you are studying, make a dedicated studying space. This way your body gets trained to know when you are in this area you need to focus and study. Finally, put away all of the electronics, headphones, music, or anything that makes any noise to distract you. It is proven that if you have a clearer space, you retain more information. Even though these are proven facts, not all of them may apply to you individually. Several students commented on this topic and have provided some advice for everyone to use. Jachin Weise stated that, “You should make sure you ask your teachers any questions you have. Completing your assignments will also help you retain more of the information that you might need. Even with anything that goes on always try your best no matter what.” Students like Piper Hill, Madeline Luna and Juliete Shull all referenced that it is best to study days before the test rather than the night before. Maybe your not a study ahead type of person. Jacey Centola, Jonathan Sack and Sam Weiffenbach all said that do best by just redo problems or rewriting your notes. The most difficult thing about studying is figuring out the methods. There are so many types of methods that you can use including: notecards, Quizlet, Anki, rewriting notes, rereading chapters, or simply going over the study guide. Find what works for you and makes you most successful, because everyone is different. “Go in having the mindset that you studied and just try your best.” -Jachin Weise Vanessa is a sophomore at Sangamon Valley. Have you ever known a person who was having troubles at school but was too nervous or intimidated to go to the principal for help? The Bolt spoke with Mr. Field to discuss tips on how to approach your principal, and learned a bit about his life, in the process. The first thing people usually think when they want to talk to the principal is what time would be best to visit his office to chat with him. Mr. Field answered this question with, "It kind of depends on the day. Advisory time I'll try to keep myself open for anyone who wants to come in and talk." You may even find him playing his guitar when he's not busy. Now that you know what time is best, how can you calm your nerves when going to your principal? "I'd say if kids are intimidated to just give me a shot to come and talk to me. I do want to be approachable and have an open door policy. For people to feel comfortable coming to talk. That's why I'm here," said Mr. Field. After that he flipped the questions on us and asked how he could help kids be less intimidated. We gave him the tip of just talking to kids in the hallway when he can and just keep doing what he's doing. We encourage kids to go to their principal if they want to talk about something. They will realize how cool and interesting their principal really is and that they shouldn't be so nervous. While talking to Mr. Field we learned a few fun facts, for example, he had no interest in being a principal until he tried out teaching. We also learned that he loves music, especially rock, and plays the guitar. You can really go talk to him about anything. Remember, he's not just your principal, he's your princi-pal. Ashlyn is a junior at Sangamon Valley. She is also the Sports Editor. Martin Luther King Jr. Day is Monday January 20th. MLK Day, as most people call it, is a day to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr., who was born on January 15, 1929. We celebrate Martin Luther King Day as a national holiday because of the major contributions that he made to the entire United States during the American Civil Rights Movement. He gave multiple speeches, with one major one being his “I Have a Dream Speech.” The Bolt staff had the honor to talk to two teachers about Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and find out exactly what it meant to them. First, we talked to English teacher Miss Jones and asked her two questions, the first being what Martin Luther King Jr. Day meant to her. Miss Jones replied, “It means recognizing a great Civil Rights leader who made a big impact on our country.” Then we asked her how we can best remember this day, she said, “I think we can best remember him by celebrating his achievements and what he stood for. I had the opportunity this summer to go to Washington D.C. and see the MLK memorial. The memorial is set up like a mountain. The mountain represents despair, which is segregation. MLK’s figure it about 20 feet ahead of the mountain, and he represents a stone of hope. So, essentially, out of a mountain of despair comes a moment of home. It is also lined with quotes from MLK Jr. It was extremely moving, and I’d recommend that everyone visits if they have the opportunity.” Next, we talked to History teacher Mr. Spath and asked him the same questions. When asked the first question, he said, “It is the day where we can celebrate the equality of all people and a man who died.” To wrap things up we asked him how we could best remember MLK day and he answered, “Educating yourself about why we have the day off.” As U.S. citizens, we owe many thanks to Martin Luther King, Jr. Due to his achievements, African American citizens have many more freedoms. Now, go and remember Martin Luther King Jr. yourself and think about all the ways you could thank him. Katelyn is a junior at Sangamon Valley. She is also the Student Life Editor. It seems like just yesterday school was starting, and now we are on to 2nd quarter. Many fun events happened in 1st quarter, and it flew by in the blink of an eye. From hanging out at football games, to cheering loudly at volleyball matches, to planning homecoming proposals, and dancing the night away, 1st quarter was eventful. From homecoming with crazy outfits, (such as cut off jeans and inflatable t-rex costumes), to the homecoming games with hilarious posters and competitive attitudes. All of these events have made 1st quarter very memorable and a great start to the year. I spoke to Mr. Field to hear his thoughts on quarter one, this is what he said. “My favorite moment of the first quarter may be lunch and our new cafeteria program with Aramark! I think it has been a really positive change for our district. Homecoming games were a blast, and the Spaniards were awesome to have in the building for another great exchange! The Principal’s Advisory Council and School Leadership team have also had some insider meetings that were great to be a part of. There is just a lot of good stuff going on!” I also asked him if he could describe quarter one in three words what would they be, he responded with, “unseasonably warm days.” The staff at The Bolt could not agree more! Ashlyn is a sophomore at SVHS. She is also The Bolt's Sports Editor. The Scholastic Bowl season has just begun, and they are already on fire! Both J.V. and Varsity teams are undefeated with a record of 6-0. The teams they have defeated so far are: St. Teresa, Springfield Southeast, Taylorville, Decatur MacArthur, Argenta-Oreana, and Eisenhower. As I interviewed Coach Scan, he told me that his favorite thing about coaching the team is: “Simply just watching them be competitive, having fun, and being such great sports!” Coach Scan’s answer to my question of who the team’s rivalries are was: “Maroa-Forsyth, St. Teresa, and Mt. Zion. Warrensburg-Latham has also always been a big rival with us.” The Scholastic Bowl team has a total of 18 kids between Varsity and J.V. Four of the team members are seniors, with one of them being Varsity Captain, Jachin Wiese. I caught up with him to get his thoughts on the season. “We have a lot of matches remaining in our fall tournament and in our conference during the winter months. Win or lose, I hope they all continue having fun and being great representatives of Sangamon Valley!” Everyone is very excited to see what this group of exemplary students has in store for the rest of the year! Lexi is a senior at SVHS. The students and staff at Sangamon Valley High School always go all out for Homecoming Week, and they always have a lot of fun. What better way of starting out Homecoming Week than with ‘Merica Monday? There was a lot of red, white, and blue. Everyone added a little touch of Patriotic flair into their apparel, and went all out for ‘Merica Monday. The next dress up day was Country vs. Country Club. There were a lot of people with cowboy hats and boots, but there were also a lot who pulled off country club look. All showed their true colors. The third day was Wacky Tacky Wednesday. There was a lot of wackiness going on this day with people wearing mixed matched patterns, shades, and colors. There were also a lot of people who dressed up as the other gender, which was wildly entertaining for all. From guys in dresses, to people that threw on random clothes, all were definitely a sight to see. The fourth day was Character Day. A good majority of the school dressed up with their friends in groups. Everyone looked like they were having so much fun as they embodied someone completely different from themselves. Then finally, the fifth day was Class Colors. The freshman sported their white, the sophomores decked out in grey, the juniors showed off their spirit in Columbia blue, and the seniors filled the gym with navy. After cheering on the team at the volleyball game on Tuesday, everyone headed outside for the pep rally and bonfire. All of the fall athletes were announced, then all the cheerleaders and senior boys went onto the field and performed their dance. The dance is always hilarious, and leaves the students laughing long after the performance is over. After the dance is over, everyone went over to the fire and the fire department set it ablaze for everyone to hang around to talk, take pictures, and keep HOT on the warm fall night. Homecoming games were on Friday. The games that we played consisted of Chinese get-up, tug-of-war, volleyball serving relay, and dribbling around the chairs. The games were a blast and the Seniors, who won most of them, took home the 1st place trophy. We interviewed a few people about Homecoming games. We asked Senior Riley Becker what she thought about her last Homecoming games and she said, “It was nice, it was a lot of fun but kind of sad knowing it was the last time that my whole class was getting together.” Then we asked Freshman Andrew Blair the same question about his first Homecoming games and he replied with, “It was pretty fun and exciting.” When we asked them both about their favorite part of the games, Andrew replied, “My favorite part was when the whole school made a circle swinging and singing to Sweet Caroline.” Riley told us her favorite part was tug-of-war. Homecoming games were a blast with a lot of close ties between all the classes, but of course, like always, “The Perfect Storm” Seniors won almost every game with the support of their class sponsors Mr. Scan and Mrs. C. We also had a chance to chat with Paige Coss, Homecoming Queen. When asked how it felt to be crowned queen, Paige replied with, “I felt very excited to be queen and to take part in all of the fun that comes with it. I was also surprised and thankful that out of the 4 great candidates, I was chosen to be queen.” And to that, thank you Paige! You made a wonderful Queen for our Homecoming. After Homecoming games end, everyone gets on top of their floats and firetrucks, to start the parade around Niantic. The band led the parade after a police car playing their cadence and “Thriller”. Then behind them, where fire trucks and floats with the fall athletes and anyone else who wanted to enter into the parade. Soon after the parade was a chilli dinner, and then the football game vs Arcola. The football game started at 7:00 p.m. that night after the band played to open the night. The game had a lot of good plays, however, Arcola won 48 to 6. We did, however, put up a good fight. When Braden Campbell, Senior, was asked how he believed we did, he said, “We, as a team, did good. They were just better than we were.” Nice try, boys! Finally, the week ended with the dance. Everyone looked their absolute best for their dates. When we asked Freshman Elizabeth Resmen about her first homecoming she replied with, “It was great! It was really interactive and fun.” Then when we asked Hope Musgrave, Junior, how her homecoming went she said, “Good!” We also asked Senior Cara Smith, and Sophomore Vanessa Templeton what was their favorite part of their homecoming night. Cara said, “All the songs that had the dances to them like the ‘Cupid Shuffle’”. Then Vanessa told us, “Being able to be with my friends”. Everyone looked to be having a blast. We need to give a special thank you to all the staff and faculty that put their time and effort into Homecoming week. A HUGE thanks to Mr. Scan for his exemplary planning. It was an excellent week full of fun memories. Katelyn is a junior at SVHS. She is also the Student Life Editor. Sangamon Valley Publications Club is excited to welcome Mr. Elliott and Miss Jones to our school. Both new staff members will be taking on big roles this year. We were lucky enough to get to chat with both of the new employees to learn more about them. Mr. Elliott will be taking over the roles of the Dean of Students and Activities Director for our district. One of his job duties entails planning school events, like concerts and sporting events. He also considers himself to be a hall monitor, and he runs eligibility reports. Prior to coming to SVHS, he's worked in Rantoul, Champaign, and Monticello. He also has experience coaching, as he has coached various sports. In our interview, Mr. Elliott said that he has attended Mason Community College Arizona, Parkland, University of Illinois, and Eastern Illinois University. We would also like to congratulate Mr. Elliott, as he and his wife are expecting a baby girl! Another new face at our school is English teacher and Publications Advisor, Miss Jones. Miss Jones is a recent graduate of Eastern Illinois University, and this is her first teaching position after graduating. In 2014, she graduated from Argenta-Oreana, and she still lives in that area. Miss Jones is also the JV volleyball coach and the head middle school volleyball coach. In our interview, Miss Jones said, “I am excited to be joining the Sangamon Valley High School staff. All of the students are great and I am thankful for the opportunity to teach here.” Welcome to our district, Mr. Elliott and Miss Jones! Zoi is a freshman at SVHS. There have been some recent changes to Sangamon Valley this year. One of those changes includes our lunch. We used to not have a company that we got our lunch through, and now we have Aramark. They have given us more options to choose from, like our everyday pizza, fries, and chicken nuggets. We also get more than one option when it comes to the main dish. We have more than just the same kind of salad everyday, as well. Mr Field stated: “Before, we weren’t getting the bank for our buck.” Everyone seems to be very satisfied with our new lunch this year and we hope that it keeps getting better and better. We also have a lunch director, Kelly Rice. She came from Taylorville and is enjoying Sangamon Valley so far, except for the heat. Kelly said that being a lunch director is new to her this year. We haven’t seen ale cart this year, but are hoping to soon. Last year, we had strawberry milk and Mr. Field loved it. He said that it was pretty darn good and he hasn’t seen it this year, but hopes to. Mr. Field said, “I’m going to ask Miss Rice if we can get some strawberry milk up in this joint.” Maybe we will see some strawberry milk shortly, especially for Mr. Field. Our hope is that everyone is enjoying the new lunch this year! Remi Mendenhall & Jalynn Ethington Remi is a sophomore at SVHS. Jalynn is a freshman at SVHS. Stay tuned for a new edition of The Bolt coming at you soon! Until then, check out this new picture of our new Publications editor staff. Logan Brisch will be taking over our News Department. Beth Stacey will be our new Editor and Chief. Ashlyn Brickey will be our Sports Editor this year. Katelyn Blok will be rocking it as our Student Life Editor.	<urn:uuid:dc0ccda0-4637-45a4-9e52-efd7df625069>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.theboltonline.org/news/category/all	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00085.warc.gz	en	0.983482	3,979	3.5625	4	[ 0.14491006731987, 0.15784725546836853, 0.24699494242668152, -0.24492156505584717, -0.24729369580745697, 0.23986777663230896, 0.2458828240633011, 0.1460268795490265, 0.015410618856549263, -0.3529568314552307, -0.1396423578262329, 0.07469966262578964, 0.0076087648048996925, 0.393097221851348...	1	Studying for school is always a topic going through a students head. When should I start, how should I do it or how do I even study? The Youtube video, “The 9 BEST Scientific Study Tips,” had a lot of information about how you can study and be efficient. The first tip is to start your studying in short chunks. Your brain retains more information then when you span it out in increments, rather than having one three-hour-long study session. Whenever you play a sport or an instrument, you span out your practices over days, rather than the night before the competition. Studying should be done in a routine. These times should be designated for studying, and only studying. There are many different types of methods to study your material. Scientists have shown that rereading your notes and highlighting key points can be ineffective. It has been proven that instead of doing this method, using notecards/flashcards are excellent memory reinforcements. After you figure out your way of studying, set goals for what you are studying for. Go through the material you need and study like your going to teach it to a class. Practice always makes perfect whenever you are studying. Question yourself and make practice tests until you feel like you have the material down. Whenever you are studying, make a dedicated studying space. This way your body gets trained to know when you are in this area you need to focus and study. Finally, put away all of the electronics, headphones, music, or anything that makes any noise to distract you. It is proven that if you have a clearer space, you retain more information. Even though these are proven facts, not all of them may apply to you individually. Several students commented on this topic and have provided some advice for everyone to use. Jachin Weise stated that, “You should make sure you ask your teachers any questions you have. Completing your assignments will also help you retain more of the information that you might need. Even with anything that goes on always try your best no matter what.” Students like Piper Hill, Madeline Luna and Juliete Shull all referenced that it is best to study days before the test rather than the night before. Maybe your not a study ahead type of person. Jacey Centola, Jonathan Sack and Sam Weiffenbach all said that do best by just redo problems or rewriting your notes. The most difficult thing about studying is figuring out the methods. There are so many types of methods that you can use including: notecards, Quizlet, Anki, rewriting notes, rereading chapters, or simply going over the study guide. Find what works for you and makes you most successful, because everyone is different. “Go in having the mindset that you studied and just try your best.” -Jachin Weise Vanessa is a sophomore at Sangamon Valley. Have you ever known a person who was having troubles at school but was too nervous or intimidated to go to the principal for help? The Bolt spoke with Mr. Field to discuss tips on how to approach your principal, and learned a bit about his life, in the process. The first thing people usually think when they want to talk to the principal is what time would be best to visit his office to chat with him. Mr. Field answered this question with, "It kind of depends on the day. Advisory time I'll try to keep myself open for anyone who wants to come in and talk." You may even find him playing his guitar when he's not busy. Now that you know what time is best, how can you calm your nerves when going to your principal? "I'd say if kids are intimidated to just give me a shot to come and talk to me. I do want to be approachable and have an open door policy. For people to feel comfortable coming to talk. That's why I'm here," said Mr. Field. After that he flipped the questions on us and asked how he could help kids be less intimidated. We gave him the tip of just talking to kids in the hallway when he can and just keep doing what he's doing. We encourage kids to go to their principal if they want to talk about something. They will realize how cool and interesting their principal really is and that they shouldn't be so nervous. While talking to Mr. Field we learned a few fun facts, for example, he had no interest in being a principal until he tried out teaching. We also learned that he loves music, especially rock, and plays the guitar. You can really go talk to him about anything. Remember, he's not just your principal, he's your princi-pal. Ashlyn is a junior at Sangamon Valley. She is also the Sports Editor. Martin Luther King Jr. Day is Monday January 20th. MLK Day, as most people call it, is a day to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr., who was born on January 15, 1929. We celebrate Martin Luther King Day as a national holiday because of the major contributions that he made to the entire United States during the American Civil Rights Movement. He gave multiple speeches, with one major one being his “I Have a Dream Speech.” The Bolt staff had the honor to talk to two teachers about Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and find out exactly what it meant to them. First, we talked to English teacher Miss Jones and asked her two questions, the first being what Martin Luther King Jr. Day meant to her. Miss Jones replied, “It means recognizing a great Civil Rights leader who made a big impact on our country.” Then we asked her how we can best remember this day, she said, “I think we can best remember him by celebrating his achievements and what he stood for. I had the opportunity this summer to go to Washington D.C. and see the MLK memorial. The memorial is set up like a mountain. The mountain represents despair, which is segregation. MLK’s figure it about 20 feet ahead of the mountain, and he represents a stone of hope. So, essentially, out of a mountain of despair comes a moment of home. It is also lined with quotes from MLK Jr. It was extremely moving, and I’d recommend that everyone visits if they have the opportunity.” Next, we talked to History teacher Mr. Spath and asked him the same questions. When asked the first question, he said, “It is the day where we can celebrate the equality of all people and a man who died.” To wrap things up we asked him how we could best remember MLK day and he answered, “Educating yourself about why we have the day off.” As U.S. citizens, we owe many thanks to Martin Luther King, Jr. Due to his achievements, African American citizens have many more freedoms. Now, go and remember Martin Luther King Jr. yourself and think about all the ways you could thank him. Katelyn is a junior at Sangamon Valley. She is also the Student Life Editor. It seems like just yesterday school was starting, and now we are on to 2nd quarter. Many fun events happened in 1st quarter, and it flew by in the blink of an eye. From hanging out at football games, to cheering loudly at volleyball matches, to planning homecoming proposals, and dancing the night away, 1st quarter was eventful. From homecoming with crazy outfits, (such as cut off jeans and inflatable t-rex costumes), to the homecoming games with hilarious posters and competitive attitudes. All of these events have made 1st quarter very memorable and a great start to the year. I spoke to Mr. Field to hear his thoughts on quarter one, this is what he said. “My favorite moment of the first quarter may be lunch and our new cafeteria program with Aramark! I think it has been a really positive change for our district. Homecoming games were a blast, and the Spaniards were awesome to have in the building for another great exchange! The Principal’s Advisory Council and School Leadership team have also had some insider meetings that were great to be a part of. There is just a lot of good stuff going on!” I also asked him if he could describe quarter one in three words what would they be, he responded with, “unseasonably warm days.” The staff at The Bolt could not agree more! Ashlyn is a sophomore at SVHS. She is also The Bolt's Sports Editor. The Scholastic Bowl season has just begun, and they are already on fire! Both J.V. and Varsity teams are undefeated with a record of 6-0. The teams they have defeated so far are: St. Teresa, Springfield Southeast, Taylorville, Decatur MacArthur, Argenta-Oreana, and Eisenhower. As I interviewed Coach Scan, he told me that his favorite thing about coaching the team is: “Simply just watching them be competitive, having fun, and being such great sports!” Coach Scan’s answer to my question of who the team’s rivalries are was: “Maroa-Forsyth, St. Teresa, and Mt. Zion. Warrensburg-Latham has also always been a big rival with us.” The Scholastic Bowl team has a total of 18 kids between Varsity and J.V. Four of the team members are seniors, with one of them being Varsity Captain, Jachin Wiese. I caught up with him to get his thoughts on the season. “We have a lot of matches remaining in our fall tournament and in our conference during the winter months. Win or lose, I hope they all continue having fun and being great representatives of Sangamon Valley!” Everyone is very excited to see what this group of exemplary students has in store for the rest of the year! Lexi is a senior at SVHS. The students and staff at Sangamon Valley High School always go all out for Homecoming Week, and they always have a lot of fun. What better way of starting out Homecoming Week than with ‘Merica Monday? There was a lot of red, white, and blue. Everyone added a little touch of Patriotic flair into their apparel, and went all out for ‘Merica Monday. The next dress up day was Country vs. Country Club. There were a lot of people with cowboy hats and boots, but there were also a lot who pulled off country club look. All showed their true colors. The third day was Wacky Tacky Wednesday. There was a lot of wackiness going on this day with people wearing mixed matched patterns, shades, and colors. There were also a lot of people who dressed up as the other gender, which was wildly entertaining for all. From guys in dresses, to people that threw on random clothes, all were definitely a sight to see. The fourth day was Character Day. A good majority of the school dressed up with their friends in groups. Everyone looked like they were having so much fun as they embodied someone completely different from themselves. Then finally, the fifth day was Class Colors. The freshman sported their white, the sophomores decked out in grey, the juniors showed off their spirit in Columbia blue, and the seniors filled the gym with navy. After cheering on the team at the volleyball game on Tuesday, everyone headed outside for the pep rally and bonfire. All of the fall athletes were announced, then all the cheerleaders and senior boys went onto the field and performed their dance. The dance is always hilarious, and leaves the students laughing long after the performance is over. After the dance is over, everyone went over to the fire and the fire department set it ablaze for everyone to hang around to talk, take pictures, and keep HOT on the warm fall night. Homecoming games were on Friday. The games that we played consisted of Chinese get-up, tug-of-war, volleyball serving relay, and dribbling around the chairs. The games were a blast and the Seniors, who won most of them, took home the 1st place trophy. We interviewed a few people about Homecoming games. We asked Senior Riley Becker what she thought about her last Homecoming games and she said, “It was nice, it was a lot of fun but kind of sad knowing it was the last time that my whole class was getting together.” Then we asked Freshman Andrew Blair the same question about his first Homecoming games and he replied with, “It was pretty fun and exciting.” When we asked them both about their favorite part of the games, Andrew replied, “My favorite part was when the whole school made a circle swinging and singing to Sweet Caroline.” Riley told us her favorite part was tug-of-war. Homecoming games were a blast with a lot of close ties between all the classes, but of course, like always, “The Perfect Storm” Seniors won almost every game with the support of their class sponsors Mr. Scan and Mrs. C. We also had a chance to chat with Paige Coss, Homecoming Queen. When asked how it felt to be crowned queen, Paige replied with, “I felt very excited to be queen and to take part in all of the fun that comes with it. I was also surprised and thankful that out of the 4 great candidates, I was chosen to be queen.” And to that, thank you Paige! You made a wonderful Queen for our Homecoming. After Homecoming games end, everyone gets on top of their floats and firetrucks, to start the parade around Niantic. The band led the parade after a police car playing their cadence and “Thriller”. Then behind them, where fire trucks and floats with the fall athletes and anyone else who wanted to enter into the parade. Soon after the parade was a chilli dinner, and then the football game vs Arcola. The football game started at 7:00 p.m. that night after the band played to open the night. The game had a lot of good plays, however, Arcola won 48 to 6. We did, however, put up a good fight. When Braden Campbell, Senior, was asked how he believed we did, he said, “We, as a team, did good. They were just better than we were.” Nice try, boys! Finally, the week ended with the dance. Everyone looked their absolute best for their dates. When we asked Freshman Elizabeth Resmen about her first homecoming she replied with, “It was great! It was really interactive and fun.” Then when we asked Hope Musgrave, Junior, how her homecoming went she said, “Good!” We also asked Senior Cara Smith, and Sophomore Vanessa Templeton what was their favorite part of their homecoming night. Cara said, “All the songs that had the dances to them like the ‘Cupid Shuffle’”. Then Vanessa told us, “Being able to be with my friends”. Everyone looked to be having a blast. We need to give a special thank you to all the staff and faculty that put their time and effort into Homecoming week. A HUGE thanks to Mr. Scan for his exemplary planning. It was an excellent week full of fun memories. Katelyn is a junior at SVHS. She is also the Student Life Editor. Sangamon Valley Publications Club is excited to welcome Mr. Elliott and Miss Jones to our school. Both new staff members will be taking on big roles this year. We were lucky enough to get to chat with both of the new employees to learn more about them. Mr. Elliott will be taking over the roles of the Dean of Students and Activities Director for our district. One of his job duties entails planning school events, like concerts and sporting events. He also considers himself to be a hall monitor, and he runs eligibility reports. Prior to coming to SVHS, he's worked in Rantoul, Champaign, and Monticello. He also has experience coaching, as he has coached various sports. In our interview, Mr. Elliott said that he has attended Mason Community College Arizona, Parkland, University of Illinois, and Eastern Illinois University. We would also like to congratulate Mr. Elliott, as he and his wife are expecting a baby girl! Another new face at our school is English teacher and Publications Advisor, Miss Jones. Miss Jones is a recent graduate of Eastern Illinois University, and this is her first teaching position after graduating. In 2014, she graduated from Argenta-Oreana, and she still lives in that area. Miss Jones is also the JV volleyball coach and the head middle school volleyball coach. In our interview, Miss Jones said, “I am excited to be joining the Sangamon Valley High School staff. All of the students are great and I am thankful for the opportunity to teach here.” Welcome to our district, Mr. Elliott and Miss Jones! Zoi is a freshman at SVHS. There have been some recent changes to Sangamon Valley this year. One of those changes includes our lunch. We used to not have a company that we got our lunch through, and now we have Aramark. They have given us more options to choose from, like our everyday pizza, fries, and chicken nuggets. We also get more than one option when it comes to the main dish. We have more than just the same kind of salad everyday, as well. Mr Field stated: “Before, we weren’t getting the bank for our buck.” Everyone seems to be very satisfied with our new lunch this year and we hope that it keeps getting better and better. We also have a lunch director, Kelly Rice. She came from Taylorville and is enjoying Sangamon Valley so far, except for the heat. Kelly said that being a lunch director is new to her this year. We haven’t seen ale cart this year, but are hoping to soon. Last year, we had strawberry milk and Mr. Field loved it. He said that it was pretty darn good and he hasn’t seen it this year, but hopes to. Mr. Field said, “I’m going to ask Miss Rice if we can get some strawberry milk up in this joint.” Maybe we will see some strawberry milk shortly, especially for Mr. Field. Our hope is that everyone is enjoying the new lunch this year! Remi Mendenhall & Jalynn Ethington Remi is a sophomore at SVHS. Jalynn is a freshman at SVHS. Stay tuned for a new edition of The Bolt coming at you soon! Until then, check out this new picture of our new Publications editor staff. Logan Brisch will be taking over our News Department. Beth Stacey will be our new Editor and Chief. Ashlyn Brickey will be our Sports Editor this year. Katelyn Blok will be rocking it as our Student Life Editor.	3,831	ENGLISH	1
Pepin died in 714 A.D., and his son Charles, who was twenty-five years old at that time, succeeded him as mayor of the palace. This Charles is known in history as Charles Martel. He was a brave young man. He had fought in many of his father's battles and so had become a skilled soldier. His men were devoted to him. While he was mayor of the palace he led armies in several wars against the enemies of the Franks. The most important of his wars was one with the Saracens, who came across the Pyrenees from Spain and invaded the land of the Franks, intending to establish Mohammedanism there. Their army was led by Abd-er-Rahman (Abd-er-Rah'-man), the Saracen governor of Spain . On his march through the southern districts of the land of the Franks Abd-er-Rahman destroyed many towns and villages, killed a number of the people, and seized all the property he could carry off. He plundered the city of Bordeaux (bor-do'), and, it is said, obtained so many valuable things that every soldier "was loaded with golden vases and cups and emeralds and other precious stones." But meanwhile Charles Martel was not idle. As quickly as he could he got together a great army of Franks and Germans and marched against the Saracens. The two armies met between the cities of Tours and Poitiers (pwaw-te-ay) in October, 732. For six days there was nothing but an occasional skirmish between small parties from both sides; but on the seventh day a great battle took place. Both Christians and Mohammedans fought with terrible earnestness. The fight went on all day, and the field was covered with the bodies of the slain. But towards evening, during a resolute charge made by the Franks, Abd-er-Rahman was killed. Then the Saracens gradually retired to their camp. It was not yet known, however, which side had won; and the Franks expected that the fight would be renewed in the morning. But when Charles Martel, with his Christian warriors, appeared on the field at sunrise there was no enemy to fight. The Mohammedans had fled in the silence and darkness of the night and had left behind them all their valuable spoils. There was now no doubt which side had won. The battle of Tours , or Poitiers , as it should be called, is regarded as one of the decisive battles of the world. It decided that Christians, and not Moslems, should be the ruling power in Europe . Charles Martel is especially celebrated as the hero of this battle. It is said that the name MARTEL was given to him because of his bravery during the fight. Marteau (mar-to') is the French word for hammer, and one of the old French historians says that as a hammer breaks and crushes iron and steel, so Charles broke and crushed the power of his enemies in the battle of Tours. But though the Saracens fled from the battlefield of Tours , they did not leave the land of the Franks; and Charles had to fight other battles with them, before they were finally defeated. At last, however, he drove them across the Pyrenees , and they never again attempted to invade Frankland. After his defeat of the Saracens Charles Martel was looked upon as the great champion of Christianity; and to the day of his death, in 741, he was in reality, though not in name, the king of the Franks.	<urn:uuid:5e82dec5-4650-4460-82a3-84361a57c59d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://e-reading.mobi/chapter.php/70959/39/Haaren_-_Famous_Men_of_The_Middle_Ages.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604849.31/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121162615-20200121191615-00263.warc.gz	en	0.991538	745	3.359375	3	[ -0.1268872171640396, 0.5784788131713867, 0.24952702224254608, -0.30726587772369385, -0.06974707543849945, 0.13283318281173706, 0.4200131893157959, 0.061554960906505585, -0.12408377975225449, -0.2838292121887207, -0.3900618255138397, -0.352557897567749, 0.05217837542295456, 0.45043006539344...	1	Pepin died in 714 A.D., and his son Charles, who was twenty-five years old at that time, succeeded him as mayor of the palace. This Charles is known in history as Charles Martel. He was a brave young man. He had fought in many of his father's battles and so had become a skilled soldier. His men were devoted to him. While he was mayor of the palace he led armies in several wars against the enemies of the Franks. The most important of his wars was one with the Saracens, who came across the Pyrenees from Spain and invaded the land of the Franks, intending to establish Mohammedanism there. Their army was led by Abd-er-Rahman (Abd-er-Rah'-man), the Saracen governor of Spain . On his march through the southern districts of the land of the Franks Abd-er-Rahman destroyed many towns and villages, killed a number of the people, and seized all the property he could carry off. He plundered the city of Bordeaux (bor-do'), and, it is said, obtained so many valuable things that every soldier "was loaded with golden vases and cups and emeralds and other precious stones." But meanwhile Charles Martel was not idle. As quickly as he could he got together a great army of Franks and Germans and marched against the Saracens. The two armies met between the cities of Tours and Poitiers (pwaw-te-ay) in October, 732. For six days there was nothing but an occasional skirmish between small parties from both sides; but on the seventh day a great battle took place. Both Christians and Mohammedans fought with terrible earnestness. The fight went on all day, and the field was covered with the bodies of the slain. But towards evening, during a resolute charge made by the Franks, Abd-er-Rahman was killed. Then the Saracens gradually retired to their camp. It was not yet known, however, which side had won; and the Franks expected that the fight would be renewed in the morning. But when Charles Martel, with his Christian warriors, appeared on the field at sunrise there was no enemy to fight. The Mohammedans had fled in the silence and darkness of the night and had left behind them all their valuable spoils. There was now no doubt which side had won. The battle of Tours , or Poitiers , as it should be called, is regarded as one of the decisive battles of the world. It decided that Christians, and not Moslems, should be the ruling power in Europe . Charles Martel is especially celebrated as the hero of this battle. It is said that the name MARTEL was given to him because of his bravery during the fight. Marteau (mar-to') is the French word for hammer, and one of the old French historians says that as a hammer breaks and crushes iron and steel, so Charles broke and crushed the power of his enemies in the battle of Tours. But though the Saracens fled from the battlefield of Tours , they did not leave the land of the Franks; and Charles had to fight other battles with them, before they were finally defeated. At last, however, he drove them across the Pyrenees , and they never again attempted to invade Frankland. After his defeat of the Saracens Charles Martel was looked upon as the great champion of Christianity; and to the day of his death, in 741, he was in reality, though not in name, the king of the Franks.	738	ENGLISH	1
Many homeschooling parents feel inadequate when it comes to helping their children learn science. As a result, they think that the their students should eventually go to school to learn it. In this talk, Dr. Wile draws on various sources to demonstrate that in fact, homeschool is the ideal environment for learning science. He discusses studies that indicate homeschool graduates excel in science, shares his own personal experiences with homeschool graduates who are studying science at the university level, and gives some case studies that illustrate his point. He also surveys the various options homeschoolers have at their disposal for teaching science, especially at the junior high and high school levels. hem as they were improved by later scientists. This has a lot of similarities to the spiral approach, but when students revisit a topic, it is not just repetition with a little more depth thrown in. The student learns the topic in the context of a new scientist and his improvements on the idea. This produces the high levels of recall that the spiral approach produces, but it is more interesting to the students. It also gives students a more realistic view of how science is done in the real world.	<urn:uuid:e00f2252-ce35-4269-9f28-36fd9c301323>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://greathomeschoolconventions.com/workshops/homeschool-the-best-environment-for-learning-science	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00435.warc.gz	en	0.981186	231	3.328125	3	[ 0.28990402817726135, 0.16196000576019287, 0.2861962616443634, -0.28376466035842896, -0.2887411415576935, -0.11732189357280731, -0.19328518211841583, 0.36706727743148804, -0.07650786638259888, -0.02301664464175701, 0.2230212390422821, -0.39073508977890015, 0.13717380166053772, 0.25708833336...	10	Many homeschooling parents feel inadequate when it comes to helping their children learn science. As a result, they think that the their students should eventually go to school to learn it. In this talk, Dr. Wile draws on various sources to demonstrate that in fact, homeschool is the ideal environment for learning science. He discusses studies that indicate homeschool graduates excel in science, shares his own personal experiences with homeschool graduates who are studying science at the university level, and gives some case studies that illustrate his point. He also surveys the various options homeschoolers have at their disposal for teaching science, especially at the junior high and high school levels. hem as they were improved by later scientists. This has a lot of similarities to the spiral approach, but when students revisit a topic, it is not just repetition with a little more depth thrown in. The student learns the topic in the context of a new scientist and his improvements on the idea. This produces the high levels of recall that the spiral approach produces, but it is more interesting to the students. It also gives students a more realistic view of how science is done in the real world.	225	ENGLISH	1
Emily Upton and Karl Smallwood 13 comments Carmen asks: Was Beethoven really deaf when he wrote all his music? How did he communicate with people? Of course, the biggest question is how did he compose what is considered some of his greatest music while he was deaf. Joseph Haydn - Famous Composers in History Joseph Haydn was an Austrian composer who made significant contributions in chamber music and musical form. Haydn's tomb is located in the Bergkirche, a church in Eisenstadt, Austria. Joseph Haydn was a renowned Austrian musical composer from the Classic era. Haydn was instrumental in the establishment of chamber music, including the piano trio, and his unique contribution to the musical form, especially the symphony and quartet. Haydn was mentor and friend to Mozart, who later taught Beethoven. He was the second son of Maria Koller and Mathias Haydn, a skilled wheelwright. Although his father could not read music, he was an enthusiastic folk singer, and his parents noticed that Haydn was gifted musical. Therefore, when he turned six years old, they accepted a proposal to allow young Haydn to become an apprentice of Johann Matthias, a choirmaster and a schoolmaster, who would be able to train Haydn. Haydn learned numerous musical instruments while under the tutelage of Matthias and was allowed to sing in the church choir. When Haydn turned 8 years old, Georg Reutter, the director of the musicals from St. However, Haydn was expelled from the school at age 17 after he trimmed the pigtail of another chorister. Career After being expelled, Haydn found refuge with other musicians and supported himself by doing numerous musical odd jobs. He later met Italian composer Nicola Porpora, who helped him further develop his compositions. As his artistic skills improved, Haydn started gaining public reputation first as an opera composer for his work Der krumme Teufel, which he wrote for Johann Joseph Felix Kurz. In Haydn was introduced to Baron Carl Furnberg, who employed him to play music in his home and also to write for his instrumentalists. Furnberg recommended him to Count Morzin, who hired Haydn in as a Kapellmeister. Under Morzin, Haydn directed a small orchestra and wrote his first symphonies. He was later employed as Vice-Kapellmeister by Prince Anton of the Esterhazy family, but took over as Kapellmeister of the Esterhazy family's musical establishment after the previous Kapellmeister, George Werner, died. Haydn worked with the family for 30 years and composed numerous symphonies for the orchestra, which he performed for many noble families. Major Contributions Haydn mentored Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and they often played in a string quartet together, and this resulted in Mozart later producing the "Haydn" Quartets. Haydn wrote numerous string quartets while working for the Esterhazy family, and some of his famous works were written in the minor keys, including Trauersymphonie in E minor and Piano sonata in C minor. Haydn was a prolific composer, and his work included over 20 operas, 47 piano sonatas, symphonies, 68 quartets, 32 divertimenti, 14 masses and six oratorios, among others. Challenges During his early years studying under Matthias and also as a chorister, Haydn often struggled to find something to eat, and this motivated him to sing well so that he would be invited to sing for aristocrats where the organizers provided refreshments. After being expelled Haydn took numerous odd musical jobs just to earn a living, while learning different instruments and also composing. Death and Legacy By Haydn had become sick, and his condition made it impossible for him to concentrate. Haydn suffered from what many people believed to be arteriosclerosis until May 26,when he collapsed after playing his "Emperor's Hymn" and was taken to his deathbed. Haydn died on May 31, at age seventy-seven. Haydn played a significant role in transforming symphonies and quartets. In fact, he is remembered by many as the father of symphonies and quartets. His work played an important role in developing the sonata form. The F minor variations for piano, which he wrote after the premature death of Maria Anna von Genzinger, are the most popular piano works ever written by Haydn. This page was last updated on December 14, Joseph Haydn - Famous Composers in History. Haydn was mentor and friend to Mozart, who later taught Beethoven. Early Life. Franz Joseph Haydn was born in Rohrau, Austria on March 31, He was the second son of Maria Koller and Mathias Haydn, a skilled wheelwright. During his early years studying under Matthias and also as a. Ludwig Van Beethoven was a German composer as well as a pianist, who baptized on December 17, Interesting Beethoven Facts, Best of Beethoven. Early Life And Family. we clearly get to see where Ludwig Van Beethoven got his musical talent. Born in a family of musicians, there was bound to be a musical genius, a virtuoso from among. Ludwig van Beethoven - Pronounced a real talent by Mozart at Studied composition with Haydn in Vienna Unlike Mozart. Worked on a single symphony for years to get it right Ludwig van Beethoven - Ludwig van Beethoven THERE IS ONLY ONE BEETHOVEN Early Life Baptized on Dec. Beethoven was born in into a modest family in the small German provincial town of Bonn, where he would study composition and play the piano and viola until moving to Vienna in his early 20’s where he would live the rest of his life. Jack's Newest Babe George's talent was apparent at an early age. During his years at St. Mary's, he continued to play a variety of positions on the school baseball teams. Learn music beethoven ludwig van with free interactive flashcards. Choose from different sets of music beethoven ludwig van flashcards on Quizlet.	<urn:uuid:a1e3c710-21a7-484c-9ac3-3558e97d2cc2>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://nobuwafodohece.timberdesignmag.com/beethoven-early-life-and-talent-6335rg.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250619323.41/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124100832-20200124125832-00095.warc.gz	en	0.984734	1,306	3.453125	3	[ 0.01285616122186184, 0.11273401230573654, 0.21202979981899261, -0.22545406222343445, -0.7580630779266357, 0.07520604133605957, -0.3164682984352112, 0.19163794815540314, -0.17016983032226562, -0.7138735055923462, 0.08193528652191162, -0.146448016166687, 0.07725542783737183, 0.11332887411117...	2	Emily Upton and Karl Smallwood 13 comments Carmen asks: Was Beethoven really deaf when he wrote all his music? How did he communicate with people? Of course, the biggest question is how did he compose what is considered some of his greatest music while he was deaf. Joseph Haydn - Famous Composers in History Joseph Haydn was an Austrian composer who made significant contributions in chamber music and musical form. Haydn's tomb is located in the Bergkirche, a church in Eisenstadt, Austria. Joseph Haydn was a renowned Austrian musical composer from the Classic era. Haydn was instrumental in the establishment of chamber music, including the piano trio, and his unique contribution to the musical form, especially the symphony and quartet. Haydn was mentor and friend to Mozart, who later taught Beethoven. He was the second son of Maria Koller and Mathias Haydn, a skilled wheelwright. Although his father could not read music, he was an enthusiastic folk singer, and his parents noticed that Haydn was gifted musical. Therefore, when he turned six years old, they accepted a proposal to allow young Haydn to become an apprentice of Johann Matthias, a choirmaster and a schoolmaster, who would be able to train Haydn. Haydn learned numerous musical instruments while under the tutelage of Matthias and was allowed to sing in the church choir. When Haydn turned 8 years old, Georg Reutter, the director of the musicals from St. However, Haydn was expelled from the school at age 17 after he trimmed the pigtail of another chorister. Career After being expelled, Haydn found refuge with other musicians and supported himself by doing numerous musical odd jobs. He later met Italian composer Nicola Porpora, who helped him further develop his compositions. As his artistic skills improved, Haydn started gaining public reputation first as an opera composer for his work Der krumme Teufel, which he wrote for Johann Joseph Felix Kurz. In Haydn was introduced to Baron Carl Furnberg, who employed him to play music in his home and also to write for his instrumentalists. Furnberg recommended him to Count Morzin, who hired Haydn in as a Kapellmeister. Under Morzin, Haydn directed a small orchestra and wrote his first symphonies. He was later employed as Vice-Kapellmeister by Prince Anton of the Esterhazy family, but took over as Kapellmeister of the Esterhazy family's musical establishment after the previous Kapellmeister, George Werner, died. Haydn worked with the family for 30 years and composed numerous symphonies for the orchestra, which he performed for many noble families. Major Contributions Haydn mentored Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and they often played in a string quartet together, and this resulted in Mozart later producing the "Haydn" Quartets. Haydn wrote numerous string quartets while working for the Esterhazy family, and some of his famous works were written in the minor keys, including Trauersymphonie in E minor and Piano sonata in C minor. Haydn was a prolific composer, and his work included over 20 operas, 47 piano sonatas, symphonies, 68 quartets, 32 divertimenti, 14 masses and six oratorios, among others. Challenges During his early years studying under Matthias and also as a chorister, Haydn often struggled to find something to eat, and this motivated him to sing well so that he would be invited to sing for aristocrats where the organizers provided refreshments. After being expelled Haydn took numerous odd musical jobs just to earn a living, while learning different instruments and also composing. Death and Legacy By Haydn had become sick, and his condition made it impossible for him to concentrate. Haydn suffered from what many people believed to be arteriosclerosis until May 26,when he collapsed after playing his "Emperor's Hymn" and was taken to his deathbed. Haydn died on May 31, at age seventy-seven. Haydn played a significant role in transforming symphonies and quartets. In fact, he is remembered by many as the father of symphonies and quartets. His work played an important role in developing the sonata form. The F minor variations for piano, which he wrote after the premature death of Maria Anna von Genzinger, are the most popular piano works ever written by Haydn. This page was last updated on December 14, Joseph Haydn - Famous Composers in History. Haydn was mentor and friend to Mozart, who later taught Beethoven. Early Life. Franz Joseph Haydn was born in Rohrau, Austria on March 31, He was the second son of Maria Koller and Mathias Haydn, a skilled wheelwright. During his early years studying under Matthias and also as a. Ludwig Van Beethoven was a German composer as well as a pianist, who baptized on December 17, Interesting Beethoven Facts, Best of Beethoven. Early Life And Family. we clearly get to see where Ludwig Van Beethoven got his musical talent. Born in a family of musicians, there was bound to be a musical genius, a virtuoso from among. Ludwig van Beethoven - Pronounced a real talent by Mozart at Studied composition with Haydn in Vienna Unlike Mozart. Worked on a single symphony for years to get it right Ludwig van Beethoven - Ludwig van Beethoven THERE IS ONLY ONE BEETHOVEN Early Life Baptized on Dec. Beethoven was born in into a modest family in the small German provincial town of Bonn, where he would study composition and play the piano and viola until moving to Vienna in his early 20’s where he would live the rest of his life. Jack's Newest Babe George's talent was apparent at an early age. During his years at St. Mary's, he continued to play a variety of positions on the school baseball teams. Learn music beethoven ludwig van with free interactive flashcards. Choose from different sets of music beethoven ludwig van flashcards on Quizlet.	1,274	ENGLISH	1
Robert Fulton was the man who created an invention that would change the way the world moved. He recognized early on that transport, particularly water transportation could be significantly improved by powering boats with a steam engine. While Robert Fulton certainly was not the first inventor to come up with this idea, it was his achievement that produced the first commercialized and fully operational steamboat. Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat changed the way we moved and helped us to be where we are today. In this article, we will learn about Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat. While we could easily talk about the steamboat and the benefits it brought, it is vital to first learn about the man who invented it. We will find out what it took Robert Fulton to design and develop the steamboat and how he did it. What was the mindset behind this invention, and what can we learn from him? The Life of the Steamboat Inventor Let us take a look at the peculiar life development of the inventor of the steamboat. Robert Fulton’s life story is an example to us all – it teaches us the importance of having good acquaintances as well as the determination and of course, a lot of talent. When it comes to talent, Robert Fulton was a natural. Robert Fulton was an American engineer and inventor born on November 14, 1765, in Little Britain, Pennsylvania. He was born into a relatively large family (he had three sisters and a younger brother) that lived on a small farm. Fulton’s parents were of Irish origin; his father, Robert Fulton Senior, was a tailor by trade and was able to make a good living for a few years. At least until 1771, when Robert Senior was cash-stricken as the farm became unproductive. The family had to relocate to another farm in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. That enabled his father to work on his trade as a tailor. But Robert Fulton Junior had little interest in learning his father’s business; in fact, Robert Fulton was not a particularly avid student and was as a child was not interested in books. But he was a talented and intelligent young lad. In his youth, his main interest was painting and making portraits. A few years later, his father died, and Robert Fulton was sent to the Quaker school. An Aspiring Artist While he was mildly interested in engineering in his early years, Robert really wanted to develop his talent as an artist. He underwent an apprenticeship in Philadelphia. There he specialized in making portraits of jewels and other pieces of silverware. Robert was so talented that he was able to garner a handsome income from painting. As an artist, he was able to provide for his family back in Lancaster. Robert regularly sent some of his income back home to his mother. His time in Philadelphia was crucial for his later development as one of the most prominent engineers in the USA. In those days, he met and acquainted himself with many notable people that would later help him achieve success. These people include Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin West, who was an influence on Robert later on in his life. Fulton managed to make a decent living as an artist. Between the ages of seventeen through twenty while in Pensylvania, he earned enough money to buy a farm in 1785 for his mother and his family near Pittsburgh. Robert Fulton was an ambitious young man, and he wanted to advance his career and learn more about painting. In 1786, he was advised to go to Europe to study the techniques of the masters. He was encouraged to do so by his family and some of the prominent people around him. Move to Europe and the Start of his Engineering Career Even though Robert Fulton moved to Europe to progress his career in art, it was this time in his life that made him love engineering. In Europe, he was able to satisfy his urge to invent new things and to try new concepts. Initially, he did what he set out to do – he wanted to improve his painting skills. He reconnected with Benjamin West, who resided in London in 1786. He was a successful painter himself. West took Fulton into his home while Robert supported himself through selling his artwork. But this is when his urge for inventing was starting to come out; in fact, his interest in inventing and engineering interfered significantly with his schooling process. Fulton’s attention shifted from art to invention very quickly. While Fulton did not have a background of inventing nor the necessary skills at the beginning, he was able to learn them with a lot of practice and effort on his part. He began by studying mathematics and science. Young Robert was more and more fascinated by naval inventions and with the canals of that time. During the 1790s, he started experimenting with various mechanical patents and concepts. First Concepts of a Steamboat One such idea was his concept of a tugboat for canals, which would make him even more focused on canal engineering. It was at this time that Fulton started working on ideas for a steamboat. It is widely believed that this occurred as early as 1793 when Fulton tried to sell and promote his patent with pamphlets. He even unsuccessfully proposed one of his concepts to governments of the United States and the United Kingdom. He also had some unsuccessful ventures and patents within the broader boating industry. But this would not stop Fulton from his idea of a steam-powered boat. He saw plenty of potential in the power of steam engines as the driving force for ships. The steam engine, developed by James Watt, had by that time already proven to be an essential achievement in the history of humanity and was used in many other fields. Fulton thought to himself, why not use it for boats as well? By that time, Fulton was well-educated in the areas of canal boating and ship engineering and sought to create something that would propel, no pun intended, him to fame. Robert Fulton was not the first inventor to come up with the idea of a steam-powered boat. Some unsuccessful versions of the steamboat were already built more than ten years before. They were not commercialized yet or optimized in any way for large commercial use. The earliest steamer was designed in France by Claude de Jouffroy, which passed the first trial in 1783. In 1787, a similar feat was achieved by John Fitch, who successfully launched his version of the steamboat. However, these projects either didn’t materialize or were inappropriate for use on a large scale. Move to France Undeterred by some of his setbacks in London, Fulton moved to Paris in 1797, where he sought to establish himself as an inventor. This time in his life was essential for him, establishing himself as a crucial personality and also in order to perfect his ideas for steamboats. In Paris, he met James Rumsey, who was a steamboat inventor himself. Rumsey had already trialed his steamboat in 1786. Fulton gained a lot of knowledge from their relationship. Robert Fultonduring, his time in France, was perhaps best known for his development of a submarine for the French army. He proposed the concept to Napoleon in 1797. Initially, the patent was twice turned down. Fulton persisted and made slight improvements to the submarine design. In 1800, the concept was finally approved and ready to be built. It was called the Nautilus. The submarine was another achievement by Robert Fulton that showed his underlying determination. This personal trait would prove to be the decisive factor later in his life. In 1801, he met Robert R. Livingston, who was the US ambassador in France. Livingston was very interested in steamboats and wanted to collaborate with Fulton. This collaboration would prove to be fruitful for Fulton and also with the creation of the first commercial steamboat. The pair experimented with the concepts until they created the perfected version. Before the patent was approved, Robert Fulton moved back to England for a brief period, where he worked on mechanisms of war and other large equipment. Robert Fulton’s Invention of the Steamboat Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat was the culmination of Fulton’s and Livingston’s work in Paris. From 1803 onwards, the pair thought that the patent was going to be granted, so they released their concept to the general public. To work on the patent and to develop the steamboat, Fulton moved to New York in 1806, where he would collaborate with Livingston. For the success to be complete, it was important for Fulton to pick the right people to build their first steamboat. He chose Charles Brown as the boat’s builder because he had a good reputation in the shipbuilding industry. This choice practically guaranteed the success of the operation. The construction of the steamer began in the spring of 1806. This was to be the first commercial ship that would transport passengers on an already established route. The construction of the first steamboat was finalized in 1807. By August 1807, the steamboat was finished and ready for trials to establish the viability of the new steamboat. It successfully passed the tests and was prepared for general use. The ship was called the Clermont. It was the first boat in the fleet of the company that was owned by Livingston. Soon, the Clermont was ready to transport passengers up and down the Hudson River. The trial run was 32 hours long, and it was a journey from New York to Albany. The boat made a successful trip to Albany and back to New York. While some people thought that the ship was not ready yet and should be further improved, it still made many successful trips to Albany and back. At this point, Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat had proven itself to be very popular. Soon, additional ships were built based upon the concept of the Clermont. Those ships were added to the fleet of the Livingston company. Rober Fulton’s Invention of the Steamboat and Its Effects Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat proved to be a successful patent that was worked on by Fulton for the majority of his life. It had many positive effects on society, industry, transportation, and more. Before the steamboat, the idea of transporting goods over the water was not efficient in many ways. The journeys took a long time, and there were too many obstacles involved in the transportation of goods. Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat reduced trip times and made the movement of equipment and merchandise along the river more feasible. Thes significant achievements helped strengthen the industry and market, as well as public transportation and later tourism. Fulton’s Later Life From his development of the steamboat in 1807 to 1811, Fulton was active with other projects and patents, but Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat will always be the one that got his name in the history books. Later in life, he sought many ways to improve his steamboat and make it an even more reliable form of transportation. In 1808, he married Harriet Livingston. They had four children together. Fulton died in 1815 in New York. Let’s conclude this article with the lessons that we can learn from Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat and apply them to our lives. What are the parts that we can still gain knowledge from today? - The most important lesson is to stay determined and believe in yourself. - Don’t underestimate the power of friendships and acquaintances. - Always research the market thoroughly. - Don’t give up just because others are working on similar concepts. - Many inventors are just as comfortable with a paintbrush as they are with machines. - Don’t be afraid to sketch, paint, or 3D model your ideas.	<urn:uuid:80a17686-6caf-479b-b778-4fec4ac3e289>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.inventiontherapy.com/robert-fultons-invention-of-the-steamboat/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00017.warc.gz	en	0.991193	2,416	3.40625	3	[ -0.05978941172361374, 0.08386778831481934, 0.321272611618042, -0.18922236561775208, -0.3297356367111206, 0.02100309357047081, 0.5171339511871338, 0.11093960702419281, -0.6934670209884644, -0.3980981111526489, -0.0520964115858078, 0.21753628551959991, 0.08184598386287689, 0.1508185565471649...	6	Robert Fulton was the man who created an invention that would change the way the world moved. He recognized early on that transport, particularly water transportation could be significantly improved by powering boats with a steam engine. While Robert Fulton certainly was not the first inventor to come up with this idea, it was his achievement that produced the first commercialized and fully operational steamboat. Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat changed the way we moved and helped us to be where we are today. In this article, we will learn about Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat. While we could easily talk about the steamboat and the benefits it brought, it is vital to first learn about the man who invented it. We will find out what it took Robert Fulton to design and develop the steamboat and how he did it. What was the mindset behind this invention, and what can we learn from him? The Life of the Steamboat Inventor Let us take a look at the peculiar life development of the inventor of the steamboat. Robert Fulton’s life story is an example to us all – it teaches us the importance of having good acquaintances as well as the determination and of course, a lot of talent. When it comes to talent, Robert Fulton was a natural. Robert Fulton was an American engineer and inventor born on November 14, 1765, in Little Britain, Pennsylvania. He was born into a relatively large family (he had three sisters and a younger brother) that lived on a small farm. Fulton’s parents were of Irish origin; his father, Robert Fulton Senior, was a tailor by trade and was able to make a good living for a few years. At least until 1771, when Robert Senior was cash-stricken as the farm became unproductive. The family had to relocate to another farm in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. That enabled his father to work on his trade as a tailor. But Robert Fulton Junior had little interest in learning his father’s business; in fact, Robert Fulton was not a particularly avid student and was as a child was not interested in books. But he was a talented and intelligent young lad. In his youth, his main interest was painting and making portraits. A few years later, his father died, and Robert Fulton was sent to the Quaker school. An Aspiring Artist While he was mildly interested in engineering in his early years, Robert really wanted to develop his talent as an artist. He underwent an apprenticeship in Philadelphia. There he specialized in making portraits of jewels and other pieces of silverware. Robert was so talented that he was able to garner a handsome income from painting. As an artist, he was able to provide for his family back in Lancaster. Robert regularly sent some of his income back home to his mother. His time in Philadelphia was crucial for his later development as one of the most prominent engineers in the USA. In those days, he met and acquainted himself with many notable people that would later help him achieve success. These people include Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin West, who was an influence on Robert later on in his life. Fulton managed to make a decent living as an artist. Between the ages of seventeen through twenty while in Pensylvania, he earned enough money to buy a farm in 1785 for his mother and his family near Pittsburgh. Robert Fulton was an ambitious young man, and he wanted to advance his career and learn more about painting. In 1786, he was advised to go to Europe to study the techniques of the masters. He was encouraged to do so by his family and some of the prominent people around him. Move to Europe and the Start of his Engineering Career Even though Robert Fulton moved to Europe to progress his career in art, it was this time in his life that made him love engineering. In Europe, he was able to satisfy his urge to invent new things and to try new concepts. Initially, he did what he set out to do – he wanted to improve his painting skills. He reconnected with Benjamin West, who resided in London in 1786. He was a successful painter himself. West took Fulton into his home while Robert supported himself through selling his artwork. But this is when his urge for inventing was starting to come out; in fact, his interest in inventing and engineering interfered significantly with his schooling process. Fulton’s attention shifted from art to invention very quickly. While Fulton did not have a background of inventing nor the necessary skills at the beginning, he was able to learn them with a lot of practice and effort on his part. He began by studying mathematics and science. Young Robert was more and more fascinated by naval inventions and with the canals of that time. During the 1790s, he started experimenting with various mechanical patents and concepts. First Concepts of a Steamboat One such idea was his concept of a tugboat for canals, which would make him even more focused on canal engineering. It was at this time that Fulton started working on ideas for a steamboat. It is widely believed that this occurred as early as 1793 when Fulton tried to sell and promote his patent with pamphlets. He even unsuccessfully proposed one of his concepts to governments of the United States and the United Kingdom. He also had some unsuccessful ventures and patents within the broader boating industry. But this would not stop Fulton from his idea of a steam-powered boat. He saw plenty of potential in the power of steam engines as the driving force for ships. The steam engine, developed by James Watt, had by that time already proven to be an essential achievement in the history of humanity and was used in many other fields. Fulton thought to himself, why not use it for boats as well? By that time, Fulton was well-educated in the areas of canal boating and ship engineering and sought to create something that would propel, no pun intended, him to fame. Robert Fulton was not the first inventor to come up with the idea of a steam-powered boat. Some unsuccessful versions of the steamboat were already built more than ten years before. They were not commercialized yet or optimized in any way for large commercial use. The earliest steamer was designed in France by Claude de Jouffroy, which passed the first trial in 1783. In 1787, a similar feat was achieved by John Fitch, who successfully launched his version of the steamboat. However, these projects either didn’t materialize or were inappropriate for use on a large scale. Move to France Undeterred by some of his setbacks in London, Fulton moved to Paris in 1797, where he sought to establish himself as an inventor. This time in his life was essential for him, establishing himself as a crucial personality and also in order to perfect his ideas for steamboats. In Paris, he met James Rumsey, who was a steamboat inventor himself. Rumsey had already trialed his steamboat in 1786. Fulton gained a lot of knowledge from their relationship. Robert Fultonduring, his time in France, was perhaps best known for his development of a submarine for the French army. He proposed the concept to Napoleon in 1797. Initially, the patent was twice turned down. Fulton persisted and made slight improvements to the submarine design. In 1800, the concept was finally approved and ready to be built. It was called the Nautilus. The submarine was another achievement by Robert Fulton that showed his underlying determination. This personal trait would prove to be the decisive factor later in his life. In 1801, he met Robert R. Livingston, who was the US ambassador in France. Livingston was very interested in steamboats and wanted to collaborate with Fulton. This collaboration would prove to be fruitful for Fulton and also with the creation of the first commercial steamboat. The pair experimented with the concepts until they created the perfected version. Before the patent was approved, Robert Fulton moved back to England for a brief period, where he worked on mechanisms of war and other large equipment. Robert Fulton’s Invention of the Steamboat Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat was the culmination of Fulton’s and Livingston’s work in Paris. From 1803 onwards, the pair thought that the patent was going to be granted, so they released their concept to the general public. To work on the patent and to develop the steamboat, Fulton moved to New York in 1806, where he would collaborate with Livingston. For the success to be complete, it was important for Fulton to pick the right people to build their first steamboat. He chose Charles Brown as the boat’s builder because he had a good reputation in the shipbuilding industry. This choice practically guaranteed the success of the operation. The construction of the steamer began in the spring of 1806. This was to be the first commercial ship that would transport passengers on an already established route. The construction of the first steamboat was finalized in 1807. By August 1807, the steamboat was finished and ready for trials to establish the viability of the new steamboat. It successfully passed the tests and was prepared for general use. The ship was called the Clermont. It was the first boat in the fleet of the company that was owned by Livingston. Soon, the Clermont was ready to transport passengers up and down the Hudson River. The trial run was 32 hours long, and it was a journey from New York to Albany. The boat made a successful trip to Albany and back to New York. While some people thought that the ship was not ready yet and should be further improved, it still made many successful trips to Albany and back. At this point, Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat had proven itself to be very popular. Soon, additional ships were built based upon the concept of the Clermont. Those ships were added to the fleet of the Livingston company. Rober Fulton’s Invention of the Steamboat and Its Effects Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat proved to be a successful patent that was worked on by Fulton for the majority of his life. It had many positive effects on society, industry, transportation, and more. Before the steamboat, the idea of transporting goods over the water was not efficient in many ways. The journeys took a long time, and there were too many obstacles involved in the transportation of goods. Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat reduced trip times and made the movement of equipment and merchandise along the river more feasible. Thes significant achievements helped strengthen the industry and market, as well as public transportation and later tourism. Fulton’s Later Life From his development of the steamboat in 1807 to 1811, Fulton was active with other projects and patents, but Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat will always be the one that got his name in the history books. Later in life, he sought many ways to improve his steamboat and make it an even more reliable form of transportation. In 1808, he married Harriet Livingston. They had four children together. Fulton died in 1815 in New York. Let’s conclude this article with the lessons that we can learn from Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat and apply them to our lives. What are the parts that we can still gain knowledge from today? - The most important lesson is to stay determined and believe in yourself. - Don’t underestimate the power of friendships and acquaintances. - Always research the market thoroughly. - Don’t give up just because others are working on similar concepts. - Many inventors are just as comfortable with a paintbrush as they are with machines. - Don’t be afraid to sketch, paint, or 3D model your ideas.	2,412	ENGLISH	1
In the past month, Group 1 has sparked their imaginations and created beautiful pieces as they painted with fly swatters or homemade stress balls (panty hose filled with lentils, tied in to a ball). During the activities the children appeared to be very excited in mixing colours and creating new colours, which gave Wendy an idea to expand the children’s interest in colour exploration with a mess-free paint-smashing activity. Wendy brought paper plates, clear wrap and 6 different colours of paint. Each child got a plate of the colours of their choice and, after Wendy sealed the plates with clear wrap, the children were encouraged to smash or press the paint on their plates. “It feels slimy,” Aurora said to Wendy as she curiously poked the paint with her forefinger. “The colour is changing,” Nicky shouted, “Look this Marcus!” He then started smashing the paint to make the colour change faster. His voice drew Lila and Marcus’s attention and they began smashing the paint on their plate as well. “It’s so cool. The colours are mixing together!” Lila exclaimed excitedly. The children couldn’t move their eyes away from the plates. Using their observation skills, they noticed something else happening on the plates. “Oh Marcus! I found purple here!“ Nicky couldn’t wait to show Marcus his plate. Wendy asked him how it turned purple. He looked down at his plate carefully and replied, “Um...I think it’s because the pink and the blue are mixing together.” He kept exclaiming delightedly, “Yes! This part is getting orange now.” Nicky seemed to be eager to create more colours. Marcus then came up with a great idea, “Let’s make a rainbow plate!” Wendy asked them how we make rainbow plates and Marcus said, “We will have to smash it harder so we can make more colours.” “A rainbow has a lot colours,” Nicky added. As Nicky and Marcus were busy creating rainbows on their plates, Lucas and Cadence were focusing on their own experiment. “I want to mix orange and blue and see what colour it is gonna be,” Cadence said as Wendy gave her another plate. She asked Wendy to give her a lot blue paint and a little bit orange in the blue. While smashing the paint carefully, Cadence studied the paint. “It’s getting dark blue!” she declared, “this is so cool! I am going to make one for mommy, one for daddy, and one for myself.” Cadence then started concentrating on achieving her goal. Lucas tried to smash the blue paint as hard he could. Wendy asked him why and he explained, “I want to make the blue bigger because I am making the ocean on my plate.” What a beautiful idea Lucas! Looking at how the other children were creating with their plates, Maya and Isaac decided to participate in the activity. They took initiative to squeeze the paint bottles as well as use markers to decorate their plates. Isaac was so obsessed in creating plates of different patterns that he didn’t want to go home when his mom was here. Luckily, Isaac’s mom stayed for him to finish his last plate. “This is for you.” Maya said to Isaac’s mom with a proud smile on her face. The children were highly engaged in making different patterns and colours on their plates and were very interested in observing the process of how the colours started mixing together and changing. The activity allowed the children to play collaboratively as well as share their thoughts and ideas, demonstrating their communication skills as well as social skills, which created a sense of belonging in the program. The children’s natural curiosity of science encouraged them to use their inquiry skills to explore how and why the colours changed.	<urn:uuid:e0f308fa-fa80-40e5-99aa-bf23066d222d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://owlchildcare.org/john-sweeney/js-school-age-1-ls-october-2019-smack-paint?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00095.warc.gz	en	0.980708	825	3.375	3	[ -0.4924089312553406, -0.26512688398361206, 0.05838915705680847, -0.23282983899116516, -0.36873123049736023, 0.49429669976234436, 0.06571292877197266, 0.2678963243961334, -0.09333094954490662, 0.0445517897605896, 0.27745479345321655, -0.2565838098526001, 0.10131257772445679, 0.4410194158554...	1	In the past month, Group 1 has sparked their imaginations and created beautiful pieces as they painted with fly swatters or homemade stress balls (panty hose filled with lentils, tied in to a ball). During the activities the children appeared to be very excited in mixing colours and creating new colours, which gave Wendy an idea to expand the children’s interest in colour exploration with a mess-free paint-smashing activity. Wendy brought paper plates, clear wrap and 6 different colours of paint. Each child got a plate of the colours of their choice and, after Wendy sealed the plates with clear wrap, the children were encouraged to smash or press the paint on their plates. “It feels slimy,” Aurora said to Wendy as she curiously poked the paint with her forefinger. “The colour is changing,” Nicky shouted, “Look this Marcus!” He then started smashing the paint to make the colour change faster. His voice drew Lila and Marcus’s attention and they began smashing the paint on their plate as well. “It’s so cool. The colours are mixing together!” Lila exclaimed excitedly. The children couldn’t move their eyes away from the plates. Using their observation skills, they noticed something else happening on the plates. “Oh Marcus! I found purple here!“ Nicky couldn’t wait to show Marcus his plate. Wendy asked him how it turned purple. He looked down at his plate carefully and replied, “Um...I think it’s because the pink and the blue are mixing together.” He kept exclaiming delightedly, “Yes! This part is getting orange now.” Nicky seemed to be eager to create more colours. Marcus then came up with a great idea, “Let’s make a rainbow plate!” Wendy asked them how we make rainbow plates and Marcus said, “We will have to smash it harder so we can make more colours.” “A rainbow has a lot colours,” Nicky added. As Nicky and Marcus were busy creating rainbows on their plates, Lucas and Cadence were focusing on their own experiment. “I want to mix orange and blue and see what colour it is gonna be,” Cadence said as Wendy gave her another plate. She asked Wendy to give her a lot blue paint and a little bit orange in the blue. While smashing the paint carefully, Cadence studied the paint. “It’s getting dark blue!” she declared, “this is so cool! I am going to make one for mommy, one for daddy, and one for myself.” Cadence then started concentrating on achieving her goal. Lucas tried to smash the blue paint as hard he could. Wendy asked him why and he explained, “I want to make the blue bigger because I am making the ocean on my plate.” What a beautiful idea Lucas! Looking at how the other children were creating with their plates, Maya and Isaac decided to participate in the activity. They took initiative to squeeze the paint bottles as well as use markers to decorate their plates. Isaac was so obsessed in creating plates of different patterns that he didn’t want to go home when his mom was here. Luckily, Isaac’s mom stayed for him to finish his last plate. “This is for you.” Maya said to Isaac’s mom with a proud smile on her face. The children were highly engaged in making different patterns and colours on their plates and were very interested in observing the process of how the colours started mixing together and changing. The activity allowed the children to play collaboratively as well as share their thoughts and ideas, demonstrating their communication skills as well as social skills, which created a sense of belonging in the program. The children’s natural curiosity of science encouraged them to use their inquiry skills to explore how and why the colours changed.	754	ENGLISH	1
ON 1 DECEMBER 1974, about 350 kilometres north-west of Darwin in the Timor Sea, a low pressure system developed into Tropical Cyclone Selma. Selma moved directly towards Darwin and two days later was only 100 kilometres away. The Bureau of Meteorology issued a steady stream of alerts, warning the people of Darwin to prepare for a potentially devastating storm. But at 10 o’clock on the morning of 3 December, Selma changed direction, swinging north and then west away from the city. There had been a lot of rain and some trees had been brought down, but nothing too alarming. It is a common pattern in disasters: the near miss that causes complacency. When authorities warn of a serious danger that does not eventuate, people can become fatally sceptical. One Darwin resident recalled an early conversation about whether Tracy was a real threat: “We had had Cyclone Selma only a few weeks before… Everyone was sick of talking about cyclones – and besides, Christmas was here.” On 21 December, a large cloud mass that had been forming in the Arafura Sea, some 700 kilometres to the north-east of Darwin, began to revolve and the winds at its centre reached high velocities. At 10 o’clock in the evening the system started to move and it was officially designated a tropical cyclone, and given the name Tracy. At Christmas Eve parties, the consensus was that Tracy would do what Selma had done on approaching Darwin, what every cyclone for decades had done: veer away. The police were in touch with the Weather Bureau and had followed standard procedures to prepare for an emergency. But no one was really worried. “It was still being taken lightly,” one officer recalled. “It was ‘just another blow’.” By noon on 24 December, the picture was clearer, and alarming. Tracy was 110 kilometres north-west of Darwin and was headed south-east – straight for the city. The winds inside the storm were extreme. At 12.30 p.m. the Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre issued a formal alert: VERY DESTRUCTIVE WINDS OF 120 KILOMETRES PER HOUR WITH GUSTS TO 150 KILOMETRES PER HOUR HAVE BEEN REPORTED NEAR THE CENTRE AND ARE EXPECTED IN THE DARWIN AREA TONIGHT AND TOMORROW. Some people took precautions: putting masking tape on windows, tying down loose objects, checking that they had a battery torch and radio in case the power went out. Others attended Christmas parties, got drunk, and went to bed. What then unfolded was a slow-building nightmare. As evening drew into night, power was lost, the wind rose, and kept rising, and the torrential rain forced its way into houses. At first, people tried to protect carpets and valuables, but such thoughts were soon forgotten as the magnitude of the storm became apparent. Glass louvres bowed with the pressure of the wind, and began to explode. Many windows were ripped – frame and all – from the walls. Most families retreated to the bathroom – by conventional wisdom and official advice, the strongest and safest room in the house. After midnight, the full fury of the leading edge of the cyclone struck. The wind reached speeds in excess of 150 kilometres per hour. Many houses lost their roofs, either as cladding was peeled up then whipped away, or with the whole roof suddenly being lifted and swept into the darkness. With the torrential rain now soaking internal partitions, and the structure of houses weakened, walls collapsed or were blown away. Debris – and this included objects as big as refrigerators – hurtled through the air, shattering houses downwind, causing more debris and a chain of destruction. At about 3 o’clock in the morning the eye of the cyclone passed over Darwin, bringing an eerie stillness. There was a strange light, a diffuse lightening, like St Elmo’s fire. In the quiet, people could hear injured neighbours screaming. Some houses, more protected than others, had survived the first wind. But everyone knew that this was only a brief lull. When the eye of a cyclone has passed over, the “second wind” comes. It is often more destructive than the first because it comes from the opposite direction, is often stronger, and arrives abruptly. This was the case with Tracy: the first wind had built up over a period of more than an hour, but the second wind arrived like an express train, all the more shocking after the relative silence of the eye. Gusts of well over 200 kilometres an hour filled the air with debris, and blasted already damaged houses apart – in some cases the walls, the collapsed ceilings, every piece of furniture were swept away. Families were left clinging to whatever wreckage remained. Adding to their misery was the intense cold, as everything was saturated by driving rain and chilled by the gale. The bare floor of a house bucking in the storm on its poles came to be known as a “dance floor” among survivors. Some people tried to crawl downstairs, but there was really nowhere to go. Few houses had a cyclone shelter, and laundry blocks and sheds were often made of light concrete bricks: the walls were not reinforced and bowed in the wind. Many people ended up sheltering in their cars. This was dangerous, but where else were they to go? Around seventy people died. Hundreds were seriously injured. Of the thousands who survived, almost everyone was wet and cold and often in pain from cuts, lacerations and broken bones. At about 6.30 am, after the storm had faded to a drizzling rain, a grey dawn broke over Darwin. The light revealed a scene of utter devastation. Gary MacKay, an army officer who was part of the relief effort and later wrote a history of the disaster, described the damage as “almost obscene in its totality.” Some observers compared the sight to Hiroshima in the wake of the atomic bomb. One was more prosaic: “Darwin was a 250-square-mile-rubbish dump.” Engineers are generally careful writers and not prone to exaggeration. George Walker was commissioned to report on Cyclone Tracy’s impact on buildings. “The destruction caused in Darwin by Cyclone Tracy”, he wrote, “was the worst suffered by an Australian city in any disaster.” By Christmas morning, Darwin had, in material terms, almost ceased to exist. For many hours the city was completely isolated from the outside world: every telephone line was cut, every radio transmitter out of action. Tracy destroyed almost every house and block of flats. It seriously damaged almost every public building: schools, hospitals, churches, office blocks and large hotels. By one estimate, of the city’s 13,000 dwellings, only 400 had survived intact. The city’s vital infrastructure was destroyed or immobilised. Every roadway was blocked, the airport runway was unusable, the port’s wharves wrecked. The power distribution network, most of it comprising overhead powerlines, had been demolished – the power station was badly damaged, its generators stood idle. The water supply and sewerage system both relied on electric pumps, so these also ceased to function. With no sanitation, and so few habitable buildings, there was a danger of diseases such as typhoid. The hospital quickly ran out of basic supplies like local anaesthetic, which was badly needed as so many people had cuts that required stitches. There was water damage through out the hospital, and in the treatment wards the floors ran red with blood. Making matters worse for the people of Darwin, although the rest of the country responded with great generosity to the disaster, much of the assistance given was ill-considered, poorly organised and of little use. The civil authorities were astonished and dismayed when planes arrived in the sweltering tropical city loaded with blankets. Alan Reiher, a public servant with the Board of Works who played a major role in the relief effort, later said that “most of the things which came in during the first few days (except food and medical supplies) were not wanted.” It quickly became obvious that the city would have to be almost entirely evacuated. All “non-essential people” were airlifted out. The mass evacuation of some 20,000 people, and their temporary accommodation in military barracks, migrant hostels and private homes across the country, was a vast undertaking. THE DEVASTATION of Darwin was so great that the federal government seriously considered abandoning the city altogether and rebuilding somewhere else. Katherine was one possibility. As it was, a reconstruction commission was created and a new city arose. Despite the bitter wrangling over what form the fifth “new Darwin” should take, the reconstruction is now generally remembered as a success. “Darwin is one of the great cities of Australia,” said Rex Patterson, then Minister for the Northern Territory, on the thirtieth anniversary of Tracy. “It proved that the decision to rebuild Darwin was a good one.” Marshall Perron, a Northern Territory politician who later served as chief minister, said that the disaster also provided opportunity: “Lots of dead wood was blown away, and this allowed a fresh start.” Tracy is sometimes seen as having been the catalyst for the Northern Territory achieving self-government, and for a more permanent and settled community. Another chief minister, Clare Martin, exemplified this cheery view in 2004, when she wrote: “In many ways Tracy transformed Darwin from an isolated tropical outpost, operated by a legion of Commonwealth public servants, to a modern tropical city determined to become Australia’s Gateway to Asia.” Certainly comments like these put a gloss on the human suffering created by the disaster, and its long-term economic and social cost. It also avoids the sober truth: old Darwin should have survived Tracy more or less intact. It would have done so if the sensible warnings of intelligent and responsible people had been heeded. Tracy was a cyclone of immense destructive power, but in no way can it be seen as a freak event. That a severe cyclone would again hit Darwin was certain; the only question was when. Yet the city, in its physical and social structures, was appallingly ill-prepared. According to George Walker’s report, large buildings, which were required to be certified for structural strength by engineers, survived the storm “reasonably well.” Smaller buildings, which included almost every house in Darwin, “performed extremely badly.” Perhaps 60 per cent of houses were damaged beyond repair “and in some of the northern suburbs the destruction was nearly 100 per cent.” In some cases window frames had not been fixed to the surrounding walls – they were just “sitting there,” providing no structural strength at all. But even when basic workmanship was adequate, the house designs were not. At that time, the standards required for houses built in tropical areas did provide for higher wind velocities, but were otherwise much the same as those for non-tropical areas. Walker argued that, had buildings been properly engineered, a cyclone of Tracy’s magnitude still would have caused significant damage, but would have destroyed less than 5 per cent of the houses – still a disaster, but on a far smaller scale. Fewer people would have died or been left homeless. More of the city’s basic infrastructure would have remained intact. The added trauma of mass evacuation might have been avoided. The things that should have been done, but were not, were basic. Three years before Tracy, in December 1971, Cyclone Althea had hit Townsville, causing significant damage. Drawing on this experience, the Department of Works in Darwin had recommended extra strengthening of houses, that cladding be better secured, and that windows be protected with shutters and screens. But no one paid much attention. The main reason was complacency. As Alan Reiher recalled, “No one in Darwin believed it could happen to them. No one as far as we could find had experienced a severe cyclone in Darwin before.” The cost of the relief operation and the reconstruction of Darwin was immense. Estimates vary from $600 million to more than $1 billion. Such a massive diversion of resources was a major setback in the development of basic infrastructure in other parts of the Northern Territory. The “modern tropical city” of Darwin sucked badly needed resources from Katherine, Alice Springs and many remote communities. Even on a national basis, the reconstruction of Darwin cut into resources for development: $1 billion paid for a lot of roads, schools and hospitals in 1975. In one important respect, though, Tracy did change Australia for the better. In wiping Darwin off the map, the cyclone made the rest of the country far more aware of the city, and of Australia’s northern tropics, than had ever been the case before. Three days after the disaster, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam declared that the shock had awakened a new sense of community: “it is an Australian tragedy which transcends politics, state boundaries and personal differences.” Australians everywhere, he said, “are responding spontaneously and generously to the call for help.” Historian Brad West argues that Tracy was a defining moment in the creation of Australian national identity, having the sort of impact that foreign invasion has had on other societies. It is ironic that Tracy is remembered primarily as an “act of God.” Histories of the event focus on tales of survival and suffering, with the partly happy ending of a revitalised Darwin. This picture is true so far as it goes, but there is an uglier underside. Like most “natural” disasters, the devastation wreaked by Tracy was largely a human construction. In a city that twice previously had been battered by cyclones, it should not have required another one to convince us to change our ways. At the end of George Walker’s report, after many pages discussing purlins and trusses, cladding strength and lateral bracing, he strays into a philosophical observation: “It is unfortunate, but true, that one generally has to experience a disaster to be really convinced of the need to avoid one.” It is a tragedy of Australian history that Walker is right. •	<urn:uuid:cc88d279-d391-4f7c-b795-512602ed3ebc>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://insidestory.org.au/divine-wind/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00101.warc.gz	en	0.982511	2,999	3.296875	3	[ 0.2153290957212448, 0.07743318378925323, 0.114858478307724, 0.3740735352039337, 0.46574825048446655, 0.08990738540887833, 0.062142666429281235, 0.11635973304510117, -0.14081010222434998, 0.32982268929481506, -0.16737279295921326, -0.5115153789520264, 0.24506902694702148, 0.1275095343589782...	6	ON 1 DECEMBER 1974, about 350 kilometres north-west of Darwin in the Timor Sea, a low pressure system developed into Tropical Cyclone Selma. Selma moved directly towards Darwin and two days later was only 100 kilometres away. The Bureau of Meteorology issued a steady stream of alerts, warning the people of Darwin to prepare for a potentially devastating storm. But at 10 o’clock on the morning of 3 December, Selma changed direction, swinging north and then west away from the city. There had been a lot of rain and some trees had been brought down, but nothing too alarming. It is a common pattern in disasters: the near miss that causes complacency. When authorities warn of a serious danger that does not eventuate, people can become fatally sceptical. One Darwin resident recalled an early conversation about whether Tracy was a real threat: “We had had Cyclone Selma only a few weeks before… Everyone was sick of talking about cyclones – and besides, Christmas was here.” On 21 December, a large cloud mass that had been forming in the Arafura Sea, some 700 kilometres to the north-east of Darwin, began to revolve and the winds at its centre reached high velocities. At 10 o’clock in the evening the system started to move and it was officially designated a tropical cyclone, and given the name Tracy. At Christmas Eve parties, the consensus was that Tracy would do what Selma had done on approaching Darwin, what every cyclone for decades had done: veer away. The police were in touch with the Weather Bureau and had followed standard procedures to prepare for an emergency. But no one was really worried. “It was still being taken lightly,” one officer recalled. “It was ‘just another blow’.” By noon on 24 December, the picture was clearer, and alarming. Tracy was 110 kilometres north-west of Darwin and was headed south-east – straight for the city. The winds inside the storm were extreme. At 12.30 p.m. the Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre issued a formal alert: VERY DESTRUCTIVE WINDS OF 120 KILOMETRES PER HOUR WITH GUSTS TO 150 KILOMETRES PER HOUR HAVE BEEN REPORTED NEAR THE CENTRE AND ARE EXPECTED IN THE DARWIN AREA TONIGHT AND TOMORROW. Some people took precautions: putting masking tape on windows, tying down loose objects, checking that they had a battery torch and radio in case the power went out. Others attended Christmas parties, got drunk, and went to bed. What then unfolded was a slow-building nightmare. As evening drew into night, power was lost, the wind rose, and kept rising, and the torrential rain forced its way into houses. At first, people tried to protect carpets and valuables, but such thoughts were soon forgotten as the magnitude of the storm became apparent. Glass louvres bowed with the pressure of the wind, and began to explode. Many windows were ripped – frame and all – from the walls. Most families retreated to the bathroom – by conventional wisdom and official advice, the strongest and safest room in the house. After midnight, the full fury of the leading edge of the cyclone struck. The wind reached speeds in excess of 150 kilometres per hour. Many houses lost their roofs, either as cladding was peeled up then whipped away, or with the whole roof suddenly being lifted and swept into the darkness. With the torrential rain now soaking internal partitions, and the structure of houses weakened, walls collapsed or were blown away. Debris – and this included objects as big as refrigerators – hurtled through the air, shattering houses downwind, causing more debris and a chain of destruction. At about 3 o’clock in the morning the eye of the cyclone passed over Darwin, bringing an eerie stillness. There was a strange light, a diffuse lightening, like St Elmo’s fire. In the quiet, people could hear injured neighbours screaming. Some houses, more protected than others, had survived the first wind. But everyone knew that this was only a brief lull. When the eye of a cyclone has passed over, the “second wind” comes. It is often more destructive than the first because it comes from the opposite direction, is often stronger, and arrives abruptly. This was the case with Tracy: the first wind had built up over a period of more than an hour, but the second wind arrived like an express train, all the more shocking after the relative silence of the eye. Gusts of well over 200 kilometres an hour filled the air with debris, and blasted already damaged houses apart – in some cases the walls, the collapsed ceilings, every piece of furniture were swept away. Families were left clinging to whatever wreckage remained. Adding to their misery was the intense cold, as everything was saturated by driving rain and chilled by the gale. The bare floor of a house bucking in the storm on its poles came to be known as a “dance floor” among survivors. Some people tried to crawl downstairs, but there was really nowhere to go. Few houses had a cyclone shelter, and laundry blocks and sheds were often made of light concrete bricks: the walls were not reinforced and bowed in the wind. Many people ended up sheltering in their cars. This was dangerous, but where else were they to go? Around seventy people died. Hundreds were seriously injured. Of the thousands who survived, almost everyone was wet and cold and often in pain from cuts, lacerations and broken bones. At about 6.30 am, after the storm had faded to a drizzling rain, a grey dawn broke over Darwin. The light revealed a scene of utter devastation. Gary MacKay, an army officer who was part of the relief effort and later wrote a history of the disaster, described the damage as “almost obscene in its totality.” Some observers compared the sight to Hiroshima in the wake of the atomic bomb. One was more prosaic: “Darwin was a 250-square-mile-rubbish dump.” Engineers are generally careful writers and not prone to exaggeration. George Walker was commissioned to report on Cyclone Tracy’s impact on buildings. “The destruction caused in Darwin by Cyclone Tracy”, he wrote, “was the worst suffered by an Australian city in any disaster.” By Christmas morning, Darwin had, in material terms, almost ceased to exist. For many hours the city was completely isolated from the outside world: every telephone line was cut, every radio transmitter out of action. Tracy destroyed almost every house and block of flats. It seriously damaged almost every public building: schools, hospitals, churches, office blocks and large hotels. By one estimate, of the city’s 13,000 dwellings, only 400 had survived intact. The city’s vital infrastructure was destroyed or immobilised. Every roadway was blocked, the airport runway was unusable, the port’s wharves wrecked. The power distribution network, most of it comprising overhead powerlines, had been demolished – the power station was badly damaged, its generators stood idle. The water supply and sewerage system both relied on electric pumps, so these also ceased to function. With no sanitation, and so few habitable buildings, there was a danger of diseases such as typhoid. The hospital quickly ran out of basic supplies like local anaesthetic, which was badly needed as so many people had cuts that required stitches. There was water damage through out the hospital, and in the treatment wards the floors ran red with blood. Making matters worse for the people of Darwin, although the rest of the country responded with great generosity to the disaster, much of the assistance given was ill-considered, poorly organised and of little use. The civil authorities were astonished and dismayed when planes arrived in the sweltering tropical city loaded with blankets. Alan Reiher, a public servant with the Board of Works who played a major role in the relief effort, later said that “most of the things which came in during the first few days (except food and medical supplies) were not wanted.” It quickly became obvious that the city would have to be almost entirely evacuated. All “non-essential people” were airlifted out. The mass evacuation of some 20,000 people, and their temporary accommodation in military barracks, migrant hostels and private homes across the country, was a vast undertaking. THE DEVASTATION of Darwin was so great that the federal government seriously considered abandoning the city altogether and rebuilding somewhere else. Katherine was one possibility. As it was, a reconstruction commission was created and a new city arose. Despite the bitter wrangling over what form the fifth “new Darwin” should take, the reconstruction is now generally remembered as a success. “Darwin is one of the great cities of Australia,” said Rex Patterson, then Minister for the Northern Territory, on the thirtieth anniversary of Tracy. “It proved that the decision to rebuild Darwin was a good one.” Marshall Perron, a Northern Territory politician who later served as chief minister, said that the disaster also provided opportunity: “Lots of dead wood was blown away, and this allowed a fresh start.” Tracy is sometimes seen as having been the catalyst for the Northern Territory achieving self-government, and for a more permanent and settled community. Another chief minister, Clare Martin, exemplified this cheery view in 2004, when she wrote: “In many ways Tracy transformed Darwin from an isolated tropical outpost, operated by a legion of Commonwealth public servants, to a modern tropical city determined to become Australia’s Gateway to Asia.” Certainly comments like these put a gloss on the human suffering created by the disaster, and its long-term economic and social cost. It also avoids the sober truth: old Darwin should have survived Tracy more or less intact. It would have done so if the sensible warnings of intelligent and responsible people had been heeded. Tracy was a cyclone of immense destructive power, but in no way can it be seen as a freak event. That a severe cyclone would again hit Darwin was certain; the only question was when. Yet the city, in its physical and social structures, was appallingly ill-prepared. According to George Walker’s report, large buildings, which were required to be certified for structural strength by engineers, survived the storm “reasonably well.” Smaller buildings, which included almost every house in Darwin, “performed extremely badly.” Perhaps 60 per cent of houses were damaged beyond repair “and in some of the northern suburbs the destruction was nearly 100 per cent.” In some cases window frames had not been fixed to the surrounding walls – they were just “sitting there,” providing no structural strength at all. But even when basic workmanship was adequate, the house designs were not. At that time, the standards required for houses built in tropical areas did provide for higher wind velocities, but were otherwise much the same as those for non-tropical areas. Walker argued that, had buildings been properly engineered, a cyclone of Tracy’s magnitude still would have caused significant damage, but would have destroyed less than 5 per cent of the houses – still a disaster, but on a far smaller scale. Fewer people would have died or been left homeless. More of the city’s basic infrastructure would have remained intact. The added trauma of mass evacuation might have been avoided. The things that should have been done, but were not, were basic. Three years before Tracy, in December 1971, Cyclone Althea had hit Townsville, causing significant damage. Drawing on this experience, the Department of Works in Darwin had recommended extra strengthening of houses, that cladding be better secured, and that windows be protected with shutters and screens. But no one paid much attention. The main reason was complacency. As Alan Reiher recalled, “No one in Darwin believed it could happen to them. No one as far as we could find had experienced a severe cyclone in Darwin before.” The cost of the relief operation and the reconstruction of Darwin was immense. Estimates vary from $600 million to more than $1 billion. Such a massive diversion of resources was a major setback in the development of basic infrastructure in other parts of the Northern Territory. The “modern tropical city” of Darwin sucked badly needed resources from Katherine, Alice Springs and many remote communities. Even on a national basis, the reconstruction of Darwin cut into resources for development: $1 billion paid for a lot of roads, schools and hospitals in 1975. In one important respect, though, Tracy did change Australia for the better. In wiping Darwin off the map, the cyclone made the rest of the country far more aware of the city, and of Australia’s northern tropics, than had ever been the case before. Three days after the disaster, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam declared that the shock had awakened a new sense of community: “it is an Australian tragedy which transcends politics, state boundaries and personal differences.” Australians everywhere, he said, “are responding spontaneously and generously to the call for help.” Historian Brad West argues that Tracy was a defining moment in the creation of Australian national identity, having the sort of impact that foreign invasion has had on other societies. It is ironic that Tracy is remembered primarily as an “act of God.” Histories of the event focus on tales of survival and suffering, with the partly happy ending of a revitalised Darwin. This picture is true so far as it goes, but there is an uglier underside. Like most “natural” disasters, the devastation wreaked by Tracy was largely a human construction. In a city that twice previously had been battered by cyclones, it should not have required another one to convince us to change our ways. At the end of George Walker’s report, after many pages discussing purlins and trusses, cladding strength and lateral bracing, he strays into a philosophical observation: “It is unfortunate, but true, that one generally has to experience a disaster to be really convinced of the need to avoid one.” It is a tragedy of Australian history that Walker is right. •	2,926	ENGLISH	1
In this Article Last Updated on The story in Aesop’s fables, “The boy who cried wolf” is one of the most popular fables among children and storytellers. The story has been re-structured and re-told in numerous ways through generations keeping the main subject and the moral intact. Here is “The boy who cried wolf full story” in easy and simple language. The Shepherd Boy and the Wolf Story in English Once upon a time, there was a shepherd boy who used to take his flock of sheep to the hill to graze on the fresh green grass. Sitting there, he had nothing to do the whole day. One day, an idea struck him. To overcome his boredom, he cried out, “wolf! Wolf!” All the men came running with their sticks and to their dismay found no wolf! The boy laughed. Again after a few days, he cried out, “wolf! Wolf!” and the villagers again came running up the hill only to find that the shepherd boy had fooled them. He laughed and laughed, seeing that he had succeeded in fooling them again. However, this time, the villagers were very angry, and they told him that the next time he cries out for help, they would not come. Next day when his flock of sheep were grazing, he suddenly saw a wolf. He cried out aloud “Wolf! Wolf!” But alas! No one came to rescue his sheep. The shepherd boy returned home crying only with few of his sheep. The wolf had taken away one of his sheep, and few of his sheep had fled. From that day onwards, he promised never to lie again. What is the Moral of “The Boy Who Cried, Wolf Story”? This short story teaches us a moral lesson that people refuse to believe a liar even when he is telling the truth. The boy who cried wolf story for kids is a story that every child should read and learn the underlying lesson from. It is a story which leaves a deep imprint in every reader’s mind.	<urn:uuid:093c0cc5-a197-47bd-a60e-e5b8e8b61b52>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://parenting.firstcry.com/articles/the-boy-who-cried-wolf-story-with-moral/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250619323.41/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124100832-20200124125832-00382.warc.gz	en	0.985285	439	3.6875	4	[ -0.08822251856327057, 0.1719702035188675, -0.08301720023155212, 0.33408504724502563, -0.32974594831466675, -0.20296062529087067, -0.22165176272392273, 0.2632688283920288, -0.09989913552999496, -0.21912512183189392, -0.06319848448038101, -0.07661669701337814, -0.05587529391050339, 0.1143003...	1	In this Article Last Updated on The story in Aesop’s fables, “The boy who cried wolf” is one of the most popular fables among children and storytellers. The story has been re-structured and re-told in numerous ways through generations keeping the main subject and the moral intact. Here is “The boy who cried wolf full story” in easy and simple language. The Shepherd Boy and the Wolf Story in English Once upon a time, there was a shepherd boy who used to take his flock of sheep to the hill to graze on the fresh green grass. Sitting there, he had nothing to do the whole day. One day, an idea struck him. To overcome his boredom, he cried out, “wolf! Wolf!” All the men came running with their sticks and to their dismay found no wolf! The boy laughed. Again after a few days, he cried out, “wolf! Wolf!” and the villagers again came running up the hill only to find that the shepherd boy had fooled them. He laughed and laughed, seeing that he had succeeded in fooling them again. However, this time, the villagers were very angry, and they told him that the next time he cries out for help, they would not come. Next day when his flock of sheep were grazing, he suddenly saw a wolf. He cried out aloud “Wolf! Wolf!” But alas! No one came to rescue his sheep. The shepherd boy returned home crying only with few of his sheep. The wolf had taken away one of his sheep, and few of his sheep had fled. From that day onwards, he promised never to lie again. What is the Moral of “The Boy Who Cried, Wolf Story”? This short story teaches us a moral lesson that people refuse to believe a liar even when he is telling the truth. The boy who cried wolf story for kids is a story that every child should read and learn the underlying lesson from. It is a story which leaves a deep imprint in every reader’s mind.	412	ENGLISH	1
Press to read Ron's story & Home Front Living History Group (Incorporating the A.T.S.) Air Raid Precautions Great Britain's Home Front During World War 2 there were several different groups that comprised the Home Front. One such group was the Air Raid Precautions or ARP as it became known. In reality the government had been involved in the provision of Air Raid Precautions since the end of World War 1 in 1918. Even during WW1 the country had been attacked by huge Zeppelin Air Balloons and it was earnestly believed that in the event of another world conflict and with the massive advances in aircraft production, that the British Isles would be particularly vulnerable to gas attacks during bombing raids. These fears were not alleviated by the obvious threat and rising power of Adolf Hitler in Germany during the 1930’s. Many things needed to be considered, Should shelters be constructed? Should vulnerable citizens be evacuated? Should gas masks be issued? What lighting restrictions should be imposed? In January 1938 the New Air Raid Precautions Act came into force compelling local authorities to set up and train their ARP services. The ARP Act also dealt with the expanding the Police and the Fire Service. Volunteers were urgently required for the Auxiliary Fire Service (AFS) and the Police Reserves. In 1938 it was decided that gas masks would be issued to all who needed one, which was effectively everybody. The population of the British Isles at this time was 40 million people and the projected cost was £5.5 million (£320 million in today’s money). These masks were to be issued, fitted and checked by the men and women of the ARP.Wardens were recruited locally so that would have a good general knowledge of the people in their area and the street layout including important services, companies and other facilities. It was also hoped that by being local it would help keep people calm, in the event of crisis, to see a familiar face. Oxfordshire and Bicester were no exception to these preparations. The Duties of the ARP Warden were: Patrolling the streets during a blackout to ensure no light was visible. (Persistent offenders could be reported to the local police) Dousing incendiary bombs during an air raid. Helping bombed out householders. Trained in basic fire-fighting and first aid the ARP were often the first on the scene until official rescue services arrived. Everybody had their part to play and many people that were too old to serve in the regular forces or were employed in a reserved occupation stood up to play their part as wardens. During the war there were 1.4 million ARP wardens in Britain, most of whom were unpaid and working three nights a week whilst still holding down their normal employment. Many wardens were decorated for their bravery including Thomas Alderson from Bridlington who was the first person to be awarded the George Cross. During the war the ARP suffered 3,808 casualties; 1,355 of them being killed. The Oxfordshire Home Guard Living History Group pay tribute to these brave men and women and strive to keep their memory alive. (The Oxfordshire Home Guard thank Peter Chivers formerly of the Bicester Local History Society for many of the facts depicted in this page) Bicester and ARP With a number of local Royal Air Force Stations within the Bicester area, Air Raid Precautions had to be established to protect those areas that could be subject to air attack and the possible consequences to the local community. There were also detailed plans to deal with the likely influx of evacuees from more vulnerable areas such as London. The first evacuees arrived in Bicester from London on the 1st September 1939 and during the course of the entire war the number of children that fled to this undoubtedly safer location totalled in excess of 4,000. Air Raid Shelters were constructed at private houses and in public places such as Market Square or at Local schools. The ARP established it’s Headquarters at Claremont House in London Road and Fire Watchers undertook their watch from the roof of the Headquarters building and witnessed the distant glow of bombing raids on London and Coventry in 1940. Local residents living in the town at the time still recall the vivid memory of the drone of enemy bombers flying towards Coventry on 14th November 1940. Although few bombs fell on the area Weston-on-the-Green airfield became the most heavily bombed location in Oxfordshire as a number of German aircraft dropped their deadly cargo on the airfield when returning from raids on other targets. Bicester airfield was attacked by an enemy aircraft on the 13th October 1940. Anti-aircraft defences damaged the attacking aircraft which eventually crashed south of the county. Selection of WWII Gas Masks (Respirators), Rations and Fire Fighting Equipment Oxfordshire Home Guard Women's Land Army	<urn:uuid:b3057da0-86fe-456a-945e-97d684626ac8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.oxfordshirehomeguard.uk/home-front.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00056.warc.gz	en	0.983149	1,011	3.34375	3	[ -0.16335955262184143, 0.15143360197544098, 0.1624428927898407, -0.259353369474411, 0.42843198776245117, 0.16145460307598114, 0.08358626812696457, -0.21423710882663727, -0.4348108172416687, -0.05667569860816002, -0.026432884857058525, -0.2556299567222595, -0.11409684270620346, 0.65890979766...	1	Press to read Ron's story & Home Front Living History Group (Incorporating the A.T.S.) Air Raid Precautions Great Britain's Home Front During World War 2 there were several different groups that comprised the Home Front. One such group was the Air Raid Precautions or ARP as it became known. In reality the government had been involved in the provision of Air Raid Precautions since the end of World War 1 in 1918. Even during WW1 the country had been attacked by huge Zeppelin Air Balloons and it was earnestly believed that in the event of another world conflict and with the massive advances in aircraft production, that the British Isles would be particularly vulnerable to gas attacks during bombing raids. These fears were not alleviated by the obvious threat and rising power of Adolf Hitler in Germany during the 1930’s. Many things needed to be considered, Should shelters be constructed? Should vulnerable citizens be evacuated? Should gas masks be issued? What lighting restrictions should be imposed? In January 1938 the New Air Raid Precautions Act came into force compelling local authorities to set up and train their ARP services. The ARP Act also dealt with the expanding the Police and the Fire Service. Volunteers were urgently required for the Auxiliary Fire Service (AFS) and the Police Reserves. In 1938 it was decided that gas masks would be issued to all who needed one, which was effectively everybody. The population of the British Isles at this time was 40 million people and the projected cost was £5.5 million (£320 million in today’s money). These masks were to be issued, fitted and checked by the men and women of the ARP.Wardens were recruited locally so that would have a good general knowledge of the people in their area and the street layout including important services, companies and other facilities. It was also hoped that by being local it would help keep people calm, in the event of crisis, to see a familiar face. Oxfordshire and Bicester were no exception to these preparations. The Duties of the ARP Warden were: Patrolling the streets during a blackout to ensure no light was visible. (Persistent offenders could be reported to the local police) Dousing incendiary bombs during an air raid. Helping bombed out householders. Trained in basic fire-fighting and first aid the ARP were often the first on the scene until official rescue services arrived. Everybody had their part to play and many people that were too old to serve in the regular forces or were employed in a reserved occupation stood up to play their part as wardens. During the war there were 1.4 million ARP wardens in Britain, most of whom were unpaid and working three nights a week whilst still holding down their normal employment. Many wardens were decorated for their bravery including Thomas Alderson from Bridlington who was the first person to be awarded the George Cross. During the war the ARP suffered 3,808 casualties; 1,355 of them being killed. The Oxfordshire Home Guard Living History Group pay tribute to these brave men and women and strive to keep their memory alive. (The Oxfordshire Home Guard thank Peter Chivers formerly of the Bicester Local History Society for many of the facts depicted in this page) Bicester and ARP With a number of local Royal Air Force Stations within the Bicester area, Air Raid Precautions had to be established to protect those areas that could be subject to air attack and the possible consequences to the local community. There were also detailed plans to deal with the likely influx of evacuees from more vulnerable areas such as London. The first evacuees arrived in Bicester from London on the 1st September 1939 and during the course of the entire war the number of children that fled to this undoubtedly safer location totalled in excess of 4,000. Air Raid Shelters were constructed at private houses and in public places such as Market Square or at Local schools. The ARP established it’s Headquarters at Claremont House in London Road and Fire Watchers undertook their watch from the roof of the Headquarters building and witnessed the distant glow of bombing raids on London and Coventry in 1940. Local residents living in the town at the time still recall the vivid memory of the drone of enemy bombers flying towards Coventry on 14th November 1940. Although few bombs fell on the area Weston-on-the-Green airfield became the most heavily bombed location in Oxfordshire as a number of German aircraft dropped their deadly cargo on the airfield when returning from raids on other targets. Bicester airfield was attacked by an enemy aircraft on the 13th October 1940. Anti-aircraft defences damaged the attacking aircraft which eventually crashed south of the county. Selection of WWII Gas Masks (Respirators), Rations and Fire Fighting Equipment Oxfordshire Home Guard Women's Land Army	1,024	ENGLISH	1
JAMES WILSON (1742-1798) James Wilson, although he was not famous, was a very important member of society. He was the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a member of the Continental Congress, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and the first professor of law at Philadelphia College. He Was born in Scotland and came to New York during the time of the Stamp Act James Wilson was an early supporter of the American Revolution and gained much notoriety with the publication of his “Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament.” He became very conservative in his later years and was the target of public indignation. He was born in Scotland, came to New York during the time of the Stamp Act (1765), and eventually studied law under John Dickinson in Pennsylvania. He eventually became the first professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania in 1791. It was said of James Wilson that “when Wilson speaks, he wastes no time and considers no man s feelings.” His Politics: He emerged as a political leader after the American Revolutionary War, and as a member of the Congress of the Confederation (1783; 1785-1786) under the Articles of Confederation, was strongly in favor of an amendment to give the government the power to tax. He was a strong supporter of a republican form of government in which the people choose the representatives in government, and was in favor of the “power” of the people during a time period when many of the political visionaries did not believe in democracy. The democracy that we know today did not really take shape until the 1820 s with the advent of Andrew Jackson. Wilson felt that people and their individual rights took priority over those of property rights, and was opposed to slavery. He also believed in the concept of “federalism” in which there was a division of power between the states and national government. However, the final authority ultimately went to the central government. At the Constitutional Convention he was a leader of the many floor debates and a member of the committee chosen to draft the Constitution. He then led the fight for ratification in Pennsylvania, which became the second state to approve the new Constitution. What He Said: “The government ought to possess not only first the force but secondly the mind or sense of the people at large. The legislature ought to be the most exact transcript of the whole society.” “Why should a national government be unpopular? Will a citizen of Delaware be degraded by becoming a citizen of the United States?” “Federal liberty is to states what civil liberty is to individuals … I do not see the danger of the states being devoured by the national government.” On the contrary, I wish to keep them from devouring the national government.” Image: National Portrait Gallery, Wilson was born in 1741 or 1742 at Carskerdo, near St. Andrews, Scotland, and educated at the universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh. He then emigrated to America, arriving in the midst of the Stamp Act agitations in 1765. Early the next year, he accepted a position as Latin tutor at the College of Philadelphia (later part of the University of Pennsylvania) but almost immediately abandoned it to study law under John Dickinson. In 1768, the year after his admission to the Philadelphia bar, Wilson set up practice at Reading, Pa. Two years later, he moved westward to the Scotch-Irish settlement of Carlisle, and the following year he took a bride, Rachel Bird. He specialized in land law and built up a broad clientele. On borrowed capital, he also began to speculate in land. In some way he managed, too, to lecture on English literature at the College of Philadelphia, which had awarded him an honorary master of arts degree in 1766. Wilson became involved in Revolutionary politics. In 1774 he took over chairmanship of the Carlisle committee of correspondence, attended the first provincial assembly, and completed preparation of Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament. This tract circulated widely in England and America and established him as a Whig leader. The next year, Wilson was elected to both the provincial assembly and the Continental Congress, where he sat mainly on military and Indian affairs committees. In 1776, reflecting the wishes of his constituents, he joined the moderates in Congress voting for a 3-week delay in considering Richard Henry Lee’s resolution of June 7 for independence. On the July 1 and 2 ballots on the issue, however, he voted in the affirmative and signed the Declaration of Independence on August 2. Wilson’s strenuous opposition to the republican Pennsylvania constitution of 1776, besides indicating a switch to conservatism on his part, led to his removal from Congress the following year. To avoid the clamor among his frontier constituents, he repaired to Annapolis during the winter of 1777-78 and then took up residence in Philadelphia. Wilson affirmed his newly assumed political stance by closely identifying with the aristocratic and conservative republican groups, multiplying his business interests, and accelerating his land speculation. He also took a position as Advocate General for France in America (1779-83), dealing with commercial and maritime matters, and legally defended Loyalists and their sympathizers. In the fall of 1779, during a period of inflation and food shortages, a mob which included many militiamen and was led by radical constitutionalists, set out to attack the republican leadership. Wilson was a prime target. He and some 35 of his colleagues barricaded themselves in his home at Third and Walnut Streets, thereafter known as “Fort Wilson.” During a brief skirmish, several people on both sides were killed or wounded. The shock cooled sentiments and pardons were issued all around, though major political battles over the commonwealth constitution still lay ahead. During 1781 Congress appointed Wilson as one of the directors of the Bank of North America, newly founded by his close associate and legal client Robert Morris. In 1782, by which time the conservatives had regained some of their power, the former was reelected to Congress, and he also served in the period 1785-87. Wilson reached the apex of his career in the Constitutional Convention (1787), where his influence was probably second only to that of Madison. Rarely missing a session, he sat on the Committee of Detail and in many other ways applied his excellent knowledge of political theory to convention problems. Only Gouverneur Morris delivered more speeches. That same year, overcoming powerful opposition, Wilson led the drive for ratification in Pennsylvania, the second state to endorse the instrument. The new commonwealth constitution, drafted in 1789-90 along the lines of the U.S. Constitution, was primarily Wilson’s work and represented the climax of his 14-year fight against the constitution of 1776. For his services in the formation of the federal government, though Wilson expected to be appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in 1789 President Washington named him as an associate justice. He was chosen that same year as the first law professor at the College of Philadelphia. Two years later he began an official digest of the laws of Pennsylvania, a project he never completed, though he carried on for a while after funds ran out. Wilson, who wrote only a few opinions, did not achieve the success on the Supreme Court that his capabilities and experience promised. Indeed, during those years he was the object of much criticism and barely escaped impeachment. For one thing, he tried to influence the enactment of legislation in Pennsylvania favorable to land speculators. Between 1792 and 1795 he also made huge but unwise land investments in western New York and Pennsylvania, as well as in Georgia. This did not stop him from conceiving a grandiose but ill-fated scheme, involving vast sums of European capital, for the recruitment of European colonists and their settlement in the West. Meantime, in 1793, as a widower with six children, he remarried to Hannah Gray; their one son died in infancy. Four years later, to avoid arrest for debt, the distraught Wilson moved from Philadelphia to Burlington, NJ. The next year, apparently while on federal circuit court business, he arrived at Edenton, NC, in a state of acute mental stress and was taken into the home of James Iredell, a fellow Supreme Court justice. He died there within a few months. Although first buried at Hayes Plantation near Edenton, his remains were later reinterred in the yard of Christ Church at Philadelphia. Wilson, James (1742-1798), American revolutionary patriot and jurist, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He was born near Saint Andrews, Scotland, and educated at the universities of Saint Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh. In 1765 he went to America. Settling in Philadelphia in 1766, he studied law and was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar the following year. In 1774 he published Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament, a pamphlet in which he maintained that Parliament was not legally empowered to make laws for the American colonies. The pamphlet greatly impressed the members of the Continental Congress, to which he was elected in 1775. Wilson served in Congress until 1777, again in 1782-1783, and from 1785 until 1787. As a member of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was a leading advocate of the principle, fundamental to democratic government, that sovereignty resides with the people. In 1788 he was influential in securing ratification of the Constitution by Pennsylvania. He later helped draft the Pennsylvania Constitution. In 1790 he became the first professor of law at the College of Philadelphia, now the University of Pennsylvania. Appointed in 1789 an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, he served in that capacity until his death. Scottish-born James Wilson was renowned for his legal and political knowledge. When he served as a delegate in the Constitutional Convention, a fellow delegate characterized him by saying: “Government seems to have been his peculiar study, all the political institutions of the world he knows in detail, and can trace the causes and effects of every revolution from the earliest stages of the Grecian commonwealth down to the present time.” Throughout his career, Wilson was a staunch supporter of a strong national government based on a full representation of the American people. His conviction of the need for a national government that would command respect inspired his motion to mend the problem of poor representation that plagued Congress.	<urn:uuid:991c610c-9cf1-490a-a54e-f00ac7a61cdb>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://essay.ua-referat.com/James_Wilson_2	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00494.warc.gz	en	0.982191	2,181	3.78125	4	[ -0.3868843913078308, -0.038051147013902664, 0.2570631504058838, -0.2492518126964569, 0.11651865392923355, 0.19017238914966583, 0.44224750995635986, -0.09784016013145447, -0.13173511624336243, 0.3030381500720978, -0.1997935175895691, 0.6118671894073486, 0.30057016015052795, 0.33867612481117...	2	JAMES WILSON (1742-1798) James Wilson, although he was not famous, was a very important member of society. He was the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a member of the Continental Congress, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and the first professor of law at Philadelphia College. He Was born in Scotland and came to New York during the time of the Stamp Act James Wilson was an early supporter of the American Revolution and gained much notoriety with the publication of his “Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament.” He became very conservative in his later years and was the target of public indignation. He was born in Scotland, came to New York during the time of the Stamp Act (1765), and eventually studied law under John Dickinson in Pennsylvania. He eventually became the first professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania in 1791. It was said of James Wilson that “when Wilson speaks, he wastes no time and considers no man s feelings.” His Politics: He emerged as a political leader after the American Revolutionary War, and as a member of the Congress of the Confederation (1783; 1785-1786) under the Articles of Confederation, was strongly in favor of an amendment to give the government the power to tax. He was a strong supporter of a republican form of government in which the people choose the representatives in government, and was in favor of the “power” of the people during a time period when many of the political visionaries did not believe in democracy. The democracy that we know today did not really take shape until the 1820 s with the advent of Andrew Jackson. Wilson felt that people and their individual rights took priority over those of property rights, and was opposed to slavery. He also believed in the concept of “federalism” in which there was a division of power between the states and national government. However, the final authority ultimately went to the central government. At the Constitutional Convention he was a leader of the many floor debates and a member of the committee chosen to draft the Constitution. He then led the fight for ratification in Pennsylvania, which became the second state to approve the new Constitution. What He Said: “The government ought to possess not only first the force but secondly the mind or sense of the people at large. The legislature ought to be the most exact transcript of the whole society.” “Why should a national government be unpopular? Will a citizen of Delaware be degraded by becoming a citizen of the United States?” “Federal liberty is to states what civil liberty is to individuals … I do not see the danger of the states being devoured by the national government.” On the contrary, I wish to keep them from devouring the national government.” Image: National Portrait Gallery, Wilson was born in 1741 or 1742 at Carskerdo, near St. Andrews, Scotland, and educated at the universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh. He then emigrated to America, arriving in the midst of the Stamp Act agitations in 1765. Early the next year, he accepted a position as Latin tutor at the College of Philadelphia (later part of the University of Pennsylvania) but almost immediately abandoned it to study law under John Dickinson. In 1768, the year after his admission to the Philadelphia bar, Wilson set up practice at Reading, Pa. Two years later, he moved westward to the Scotch-Irish settlement of Carlisle, and the following year he took a bride, Rachel Bird. He specialized in land law and built up a broad clientele. On borrowed capital, he also began to speculate in land. In some way he managed, too, to lecture on English literature at the College of Philadelphia, which had awarded him an honorary master of arts degree in 1766. Wilson became involved in Revolutionary politics. In 1774 he took over chairmanship of the Carlisle committee of correspondence, attended the first provincial assembly, and completed preparation of Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament. This tract circulated widely in England and America and established him as a Whig leader. The next year, Wilson was elected to both the provincial assembly and the Continental Congress, where he sat mainly on military and Indian affairs committees. In 1776, reflecting the wishes of his constituents, he joined the moderates in Congress voting for a 3-week delay in considering Richard Henry Lee’s resolution of June 7 for independence. On the July 1 and 2 ballots on the issue, however, he voted in the affirmative and signed the Declaration of Independence on August 2. Wilson’s strenuous opposition to the republican Pennsylvania constitution of 1776, besides indicating a switch to conservatism on his part, led to his removal from Congress the following year. To avoid the clamor among his frontier constituents, he repaired to Annapolis during the winter of 1777-78 and then took up residence in Philadelphia. Wilson affirmed his newly assumed political stance by closely identifying with the aristocratic and conservative republican groups, multiplying his business interests, and accelerating his land speculation. He also took a position as Advocate General for France in America (1779-83), dealing with commercial and maritime matters, and legally defended Loyalists and their sympathizers. In the fall of 1779, during a period of inflation and food shortages, a mob which included many militiamen and was led by radical constitutionalists, set out to attack the republican leadership. Wilson was a prime target. He and some 35 of his colleagues barricaded themselves in his home at Third and Walnut Streets, thereafter known as “Fort Wilson.” During a brief skirmish, several people on both sides were killed or wounded. The shock cooled sentiments and pardons were issued all around, though major political battles over the commonwealth constitution still lay ahead. During 1781 Congress appointed Wilson as one of the directors of the Bank of North America, newly founded by his close associate and legal client Robert Morris. In 1782, by which time the conservatives had regained some of their power, the former was reelected to Congress, and he also served in the period 1785-87. Wilson reached the apex of his career in the Constitutional Convention (1787), where his influence was probably second only to that of Madison. Rarely missing a session, he sat on the Committee of Detail and in many other ways applied his excellent knowledge of political theory to convention problems. Only Gouverneur Morris delivered more speeches. That same year, overcoming powerful opposition, Wilson led the drive for ratification in Pennsylvania, the second state to endorse the instrument. The new commonwealth constitution, drafted in 1789-90 along the lines of the U.S. Constitution, was primarily Wilson’s work and represented the climax of his 14-year fight against the constitution of 1776. For his services in the formation of the federal government, though Wilson expected to be appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in 1789 President Washington named him as an associate justice. He was chosen that same year as the first law professor at the College of Philadelphia. Two years later he began an official digest of the laws of Pennsylvania, a project he never completed, though he carried on for a while after funds ran out. Wilson, who wrote only a few opinions, did not achieve the success on the Supreme Court that his capabilities and experience promised. Indeed, during those years he was the object of much criticism and barely escaped impeachment. For one thing, he tried to influence the enactment of legislation in Pennsylvania favorable to land speculators. Between 1792 and 1795 he also made huge but unwise land investments in western New York and Pennsylvania, as well as in Georgia. This did not stop him from conceiving a grandiose but ill-fated scheme, involving vast sums of European capital, for the recruitment of European colonists and their settlement in the West. Meantime, in 1793, as a widower with six children, he remarried to Hannah Gray; their one son died in infancy. Four years later, to avoid arrest for debt, the distraught Wilson moved from Philadelphia to Burlington, NJ. The next year, apparently while on federal circuit court business, he arrived at Edenton, NC, in a state of acute mental stress and was taken into the home of James Iredell, a fellow Supreme Court justice. He died there within a few months. Although first buried at Hayes Plantation near Edenton, his remains were later reinterred in the yard of Christ Church at Philadelphia. Wilson, James (1742-1798), American revolutionary patriot and jurist, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He was born near Saint Andrews, Scotland, and educated at the universities of Saint Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh. In 1765 he went to America. Settling in Philadelphia in 1766, he studied law and was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar the following year. In 1774 he published Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament, a pamphlet in which he maintained that Parliament was not legally empowered to make laws for the American colonies. The pamphlet greatly impressed the members of the Continental Congress, to which he was elected in 1775. Wilson served in Congress until 1777, again in 1782-1783, and from 1785 until 1787. As a member of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was a leading advocate of the principle, fundamental to democratic government, that sovereignty resides with the people. In 1788 he was influential in securing ratification of the Constitution by Pennsylvania. He later helped draft the Pennsylvania Constitution. In 1790 he became the first professor of law at the College of Philadelphia, now the University of Pennsylvania. Appointed in 1789 an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, he served in that capacity until his death. Scottish-born James Wilson was renowned for his legal and political knowledge. When he served as a delegate in the Constitutional Convention, a fellow delegate characterized him by saying: “Government seems to have been his peculiar study, all the political institutions of the world he knows in detail, and can trace the causes and effects of every revolution from the earliest stages of the Grecian commonwealth down to the present time.” Throughout his career, Wilson was a staunch supporter of a strong national government based on a full representation of the American people. His conviction of the need for a national government that would command respect inspired his motion to mend the problem of poor representation that plagued Congress.	2,268	ENGLISH	1
January 31, 2020 For educational institutions Criar uma cópia Incorporar ao site Scientific Revolution Timeline. ⟶ Atualizado 2 meses atrás ⟶ List of edits Nicolaus Copernicus was born February 19, 1473 in Torun, Poland and died on May 24, 1543 in Frombork, Poland. Copernicus made the idea that the sun is at the center of the universe instead of the Earth. He also came up with the idea of the heliocentric model with planets and other structures revolve around the sun. Johannes Kepler was born on December 27, 1571 in Weil der Stadt, Germany and died on Novemeber 15, 1630 in Regensburg, Germany. Kepler was known for discovering the concept of planetary motion. He also setup a template for the future Issac Newton with Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion. Francis Bacon was born on January 22, 1561 in York House, Strand and died on April 9, 1626 in Highgate London, United Kingdom. Francis is known for his promotion of the use of the Scientific Method. He also believed that reason with science is the only explanation for things that occur on this planet. Isaac Newton was born of January 4, 1643 in Woolsthorpe Manor House, UK and died on March 31, 1727 in Kensington. Isaac was known mostly for his studies and his naming of this force called gravity. He is also known for discovering calculus which opened the door for solving more scientific methods and equations. Galileo Galilei was born on February 15, 1564 in the city of Pisa, Italy and died on January 8, 1642 in Arcetri, Italy. Galileo is known for being called the father of many types of scientific classes. He is known as the father of astronomy, modern science, physics, and the scientific method. He is also known for adding more to the scientific method with some of his studies about our moon, the sun, and that the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun. David Hume, Born May 7, 1711 in Edinburgh, United Kingdom and died on August 25, 1776 in Edinburgh, United Kingdom. The things David Hume was known for was known for being extremely skeptical of the Church and for directly influencing the Founding Fathers with scientific methods. Rene Descartes was born on March 31, 1596 in Descartes, France and died on February 11, 1650 in Stockholm, Sweden. Descartes was well known as being the first modern philosopher. He was also known for using algebra and geometry to create new equations and solutions in mathematics. Tycho Brahe was born on December 14, 1546 in Knutstrorp Castle, Sweden and died on October 24, 1601 in Prague, Czechia. Tycho was well known for his discovery of irregularities in the moon's orbit around earth. He also discovered a new star within the Cassiopeia formation. William Harvey was born on April 1, 1578 in Folkestone, United Kingdom and died on June 3, 1657 in Roehampton, London, United Kingdom. William was well known for making many contributions to the study of anatomy and physiology. He was more well known for being the first person to correctly show and describe the circulation of blood within the human body. Anne Conway was born on December 14, 1631 in London, United Kingdom and died on February 23, 1679 in Ragley Hall, Park & Gardens, United Kingdom. She is most well known for making a book on her studies on her philosophies. She also made many contributions to the study of platonism metaphysics. Maria Sibylla Merian was born on April 2, 1647 in a part of the Holy Roman Empire and died on January 13, 1717 in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Maria was known for studying insects and plants. She also made diagrams for the many life-cycles of 186 insect species. About & Feedback	<urn:uuid:f02ef939-2155-4bfd-b187-e632b7587602>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://time.graphics/pt/line/322138	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00262.warc.gz	en	0.986499	843	3.328125	3	[ 0.032627739012241364, 0.35697266459465027, 0.14197716116905212, -0.33482399582862854, -0.23080085217952728, -0.1507745236158371, -0.05109521746635437, 0.3554255962371826, 0.1822863519191742, 0.14674875140190125, 0.14515680074691772, -0.737280011177063, -0.25242114067077637, 0.3184423744678...	1	January 31, 2020 For educational institutions Criar uma cópia Incorporar ao site Scientific Revolution Timeline. ⟶ Atualizado 2 meses atrás ⟶ List of edits Nicolaus Copernicus was born February 19, 1473 in Torun, Poland and died on May 24, 1543 in Frombork, Poland. Copernicus made the idea that the sun is at the center of the universe instead of the Earth. He also came up with the idea of the heliocentric model with planets and other structures revolve around the sun. Johannes Kepler was born on December 27, 1571 in Weil der Stadt, Germany and died on Novemeber 15, 1630 in Regensburg, Germany. Kepler was known for discovering the concept of planetary motion. He also setup a template for the future Issac Newton with Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion. Francis Bacon was born on January 22, 1561 in York House, Strand and died on April 9, 1626 in Highgate London, United Kingdom. Francis is known for his promotion of the use of the Scientific Method. He also believed that reason with science is the only explanation for things that occur on this planet. Isaac Newton was born of January 4, 1643 in Woolsthorpe Manor House, UK and died on March 31, 1727 in Kensington. Isaac was known mostly for his studies and his naming of this force called gravity. He is also known for discovering calculus which opened the door for solving more scientific methods and equations. Galileo Galilei was born on February 15, 1564 in the city of Pisa, Italy and died on January 8, 1642 in Arcetri, Italy. Galileo is known for being called the father of many types of scientific classes. He is known as the father of astronomy, modern science, physics, and the scientific method. He is also known for adding more to the scientific method with some of his studies about our moon, the sun, and that the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun. David Hume, Born May 7, 1711 in Edinburgh, United Kingdom and died on August 25, 1776 in Edinburgh, United Kingdom. The things David Hume was known for was known for being extremely skeptical of the Church and for directly influencing the Founding Fathers with scientific methods. Rene Descartes was born on March 31, 1596 in Descartes, France and died on February 11, 1650 in Stockholm, Sweden. Descartes was well known as being the first modern philosopher. He was also known for using algebra and geometry to create new equations and solutions in mathematics. Tycho Brahe was born on December 14, 1546 in Knutstrorp Castle, Sweden and died on October 24, 1601 in Prague, Czechia. Tycho was well known for his discovery of irregularities in the moon's orbit around earth. He also discovered a new star within the Cassiopeia formation. William Harvey was born on April 1, 1578 in Folkestone, United Kingdom and died on June 3, 1657 in Roehampton, London, United Kingdom. William was well known for making many contributions to the study of anatomy and physiology. He was more well known for being the first person to correctly show and describe the circulation of blood within the human body. Anne Conway was born on December 14, 1631 in London, United Kingdom and died on February 23, 1679 in Ragley Hall, Park & Gardens, United Kingdom. She is most well known for making a book on her studies on her philosophies. She also made many contributions to the study of platonism metaphysics. Maria Sibylla Merian was born on April 2, 1647 in a part of the Holy Roman Empire and died on January 13, 1717 in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Maria was known for studying insects and plants. She also made diagrams for the many life-cycles of 186 insect species. About & Feedback	931	ENGLISH	1
During the winter of 1790 in the days of Spanish rule, a small flotilla of flatboats with 100 settlers from Pennsylvania on board arrived in Natchez. Leading the American party was Ezekial Forman, who had enlisted the assistance of his nephew, Samuel Forman of New Jersey, on the journey down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. Ezekial planned to farm, intending to raise tobacco as his main cash crop. Before the bottom fell out of the market, tobacco was the number one crop in Natchez. Nephew Samuel Forman was 24 and had grown up during the Revolutionary War where as a child he watched American and British troops battle. He also witnessed some of the defining moments of the founding of the country. The Forman family also was well connected and respected. Samuel would spend only a year in Natchez, just long enough to help his uncle settle and to make many friends. Ezekial Forman, who everybody called "Uncle Forman,” brought his family, friends and 60-plus slaves to Natchez. Samuel described his uncle as "a fine-looking man, very neat, prepossessing, and of genteel deportment, so that he was always much noticed." The story of their journey to Natchez and life in the region is told in Samuel's memoir, "Narrative of a Journey Down the Ohio and Mississippi in 1789-90," published in 1888. The Forman party left Pennsylvania in five wagons -- one pulled by two horses and each of the others pulled by a four-horse team. They crossed the Allegheny Mountains and reached the Ohio River at Pittsburgh. Flatboats were built and outfitted for the journey. Samuel described all as "floating houses" and said the largest boat was a 70-ft. "keelboat, decked over, with a cabin for lodging purposes, but too low to stand erect." All possessions, including Uncle Forman's "handsome coach horses and carriage" were packed onboard. "The bed and bedding lay on the floor, and the insides lined with plank to prevent the Indians from penetrating through with their balls, should they attack us. We had a large quantity of dry goods, and a few were opened and bartered in payment for boats and provisions." Along the way, the party had to contend with swift currents, sawyers and snags, river bandits and adverse weather conditions. In Louisville, Kentucky, Samuel acquired a six-week-old bear cub that he intended to raise as a pet. Few travelers made the river journey without losing comrades along the way. Helping Samuel navigate one of the flatboats down river were three men, one an "old sailor." The men followed the current "except when passing islands, when men must all beat their oars. I believe the old sailor, while on board, was a little deranged. After I discharged him at Natchez, he was found, I was told, in the woods dead." After weeks and more than a 1,000-mile journey, Natchez country was finally in view. At Bayou Pierre in present day Claiborne County, the travelers found a small settlement known as Bruinsburg where around that time future president Andrew Jackson, then a young man in his 20s, was operating a small store and courting the love of his life, Rachel Donelson. "At Bayou Pierre," wrote Samuel, "lived Colonel (Peter Bryan) Bruin, of the Virginia Continental line, who, after the war, took letters from General Washington to the governor of that country while it belonged to Spain, and secured a fine land grant. I once visited Colonel Bruin ... That section of country is remarkably handsome, and the soil rich. The colonel's dwelling-house was on the top of a large mound, and his barn on another, near by." Bruin went on to become the first judge to take office after Natchez became American in 1798. Lake Bruin in Tensas Parish, across the Mississippi from Bruin's old home along Bayou Pierre, is named after the judge. A day after landing at Bayou Pierre, the Forman party reached Natchez landing. Wrote Samuel: "When out little fleet of five boats first came in sight of the village of Natchez, it presented quite a formidable appearance, and caused a little alarm at the fort; the drum beat to arms, but the affright soon subsided... "Natchez was then a small place, with houses generally of a mean structure, built mostly on the low bank of the river, and on the hillside. The fort was a handsome, commanding spot, on the elevated ground, from which was a most extensive view up the river, and over the surrounding country. The governor's house was not far from the garrison." ST. CATHERINE HOME Uncle Forman at the outset rented "a large house, about half-way up the hill from the landing, where he lived until he bought a plantation of five hundred acres on the bank of St. Catherine's creek, about four miles from Natchez," according to Samuel. "This he regarded as a temporary abode, until he could become better acquainted with the country. "The place had a small clearing and a log house on it, and he put up another log house to correspond with it, about fourteen feet apart, connecting them all with boards, with a piazza in front of the whole. The usual term applied to such a structure was that it was 'two pens and a passage.' This connecting passage made a fine hall, and altogether gave it a good and comfortable appearance... "Boards were scarce, and I do not remember seeing any saws or grist-mills in the country. Uncle Forman had a horse-mill, something like a cider-mill, to grind corn for the family use. In range with his dwelling he built a number of negro houses, some distance off, on the bank of St. Catherine's creek." Not long after arriving a number of new settlers in Natchez fell ill. Samuel said 1790 "was a very sickly one for unacclimated persons in the Natchez country. All our family adults had more or less fever, and fever and ague. Uncle Forman was severely affected with gout -- a lump almost as big as a small hen's egg swelled out at one of his elbows, with something of the appearance of chalk. Poor Betsey Church was taken with a fever, and died in a few days; a great loss to the family, having been a valuable and much respected member of it for many years. I was the only adult of the family who was not confined to the house with sickness." After about a year in Natchez, having completing his promise to Uncle Forman to help him make the trip down river and to set up his farmstead, Samuel prepared to head home to New Jersey. "When the time was fixed for my departure," he recalled, by the way of New Orleans, and thence by sea to Philadelphia, Uncle Forman said: 'Well, you must direct Moses, the coach-man, to get up the carriage, take two of your cousins with you, and take leave of all your good friends.' The carriage, which had its top broken off crossing the mountains in Pennsylvania, had been fitted up in Natchez, with neat banister work around the top of the body, which rendered it more convenient for the country. "We sometimes took the family in it, and went out strawberrying over the prairies. Cousins Augusta and Margaret accompanied me on my farewell tour. Ours was the first four-wheeled carriage that ever passed over those grounds — I can't say roads, for the highway was only what was called a bridle path — all traveling at that day was on horseback. "When we visited one place, some of our friends from another locality meeting us there would ascertain the day we designed visiting their house, that they might have the cane-brakes along the trail cleared away sufficient to permit the comfortable passage of the carriage; and we must, moreover, be on time, or some small gust of wind might again obstruct the passage. Our visits were all very pleasant save the unhappy part of the final bidding each other farewell." Samuel and his cousins were also invited to visit in the home of Col. Anthony Hutchins, who settled along Second Creek south of Natchez in the early 1770s. When they departed, "all came out of the house to see us off, and I asked the ladies in a jocose way to join us in the ride, when they began to climb over the wheels as though they might endanger the safety of the carriage; but this frolicsome banter over, we took our departure. We spent several days in performing this friendly round of visits — by-gone days of happiness never to return." Finally, by June 1791, the day to leave Natchez arrived. "The parting with my kindred," Samuel wrote, "was most trying and affecting, having traveled and hazarded our lives together for so many hundred miles, and never expecting to meet again in this life." Samuel's pet bear cub, however, didn't make the journey home with him. "When twelve or fifteen months old," wrote Samuel, "he (bear) became very saucy; I only could keep him in subjection. When he became too troublesome, Uncle Forman had him killed, and invited several gentlemen to join him in partaking of his bear dinner." Uncle Forman accompanied Samuel to New Orleans and the two "stopped the first night with Mr. Ellis, at the White Cliffs (a few miles below Natchez), and next day embarked on board of a boat for New Orleans. On our way down we sometimes went on shore and took a bowl of chocolate for breakfast with some rich planter, a very common custom of the country." In New Orleans, Uncle Forman and Samuel met Esteban Miro, the governor of the Spanish province of Louisiana. Two weeks later, Samuel boarded the brig Navarre, along with a number of Americans, and set sail for Philadelphia.	<urn:uuid:62e52ff8-057d-4c65-b8da-b175805fc2b3>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.hannapub.com/concordiasentinel/opinion/stanley-nelson-a-little-fleet-of-five-boats/article_da9c818c-324d-11ea-a17c-575130cfb6be.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594662.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119151736-20200119175736-00089.warc.gz	en	0.983985	2,129	3.390625	3	[ -0.29643696546554565, 0.20516029000282288, 0.2722092866897583, -0.44877439737319946, -0.3204498291015625, 0.11506351828575134, 0.196531742811203, 0.3866947889328003, -0.764270007610321, -0.059884827584028244, -0.11890839785337448, 0.3200778067111969, -0.01048230193555355, 0.146430373191833...	3	During the winter of 1790 in the days of Spanish rule, a small flotilla of flatboats with 100 settlers from Pennsylvania on board arrived in Natchez. Leading the American party was Ezekial Forman, who had enlisted the assistance of his nephew, Samuel Forman of New Jersey, on the journey down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. Ezekial planned to farm, intending to raise tobacco as his main cash crop. Before the bottom fell out of the market, tobacco was the number one crop in Natchez. Nephew Samuel Forman was 24 and had grown up during the Revolutionary War where as a child he watched American and British troops battle. He also witnessed some of the defining moments of the founding of the country. The Forman family also was well connected and respected. Samuel would spend only a year in Natchez, just long enough to help his uncle settle and to make many friends. Ezekial Forman, who everybody called "Uncle Forman,” brought his family, friends and 60-plus slaves to Natchez. Samuel described his uncle as "a fine-looking man, very neat, prepossessing, and of genteel deportment, so that he was always much noticed." The story of their journey to Natchez and life in the region is told in Samuel's memoir, "Narrative of a Journey Down the Ohio and Mississippi in 1789-90," published in 1888. The Forman party left Pennsylvania in five wagons -- one pulled by two horses and each of the others pulled by a four-horse team. They crossed the Allegheny Mountains and reached the Ohio River at Pittsburgh. Flatboats were built and outfitted for the journey. Samuel described all as "floating houses" and said the largest boat was a 70-ft. "keelboat, decked over, with a cabin for lodging purposes, but too low to stand erect." All possessions, including Uncle Forman's "handsome coach horses and carriage" were packed onboard. "The bed and bedding lay on the floor, and the insides lined with plank to prevent the Indians from penetrating through with their balls, should they attack us. We had a large quantity of dry goods, and a few were opened and bartered in payment for boats and provisions." Along the way, the party had to contend with swift currents, sawyers and snags, river bandits and adverse weather conditions. In Louisville, Kentucky, Samuel acquired a six-week-old bear cub that he intended to raise as a pet. Few travelers made the river journey without losing comrades along the way. Helping Samuel navigate one of the flatboats down river were three men, one an "old sailor." The men followed the current "except when passing islands, when men must all beat their oars. I believe the old sailor, while on board, was a little deranged. After I discharged him at Natchez, he was found, I was told, in the woods dead." After weeks and more than a 1,000-mile journey, Natchez country was finally in view. At Bayou Pierre in present day Claiborne County, the travelers found a small settlement known as Bruinsburg where around that time future president Andrew Jackson, then a young man in his 20s, was operating a small store and courting the love of his life, Rachel Donelson. "At Bayou Pierre," wrote Samuel, "lived Colonel (Peter Bryan) Bruin, of the Virginia Continental line, who, after the war, took letters from General Washington to the governor of that country while it belonged to Spain, and secured a fine land grant. I once visited Colonel Bruin ... That section of country is remarkably handsome, and the soil rich. The colonel's dwelling-house was on the top of a large mound, and his barn on another, near by." Bruin went on to become the first judge to take office after Natchez became American in 1798. Lake Bruin in Tensas Parish, across the Mississippi from Bruin's old home along Bayou Pierre, is named after the judge. A day after landing at Bayou Pierre, the Forman party reached Natchez landing. Wrote Samuel: "When out little fleet of five boats first came in sight of the village of Natchez, it presented quite a formidable appearance, and caused a little alarm at the fort; the drum beat to arms, but the affright soon subsided... "Natchez was then a small place, with houses generally of a mean structure, built mostly on the low bank of the river, and on the hillside. The fort was a handsome, commanding spot, on the elevated ground, from which was a most extensive view up the river, and over the surrounding country. The governor's house was not far from the garrison." ST. CATHERINE HOME Uncle Forman at the outset rented "a large house, about half-way up the hill from the landing, where he lived until he bought a plantation of five hundred acres on the bank of St. Catherine's creek, about four miles from Natchez," according to Samuel. "This he regarded as a temporary abode, until he could become better acquainted with the country. "The place had a small clearing and a log house on it, and he put up another log house to correspond with it, about fourteen feet apart, connecting them all with boards, with a piazza in front of the whole. The usual term applied to such a structure was that it was 'two pens and a passage.' This connecting passage made a fine hall, and altogether gave it a good and comfortable appearance... "Boards were scarce, and I do not remember seeing any saws or grist-mills in the country. Uncle Forman had a horse-mill, something like a cider-mill, to grind corn for the family use. In range with his dwelling he built a number of negro houses, some distance off, on the bank of St. Catherine's creek." Not long after arriving a number of new settlers in Natchez fell ill. Samuel said 1790 "was a very sickly one for unacclimated persons in the Natchez country. All our family adults had more or less fever, and fever and ague. Uncle Forman was severely affected with gout -- a lump almost as big as a small hen's egg swelled out at one of his elbows, with something of the appearance of chalk. Poor Betsey Church was taken with a fever, and died in a few days; a great loss to the family, having been a valuable and much respected member of it for many years. I was the only adult of the family who was not confined to the house with sickness." After about a year in Natchez, having completing his promise to Uncle Forman to help him make the trip down river and to set up his farmstead, Samuel prepared to head home to New Jersey. "When the time was fixed for my departure," he recalled, by the way of New Orleans, and thence by sea to Philadelphia, Uncle Forman said: 'Well, you must direct Moses, the coach-man, to get up the carriage, take two of your cousins with you, and take leave of all your good friends.' The carriage, which had its top broken off crossing the mountains in Pennsylvania, had been fitted up in Natchez, with neat banister work around the top of the body, which rendered it more convenient for the country. "We sometimes took the family in it, and went out strawberrying over the prairies. Cousins Augusta and Margaret accompanied me on my farewell tour. Ours was the first four-wheeled carriage that ever passed over those grounds — I can't say roads, for the highway was only what was called a bridle path — all traveling at that day was on horseback. "When we visited one place, some of our friends from another locality meeting us there would ascertain the day we designed visiting their house, that they might have the cane-brakes along the trail cleared away sufficient to permit the comfortable passage of the carriage; and we must, moreover, be on time, or some small gust of wind might again obstruct the passage. Our visits were all very pleasant save the unhappy part of the final bidding each other farewell." Samuel and his cousins were also invited to visit in the home of Col. Anthony Hutchins, who settled along Second Creek south of Natchez in the early 1770s. When they departed, "all came out of the house to see us off, and I asked the ladies in a jocose way to join us in the ride, when they began to climb over the wheels as though they might endanger the safety of the carriage; but this frolicsome banter over, we took our departure. We spent several days in performing this friendly round of visits — by-gone days of happiness never to return." Finally, by June 1791, the day to leave Natchez arrived. "The parting with my kindred," Samuel wrote, "was most trying and affecting, having traveled and hazarded our lives together for so many hundred miles, and never expecting to meet again in this life." Samuel's pet bear cub, however, didn't make the journey home with him. "When twelve or fifteen months old," wrote Samuel, "he (bear) became very saucy; I only could keep him in subjection. When he became too troublesome, Uncle Forman had him killed, and invited several gentlemen to join him in partaking of his bear dinner." Uncle Forman accompanied Samuel to New Orleans and the two "stopped the first night with Mr. Ellis, at the White Cliffs (a few miles below Natchez), and next day embarked on board of a boat for New Orleans. On our way down we sometimes went on shore and took a bowl of chocolate for breakfast with some rich planter, a very common custom of the country." In New Orleans, Uncle Forman and Samuel met Esteban Miro, the governor of the Spanish province of Louisiana. Two weeks later, Samuel boarded the brig Navarre, along with a number of Americans, and set sail for Philadelphia.	2,121	ENGLISH	1
In the story of Braveheart there is a nobleman by the name of Robert the Bruce. Robert is a good man, even though he does some things that are frowned upon by his people, this is what makes Robert a tragic hero. A tragic hero is well liked, but because of his flaws he has a tragic downfall and in the end, he redeems himself. In the story of Braveheart, Robert shows all the aspects of a tragic hero in his life, a high point, a tragic flaw, a tragic downfall and finally redemption. The first characteristic that makes Robert a tragic hero happens before his downfall when the story shows him as leader and a well-respected man. He is a nobleman, pushing for the crown of Scotland. Even the main character of the story, William Wallace, told Robert "If you would just led them, they would follow you." Wallace is asking Robert to lead the people of Scotland to freedom from the English. Robert also wants to be just like Wallace in that; he wants to have the respect of the people, he wants the people to love him, and he wants to lead them like William Wallace. In September 1297 an English army command by the Earl of Surrey was defeated by Wallace and Bruce at the Battle of Stirling Bridge (Bingham 1). This battle marked the first battle where Robert really showed the people his strength as a leader. This first battle gave Robert the respect and love of the Scottish people; it made him a national hero. The next characteristic that makes Robert the Bruce a tragic hero is his passion to be King of Scotland. This flaw has him put his desire for the crown, in front of the goodness of Scotland and it's people. Robert, in an attempt to gain the crown, sought reconciliation with King Edward I (Bingham 8). The reason why he does this is that he does not truly believe that the Scottish warriors can defeat the English so the only way he thinks he is going to get the crown is if he is on good terms with Edward, King of England.	<urn:uuid:d2c8634a-8226-40b5-953a-329df7ad6997>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/19025.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00409.warc.gz	en	0.986029	415	3.5	4	[ -0.4327346980571747, 0.24099841713905334, -0.4269063472747803, 0.27575919032096863, -0.315952867269516, -0.7369420528411865, 0.5319459438323975, 0.093846894800663, 0.09424646198749542, -0.09406621754169464, 0.11046946048736572, -0.316331684589386, 0.18946990370750427, -0.07912538945674896,...	3	In the story of Braveheart there is a nobleman by the name of Robert the Bruce. Robert is a good man, even though he does some things that are frowned upon by his people, this is what makes Robert a tragic hero. A tragic hero is well liked, but because of his flaws he has a tragic downfall and in the end, he redeems himself. In the story of Braveheart, Robert shows all the aspects of a tragic hero in his life, a high point, a tragic flaw, a tragic downfall and finally redemption. The first characteristic that makes Robert a tragic hero happens before his downfall when the story shows him as leader and a well-respected man. He is a nobleman, pushing for the crown of Scotland. Even the main character of the story, William Wallace, told Robert "If you would just led them, they would follow you." Wallace is asking Robert to lead the people of Scotland to freedom from the English. Robert also wants to be just like Wallace in that; he wants to have the respect of the people, he wants the people to love him, and he wants to lead them like William Wallace. In September 1297 an English army command by the Earl of Surrey was defeated by Wallace and Bruce at the Battle of Stirling Bridge (Bingham 1). This battle marked the first battle where Robert really showed the people his strength as a leader. This first battle gave Robert the respect and love of the Scottish people; it made him a national hero. The next characteristic that makes Robert the Bruce a tragic hero is his passion to be King of Scotland. This flaw has him put his desire for the crown, in front of the goodness of Scotland and it's people. Robert, in an attempt to gain the crown, sought reconciliation with King Edward I (Bingham 8). The reason why he does this is that he does not truly believe that the Scottish warriors can defeat the English so the only way he thinks he is going to get the crown is if he is on good terms with Edward, King of England.	418	ENGLISH	1
George Washington was the commanding general and commander-in-chief of the colonial armies during the American Revolution. After the successful revolution to gain its freedom from Britain, George Washington would become the first President of the United States. He would serve in that capacity from 1789 to 1797. Washington’s Early Life George Washington was born on February 22, 1732, in Westmoreland County, Virginia. It was not until I started doing the research for this paper that I found there is actually very little known about Washington’s childhood. Due to that fact biographers had to fill in the gaps that existed. Among the fables my favorites are Washington skipped a silver dollar across the Potomac River, and after chopping down his father's prize cherry tree, he openly confessed to his misdeed after all he shall not tell a lie (Washington, 2013). From some of the writings from that era, it is known that Washington was home schooled. Later on he studied under a schoolmaster in math, geography, Latin and the English Literature. However it was the knowledge he obtained from backwoodsman, and the plantation foreman made him a master at growing tobacco, stock raising and surveying land by the time he was a teenager (Washington, 2013). George Washington’s military career began on October 31, 1753. The Lieutenant Governor of Virginia Robert Dinwiddie sent Washington to Fort LeBoeuf, to tell the French to remove themselves from land claimed by Britain. The French politely refused and Washington made a hasty ride back to Williamsburg, Virginia the Capitol of the Virginia Colony. Dinwiddie sent Washington back with troops and they set up a post at Great Meadows. Washington's small force attacked a French post at Fort Duquesne killing the commander, Coulon de Jumonville, and nine others and taking the rest prisoners. This engagement was Washington’s first battlefield experience, and with it the French and Indian War had begun (ushistory.org, 2013). Even though Washington’s attack on the French was successful, so was the French counterattack. Washington was captured by the French and released back to Williamsburg after concessions were made that no Fort would be built along the Ohio River (ushistory.org).While his military career got off to a rocky start, his successful leadership during the Revolution made him a legend. Presidency and Historical Legacy After the Revolution was over George Washington retired from military service with the idea of living out his retirement as a farmer on Mt Vernon. However, this was not to be his fate (Washington, 2013). George Washington was called to lead his country in the most important transitionary periods in American history, and this time it would be during a period of peace. Washington was elected with 100 percent of Electoral College votes. That has not happened since then (ushistory.org, 2013) Washington was very aware that his presidency would set a precedent for all that would...	<urn:uuid:dba9b145-1372-4f47-b959-80fee39df05b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightkite.com/essay-on/george-washington-therefore-the-american-revolution	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00449.warc.gz	en	0.983374	611	3.71875	4	[ -0.19077306985855103, 0.6354978084564209, 0.7650548815727234, -0.24577438831329346, -0.5089572668075562, 0.4430139660835266, 0.1462477743625641, 0.2092643827199936, -0.022781172767281532, 0.14617681503295898, 0.3667242228984833, 0.3487412929534912, 0.046049490571022034, 0.5625475645065308,...	1	George Washington was the commanding general and commander-in-chief of the colonial armies during the American Revolution. After the successful revolution to gain its freedom from Britain, George Washington would become the first President of the United States. He would serve in that capacity from 1789 to 1797. Washington’s Early Life George Washington was born on February 22, 1732, in Westmoreland County, Virginia. It was not until I started doing the research for this paper that I found there is actually very little known about Washington’s childhood. Due to that fact biographers had to fill in the gaps that existed. Among the fables my favorites are Washington skipped a silver dollar across the Potomac River, and after chopping down his father's prize cherry tree, he openly confessed to his misdeed after all he shall not tell a lie (Washington, 2013). From some of the writings from that era, it is known that Washington was home schooled. Later on he studied under a schoolmaster in math, geography, Latin and the English Literature. However it was the knowledge he obtained from backwoodsman, and the plantation foreman made him a master at growing tobacco, stock raising and surveying land by the time he was a teenager (Washington, 2013). George Washington’s military career began on October 31, 1753. The Lieutenant Governor of Virginia Robert Dinwiddie sent Washington to Fort LeBoeuf, to tell the French to remove themselves from land claimed by Britain. The French politely refused and Washington made a hasty ride back to Williamsburg, Virginia the Capitol of the Virginia Colony. Dinwiddie sent Washington back with troops and they set up a post at Great Meadows. Washington's small force attacked a French post at Fort Duquesne killing the commander, Coulon de Jumonville, and nine others and taking the rest prisoners. This engagement was Washington’s first battlefield experience, and with it the French and Indian War had begun (ushistory.org, 2013). Even though Washington’s attack on the French was successful, so was the French counterattack. Washington was captured by the French and released back to Williamsburg after concessions were made that no Fort would be built along the Ohio River (ushistory.org).While his military career got off to a rocky start, his successful leadership during the Revolution made him a legend. Presidency and Historical Legacy After the Revolution was over George Washington retired from military service with the idea of living out his retirement as a farmer on Mt Vernon. However, this was not to be his fate (Washington, 2013). George Washington was called to lead his country in the most important transitionary periods in American history, and this time it would be during a period of peace. Washington was elected with 100 percent of Electoral College votes. That has not happened since then (ushistory.org, 2013) Washington was very aware that his presidency would set a precedent for all that would...	627	ENGLISH	1
Tale Of Two Cities And Utopia Essay Tale Of Two Cities And Utopia Essay, Research Paper There are many similarities between the book A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens and the writings of Thomas Mores Utopia. In both of the writings they talk about the gap between the rich and the poor in France leading up to the Revolution. In the book The Tale of Two Cities the gap between the nobles and the peasants grows and this adds to the French Revolution. The gap between them was because of money and hunger. The Monseigneur has men who help him with everyday things such as his morning chocolate, but his morning s chocolate could not so much as get into the throat of Monseigneur, without the aid of four strong men besides the Cook (Dickens 515). The peasants on the other hand are lucky if they get enough food for their family and for the day. This noble attitude is what made the gap grow larger. In Utopia More says that all men are equal and share everything that a person needs to survive. Everything belongs to everybody he never lacks for anything he needs. So everyone is equal and there is no gap. The gap between the rich and the poor in the France was caused by many things one was the taxes. The taxes kept the people in poverty. Expressive signs of what made them poor were not wanting; the tax for the state, the tax for the church, the tax for the lord, tax for the local and tax general, were to be paid here and to be paid there until the wonder was that there was any village left unswallowed . (Dickens 519). The high estate was not taxed as heavily. More says that the poor should not pay for the rich that everyone should be equal. It is basically unjust that people that deserve most from the commonwealth should receive least. But now they have distorted and debased the right even further by giving their extortion the color of law; and thus they have palmed injustice off as legal. (More 454). In the book Tale of Two Cities it shows how the rich bent the laws to fit there needs. One example is when Gaspard was hung for killing a Monseigneur. The nobles said that he killed his father, which meant that they could hang him. The Monseigneur was not his father but was the father of the land. Another example is when the crowd didn t do anything because of their fear. So cowed was their condition and so long and hard their experience of what suck a man could do to them, within the law and beyond it. (Dickens 518). In Utopia More feels that people would be happier if money was abolished. With it gone it would get ride of crime witch means there would not be the need for laws. Dickens tells more of a story about how life before and during the French Revolution. More tells what he feels about the way the government was run before the Revolution and tried to show the people what was wrong with France hoping they would change their ways before a uprising occurred. Both men had similarities in what they thought and said.	<urn:uuid:ed0f6020-5485-44f0-aa71-e6956889b82a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://referat.ru/referat/tale-of-two-cities-and-utopia-essay-458964	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00232.warc.gz	en	0.98831	636	3.5625	4	[ 0.16839130222797394, 0.05173209309577942, -0.13138164579868317, -0.04097361117601395, 0.13591212034225464, 0.060431309044361115, -0.25546175241470337, 0.209660604596138, 0.04226279258728027, 0.0955832302570343, -0.024893226101994514, 0.018839949741959572, 0.1463024914264679, 0.167504131793...	3	Tale Of Two Cities And Utopia Essay Tale Of Two Cities And Utopia Essay, Research Paper There are many similarities between the book A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens and the writings of Thomas Mores Utopia. In both of the writings they talk about the gap between the rich and the poor in France leading up to the Revolution. In the book The Tale of Two Cities the gap between the nobles and the peasants grows and this adds to the French Revolution. The gap between them was because of money and hunger. The Monseigneur has men who help him with everyday things such as his morning chocolate, but his morning s chocolate could not so much as get into the throat of Monseigneur, without the aid of four strong men besides the Cook (Dickens 515). The peasants on the other hand are lucky if they get enough food for their family and for the day. This noble attitude is what made the gap grow larger. In Utopia More says that all men are equal and share everything that a person needs to survive. Everything belongs to everybody he never lacks for anything he needs. So everyone is equal and there is no gap. The gap between the rich and the poor in the France was caused by many things one was the taxes. The taxes kept the people in poverty. Expressive signs of what made them poor were not wanting; the tax for the state, the tax for the church, the tax for the lord, tax for the local and tax general, were to be paid here and to be paid there until the wonder was that there was any village left unswallowed . (Dickens 519). The high estate was not taxed as heavily. More says that the poor should not pay for the rich that everyone should be equal. It is basically unjust that people that deserve most from the commonwealth should receive least. But now they have distorted and debased the right even further by giving their extortion the color of law; and thus they have palmed injustice off as legal. (More 454). In the book Tale of Two Cities it shows how the rich bent the laws to fit there needs. One example is when Gaspard was hung for killing a Monseigneur. The nobles said that he killed his father, which meant that they could hang him. The Monseigneur was not his father but was the father of the land. Another example is when the crowd didn t do anything because of their fear. So cowed was their condition and so long and hard their experience of what suck a man could do to them, within the law and beyond it. (Dickens 518). In Utopia More feels that people would be happier if money was abolished. With it gone it would get ride of crime witch means there would not be the need for laws. Dickens tells more of a story about how life before and during the French Revolution. More tells what he feels about the way the government was run before the Revolution and tried to show the people what was wrong with France hoping they would change their ways before a uprising occurred. Both men had similarities in what they thought and said.	649	ENGLISH	1
In order to dominate the Baltic Sea, Sweden needed a squadron of capital ships. So in 1625 the Dutch master shipbuilder Henrik Hybertsson was commissioned to construct four such vessels. The first of these would be Vasa, named after the King’s dynastic house. Built from 1000 oak trees, her masts were 50 metres high and she was armed with 64 guns, of which 48 were 24-pounder cannon. Until then the most powerful ship in the Royal Swedish Navy was the galleon Solen, with 38 guns. Capable of firing a broadside of 300kg, Vasa would be the most powerful warship of her time. On Sunday 10 August 1628, Vasa was hauled out of Stockholm harbour for her maiden voyage. She fired a salute and, once beyond the cover of the Sodermalm Cliffs her sails, she caught the wind. Vasa listed to port, then further until water rushed in through the open gunports causing her to heel over and sink. She had travelled just 1300 metres – less than a mile! The king was furious at this ‘foolishness and incompetence’. Following the successful defence of the city of Stralsund he was poised to invade Northern Germany and the last thing he needed was such a public embarrassment. An inquest was held, which concluded that Vasa was well-built but incorrectly proportioned. The portion of the hull below the waterline was insufficient for the weight of cannon and rigging and the the ballast was inadequate. But how could this have happened? We know that Hybertsson died before Vasa‘s completion, that he had little experience of building ships with two gun decks and, as technical drawings were not used at the time, there would have been no plans to follow. Prior to sailing, captain Söfring Hansson had demonstrated the ship’s instability to Admiral Klas Fleming by ordering 30 sailors to run backwards and forwards across the upper deck. Although still in port, by the third pass the ship seemed poised to capsize. Why the admiral ordered the ship to sail and why the captain failed to order the lower gun-decks closed once outside port we will never know. What we do know is that Vasa‘s sister ship, Applet, continued in service until the 1660s, which suggests that the design itself was not flawed. Vasa was simply launched before the crew were accustomed to such a large vessel as a result of political pressure. Incredibly, you can see Vasa today. Her wreck was located in the 1950s and she was salvaged in 1961. She is now on display in the Vasa Museum in the Swedish capital.	<urn:uuid:3d53f5fa-bd98-4a65-8423-d13c41d296f5>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.military-history.org/articles/back-to-the-drawing-board-vasa.htm/amp	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00419.warc.gz	en	0.987322	559	3.484375	3	[ 0.16826915740966797, 0.22106757760047913, 0.0028401482850313187, -0.6171234846115112, 0.19945472478866577, -0.09766287356615067, -0.3317122459411621, 0.042708925902843475, -0.03341507166624069, -0.22667178511619568, 0.18898949027061462, -0.5899357199668884, -0.0673656016588211, 0.182152360...	1	In order to dominate the Baltic Sea, Sweden needed a squadron of capital ships. So in 1625 the Dutch master shipbuilder Henrik Hybertsson was commissioned to construct four such vessels. The first of these would be Vasa, named after the King’s dynastic house. Built from 1000 oak trees, her masts were 50 metres high and she was armed with 64 guns, of which 48 were 24-pounder cannon. Until then the most powerful ship in the Royal Swedish Navy was the galleon Solen, with 38 guns. Capable of firing a broadside of 300kg, Vasa would be the most powerful warship of her time. On Sunday 10 August 1628, Vasa was hauled out of Stockholm harbour for her maiden voyage. She fired a salute and, once beyond the cover of the Sodermalm Cliffs her sails, she caught the wind. Vasa listed to port, then further until water rushed in through the open gunports causing her to heel over and sink. She had travelled just 1300 metres – less than a mile! The king was furious at this ‘foolishness and incompetence’. Following the successful defence of the city of Stralsund he was poised to invade Northern Germany and the last thing he needed was such a public embarrassment. An inquest was held, which concluded that Vasa was well-built but incorrectly proportioned. The portion of the hull below the waterline was insufficient for the weight of cannon and rigging and the the ballast was inadequate. But how could this have happened? We know that Hybertsson died before Vasa‘s completion, that he had little experience of building ships with two gun decks and, as technical drawings were not used at the time, there would have been no plans to follow. Prior to sailing, captain Söfring Hansson had demonstrated the ship’s instability to Admiral Klas Fleming by ordering 30 sailors to run backwards and forwards across the upper deck. Although still in port, by the third pass the ship seemed poised to capsize. Why the admiral ordered the ship to sail and why the captain failed to order the lower gun-decks closed once outside port we will never know. What we do know is that Vasa‘s sister ship, Applet, continued in service until the 1660s, which suggests that the design itself was not flawed. Vasa was simply launched before the crew were accustomed to such a large vessel as a result of political pressure. Incredibly, you can see Vasa today. Her wreck was located in the 1950s and she was salvaged in 1961. She is now on display in the Vasa Museum in the Swedish capital.	582	ENGLISH	1
Mongols ruling China Genghis Khan organized the Mongols into a powerful army and led them on bloody expeditions of conquest, including China. By the time of his death, all of northern China was under his control. Kublai Khan became ruler of the Mongol Empire and completed the conquest of China. He declared himself emperor of China in 1279, which began the Yuan dynasty. The Chinese resented being ruled by foreigners who spoke a different language, worshipped different gods, and had different customs. Although Khan made sure to keep control of the Chinese, he did not force them to accept Mongol ways of life. Some Mongols adopted Chinese culture. Yuan Dynasty Tax money went for public-works projects that required the labor of many Chinese. Trade routes were kept safe by Mongol soldiers. The Yuan dynasty ended when a rebel army defeated the Mongols in 1368. Ming dynasty brought stability Zhu Yuanzhang defeated the Mongols and started the Ming dynasty. During this dynasty, the Chinese improved their ship and sailing skills thanks to the greatest sailor of the time, Zheng He. Zheng He boasted about his country during his travels and brought back gifts. The Ming were known for their grand building projects. The Forbidden City in Beijing is one example of their skill. Within some buildings were 9,000 rooms. Building Projects The Ming were also known for their grand building projects, such as the Forbidden City. It was a symbol of China’s glory, and the common people were not allowed to enter. Ming rulers also directed the restoration of the Great Wall of China. This kept the Chinese people safer against northern invasions. Changes in government and other communities The Ming emperors were powerful and abolished the offices of some powerful officials. The Ming appointed censors. They were officials who would judge the behavior of local leaders and inspect the schools and other institutions. The Ming emperors tried to eliminate all foreign influences. China entered a period of isolationism, a policy of avoiding contact with other countries. Due to a lack of progress during this period, China grew weak. The Western world had made huge technological progress and began to take power in some parts of China by the late 1800s.	<urn:uuid:0afbcc55-96b6-4375-8536-664de8078efd>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://slideplayer.com/slide/7609993/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607314.32/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122161553-20200122190553-00508.warc.gz	en	0.988682	443	3.875	4	[ -0.3211419880390167, 0.3502880930900574, 0.3567146956920624, -0.15522006154060364, -0.38626277446746826, -0.31656283140182495, 0.5124228000640869, -0.10631683468818665, 0.06659288704395294, 0.2385863959789276, 0.13209742307662964, -0.22974121570587158, 0.39921221137046814, -0.0237272549420...	1	Mongols ruling China Genghis Khan organized the Mongols into a powerful army and led them on bloody expeditions of conquest, including China. By the time of his death, all of northern China was under his control. Kublai Khan became ruler of the Mongol Empire and completed the conquest of China. He declared himself emperor of China in 1279, which began the Yuan dynasty. The Chinese resented being ruled by foreigners who spoke a different language, worshipped different gods, and had different customs. Although Khan made sure to keep control of the Chinese, he did not force them to accept Mongol ways of life. Some Mongols adopted Chinese culture. Yuan Dynasty Tax money went for public-works projects that required the labor of many Chinese. Trade routes were kept safe by Mongol soldiers. The Yuan dynasty ended when a rebel army defeated the Mongols in 1368. Ming dynasty brought stability Zhu Yuanzhang defeated the Mongols and started the Ming dynasty. During this dynasty, the Chinese improved their ship and sailing skills thanks to the greatest sailor of the time, Zheng He. Zheng He boasted about his country during his travels and brought back gifts. The Ming were known for their grand building projects. The Forbidden City in Beijing is one example of their skill. Within some buildings were 9,000 rooms. Building Projects The Ming were also known for their grand building projects, such as the Forbidden City. It was a symbol of China’s glory, and the common people were not allowed to enter. Ming rulers also directed the restoration of the Great Wall of China. This kept the Chinese people safer against northern invasions. Changes in government and other communities The Ming emperors were powerful and abolished the offices of some powerful officials. The Ming appointed censors. They were officials who would judge the behavior of local leaders and inspect the schools and other institutions. The Ming emperors tried to eliminate all foreign influences. China entered a period of isolationism, a policy of avoiding contact with other countries. Due to a lack of progress during this period, China grew weak. The Western world had made huge technological progress and began to take power in some parts of China by the late 1800s.	456	ENGLISH	1
Vulcan was the god of fire including the fire of volcanoes, deserts, metalworking and the forge. The Romans identified Vulcan with the Greek smith-god Hephaestus. Vulcan became associated like his Greek counterpart with the constructive use of fire in metalworking. A fragment of a Greek pot showing Hephaestus found at the Vulcanal has been dated to the 6th c. BC, suggesting that the two gods were already associated at this date. However, Vulcan had a stronger association than Hephaestus with fire’s destructive capacity and a major concern of his worshippers was to encourage the god to avert harmful fires. Vulcan’s oldest shrine in Rome, called the Vulcanal, was situated at the foot of the Capitoline Hill in the Forum Romanum and was reputed to date to the archaic period of the kings of Rome, and to have been established on the site by Titus Tatius, the Sabine co-king, with a traditional date in the 8th c. BC. The Vulcanalia sacrifice was offered here to Vulcan, on August 23. Vulcan also had a temple on the Campus Martius, which was in existence by 214 BC.	<urn:uuid:6a43294c-ed5c-4d5e-a757-0ab53ba49abd>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://digitalmapsoftheancientworld.com/mythology/roman-mythology/dii-selecti/vulcan/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00196.warc.gz	en	0.985755	246	3.46875	3	[ -0.04974087327718735, 0.6352274417877197, 0.28770342469215393, -0.46259063482284546, -0.3481771945953369, -0.3756246268749237, 0.09901484102010727, 0.7109552025794983, -0.22505973279476166, 0.08826570212841034, 0.030582690611481667, -1.1626617908477783, -0.09060144424438477, 0.421533465385...	11	Vulcan was the god of fire including the fire of volcanoes, deserts, metalworking and the forge. The Romans identified Vulcan with the Greek smith-god Hephaestus. Vulcan became associated like his Greek counterpart with the constructive use of fire in metalworking. A fragment of a Greek pot showing Hephaestus found at the Vulcanal has been dated to the 6th c. BC, suggesting that the two gods were already associated at this date. However, Vulcan had a stronger association than Hephaestus with fire’s destructive capacity and a major concern of his worshippers was to encourage the god to avert harmful fires. Vulcan’s oldest shrine in Rome, called the Vulcanal, was situated at the foot of the Capitoline Hill in the Forum Romanum and was reputed to date to the archaic period of the kings of Rome, and to have been established on the site by Titus Tatius, the Sabine co-king, with a traditional date in the 8th c. BC. The Vulcanalia sacrifice was offered here to Vulcan, on August 23. Vulcan also had a temple on the Campus Martius, which was in existence by 214 BC.	250	ENGLISH	1
The 1881 Lancashire miners’ strike began at a time when the miners were organised in small district unions with no central coordination. The coal owners were better organised and miners’ wages had fallen. Miners worked in dangerous conditions and the colliery owners took advantage of their membership of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners Permanent Relief SocietyThe Lancashire and Cheshire Miners Permanent Relief Society (LCMPRS) was a form of friendly society started in 1872 to provide financial assistance to miners who were unable to work after being injured in industrial accidents in collieries on the Lancashire Coalfield. (LMPRS) in paying compensation for injuries or deaths while at work. After Parliament passed the Employers’ Liability Act, colliery owners insisted their workers remain in the society resulting in a bitter and violent strike that lasted seven weeks. The strike ended with no resolution but the beginnings of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners’ Federation The Lancashire and Cheshire Miners’ Federation (LCMF) was a trade union founded in the aftermath of a bitter, violent seven-week strike in 1881. emerged. Between 1869 and 1871, mining disasters in Lancashire Mining disasters in Lancashire in which five or more people were killed occurred most frequently in the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s. had caused more than 300 deaths. More than 500 wives and children were left without a breadwinner and immense hardship was caused to their families. Many miners had joined the LMPRS after its foundation in 1872. Although not popular, the society guaranteed compensation and regular payments to miners and their families should their breadwinners be injured or killed at work. The society was funded by its members, the miners paid in 75% of the contributions and the rest was made up by the coal owners who controlled its board. Parliament debated an Employers’ Liability Act that would force negligent employers to compensate their employees for accidents in the workplace. In the coal industry serious injury and death were frequent occurences. In 1876, John Knowles MP, a coal owner in Wigan, had told parliament that passing such an act “would lead to nothing but carelessness and idleness among miners”. In 1880 the Employers’ Liability Act was passed, and the coal owners who dominated the LMPRS felt threatened because if workers considered the government scheme was better they could opt out. The coal owners insisted that their workers remained in the LMPRS or would be sacked on January 1881. Before the ultimatum, the miners were already considering submitting a pay claim of 15 per cent because their wages had fallen by a third in the previous four years. William Pickard, the Wigan miners’ agent tried to avoid a strike and negotiated with the employers who were keen to introduce a sliding scale of pay so that it was linked to the price of coal. He thought improved pay would mitigate remaining in the LCPMRS but his miscalculation disregarded the miners’ loathing for the society. The coal owners issued a statement expressing surprise that the miners had rejected the package their representatives had negotiated and that there would be no increase in pay unless the sliding scale was adopted. Pickard left his post after, receiving no support from leaders from other coalfields and the moderate union leaders were discredited in the view of the union members. Not all miners were unionised and non-members tended to be more militant and vociferous. The coal owners’ ultimatum eventually resulted in about 50,000 men and boys at pits throughout the Lancashire Coalfield striking after 1 January 1881. Some strikers were more reluctant than others. At pits where men started work, mobs from other districts picketed the collieries demanding that the men stopped work. Some employers were more generous than others, the owners of the New Lester CollieryNew Lester Colliery on the Manchester Coalfield was opened after 1872 by James and William Roscoe in Tyldesley, Lancashire, England. in Tyldesley offered increased pay and adherence to the Employers Liability Act and moderate union leaders like Robert IsherwoodRobert Isherwood (1845–1905) was a miner’s agent, local councillor and the first treasurer of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners’ Federation. argued for acceptance. The Fletcher, Burrows CompanyFletcher, Burrows & Company owned collieries and cotton mills in Atherton in northwest England. Gibfield, Howe Bridge and Chanters Collieries exploited the coal seams of the Middle Coal Measures in the Manchester Coalfield. in Atherton had negotiated a better wages agreement with its workforce than other employers in the surrounding districts and the company had embraced the Employers’ Liability Act but Atherton miners stopped work in solidarity with the wider cause. As the strike progressed it was characterised by mobs of miners picketing working pits. At Wharton Hall CollieryWharton Hall Colliery was in Little Hulton on the Lancashire Coalfield in Lancashire, north west England. in Little Hulton, an 18-year-old collier died during fighting on 25 January. The 18th Hussars and the 18th Regiment of Infantry were sent to Leigh after Howe Bridge miners returned to work after three weeks on strike. Thousands of miners from Ince, Haydock, St. Helens, Wigan and Hindley assembled for a mass meeting in Leigh market place on 28 January. The crowd then headed towards the Fletcher Burrows’ pits at Howe Bridge, followed by the Hussars and police and after the Riot Act was read, ended in what became known as the Battle of Howe BridgeThe Battle of Howe Bridge took place on 4 February 1881 against the background of an acrimonious strike by 50,000 miners from pits on the Lancashire coalfield that was characterised by mobs of miners picketing working pits. . The strike dragged on for seven weeks with no definitive conclusion. The miners had gradually returned to the pits. As the strike came to an end, the beginnings of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners Federation emerged. The coal owners had lost two million tons of coal and competitors had entered their markets.	<urn:uuid:e366d809-3476-42a2-9fcc-bb0abb9519b6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://engole.info/1881-lancashire-miners-strike/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00481.warc.gz	en	0.981043	1,299	4.09375	4	[ -0.355416476726532, 0.046042755246162415, 0.0672236979007721, 0.3475194573402405, 0.026293490082025528, -0.14524352550506592, 0.12650366127490997, -0.1676701307296753, -0.04791685566306114, -0.07285259664058685, 0.2439081221818924, -0.30712267756462097, -0.023367172107100487, 0.03004871867...	5	The 1881 Lancashire miners’ strike began at a time when the miners were organised in small district unions with no central coordination. The coal owners were better organised and miners’ wages had fallen. Miners worked in dangerous conditions and the colliery owners took advantage of their membership of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners Permanent Relief SocietyThe Lancashire and Cheshire Miners Permanent Relief Society (LCMPRS) was a form of friendly society started in 1872 to provide financial assistance to miners who were unable to work after being injured in industrial accidents in collieries on the Lancashire Coalfield. (LMPRS) in paying compensation for injuries or deaths while at work. After Parliament passed the Employers’ Liability Act, colliery owners insisted their workers remain in the society resulting in a bitter and violent strike that lasted seven weeks. The strike ended with no resolution but the beginnings of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners’ Federation The Lancashire and Cheshire Miners’ Federation (LCMF) was a trade union founded in the aftermath of a bitter, violent seven-week strike in 1881. emerged. Between 1869 and 1871, mining disasters in Lancashire Mining disasters in Lancashire in which five or more people were killed occurred most frequently in the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s. had caused more than 300 deaths. More than 500 wives and children were left without a breadwinner and immense hardship was caused to their families. Many miners had joined the LMPRS after its foundation in 1872. Although not popular, the society guaranteed compensation and regular payments to miners and their families should their breadwinners be injured or killed at work. The society was funded by its members, the miners paid in 75% of the contributions and the rest was made up by the coal owners who controlled its board. Parliament debated an Employers’ Liability Act that would force negligent employers to compensate their employees for accidents in the workplace. In the coal industry serious injury and death were frequent occurences. In 1876, John Knowles MP, a coal owner in Wigan, had told parliament that passing such an act “would lead to nothing but carelessness and idleness among miners”. In 1880 the Employers’ Liability Act was passed, and the coal owners who dominated the LMPRS felt threatened because if workers considered the government scheme was better they could opt out. The coal owners insisted that their workers remained in the LMPRS or would be sacked on January 1881. Before the ultimatum, the miners were already considering submitting a pay claim of 15 per cent because their wages had fallen by a third in the previous four years. William Pickard, the Wigan miners’ agent tried to avoid a strike and negotiated with the employers who were keen to introduce a sliding scale of pay so that it was linked to the price of coal. He thought improved pay would mitigate remaining in the LCPMRS but his miscalculation disregarded the miners’ loathing for the society. The coal owners issued a statement expressing surprise that the miners had rejected the package their representatives had negotiated and that there would be no increase in pay unless the sliding scale was adopted. Pickard left his post after, receiving no support from leaders from other coalfields and the moderate union leaders were discredited in the view of the union members. Not all miners were unionised and non-members tended to be more militant and vociferous. The coal owners’ ultimatum eventually resulted in about 50,000 men and boys at pits throughout the Lancashire Coalfield striking after 1 January 1881. Some strikers were more reluctant than others. At pits where men started work, mobs from other districts picketed the collieries demanding that the men stopped work. Some employers were more generous than others, the owners of the New Lester CollieryNew Lester Colliery on the Manchester Coalfield was opened after 1872 by James and William Roscoe in Tyldesley, Lancashire, England. in Tyldesley offered increased pay and adherence to the Employers Liability Act and moderate union leaders like Robert IsherwoodRobert Isherwood (1845–1905) was a miner’s agent, local councillor and the first treasurer of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners’ Federation. argued for acceptance. The Fletcher, Burrows CompanyFletcher, Burrows & Company owned collieries and cotton mills in Atherton in northwest England. Gibfield, Howe Bridge and Chanters Collieries exploited the coal seams of the Middle Coal Measures in the Manchester Coalfield. in Atherton had negotiated a better wages agreement with its workforce than other employers in the surrounding districts and the company had embraced the Employers’ Liability Act but Atherton miners stopped work in solidarity with the wider cause. As the strike progressed it was characterised by mobs of miners picketing working pits. At Wharton Hall CollieryWharton Hall Colliery was in Little Hulton on the Lancashire Coalfield in Lancashire, north west England. in Little Hulton, an 18-year-old collier died during fighting on 25 January. The 18th Hussars and the 18th Regiment of Infantry were sent to Leigh after Howe Bridge miners returned to work after three weeks on strike. Thousands of miners from Ince, Haydock, St. Helens, Wigan and Hindley assembled for a mass meeting in Leigh market place on 28 January. The crowd then headed towards the Fletcher Burrows’ pits at Howe Bridge, followed by the Hussars and police and after the Riot Act was read, ended in what became known as the Battle of Howe BridgeThe Battle of Howe Bridge took place on 4 February 1881 against the background of an acrimonious strike by 50,000 miners from pits on the Lancashire coalfield that was characterised by mobs of miners picketing working pits. . The strike dragged on for seven weeks with no definitive conclusion. The miners had gradually returned to the pits. As the strike came to an end, the beginnings of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners Federation emerged. The coal owners had lost two million tons of coal and competitors had entered their markets.	1,331	ENGLISH	1
Tullahassee is considered the oldest surviving All-Black town of Indian Territory. The town was located five miles northwest of Muskogee in Oklahoma. There were more than fifty All-Black towns located in the state. The community originated in 1850 when the Creek Nation built a school along the ruts of the Texas Road. Near the school, the population of Creek freedmen increased while the population of Creeks declined. The council transferred the American Indian students to another school and gave Tullahassee to the freedmen on October 24, 1881. The town was incorporated in 1902 and platted in 1907. A post office opened in 1899 and Professor Willis served as the first postmaster. The Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railway line ran through the town, helping to attract settlers. Community growth was aided by the Tullahassee Town Site Company, which solicited residents throughout the South. A. J. Mason served as president and L. C. Hardridge as secretary. In 1916, Flipper Davis College was founded by the African Methodist Episcopal Church. It was the only private institution for African-Americans in the state, at Tullahassee. The college managed to keep its doors open until the end of the 1935 session.	<urn:uuid:d0fd09f1-e9c3-42c6-b3de-971293c86245>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://blackthen.com/tullahassee-oldest-surviving-black-town-indian-territory-oklahoma/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610919.33/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123131001-20200123160001-00031.warc.gz	en	0.982273	254	3.265625	3	[ -0.09541849792003632, 0.0845908597111702, 0.34892237186431885, -0.16126976907253265, -0.2714971899986267, -0.44966307282447815, -0.07210490852594376, -0.17099010944366455, -0.5199249982833862, -0.13470888137817383, 0.26830482482910156, -0.5923473834991455, -0.08000265806913376, 0.166059523...	12	Tullahassee is considered the oldest surviving All-Black town of Indian Territory. The town was located five miles northwest of Muskogee in Oklahoma. There were more than fifty All-Black towns located in the state. The community originated in 1850 when the Creek Nation built a school along the ruts of the Texas Road. Near the school, the population of Creek freedmen increased while the population of Creeks declined. The council transferred the American Indian students to another school and gave Tullahassee to the freedmen on October 24, 1881. The town was incorporated in 1902 and platted in 1907. A post office opened in 1899 and Professor Willis served as the first postmaster. The Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railway line ran through the town, helping to attract settlers. Community growth was aided by the Tullahassee Town Site Company, which solicited residents throughout the South. A. J. Mason served as president and L. C. Hardridge as secretary. In 1916, Flipper Davis College was founded by the African Methodist Episcopal Church. It was the only private institution for African-Americans in the state, at Tullahassee. The college managed to keep its doors open until the end of the 1935 session.	279	ENGLISH	1
The Selonians (Latvian: sēļi; Lithuanian: sėliai, from sälli – "highlanders") were a tribe of Baltic peoples. They lived until the 15th century in Selonia, located in southeastern Latvia and northeastern Lithuania. They eventually merged with neighbouring tribes, contributing to the ethnogenesis of modern Latvians and Lithuanians. They spoke the Eastern Baltic Selonian language. Little is known about the Selonians. There is little archaeological evidence and in historic sources the region is often described as a "scarcely populated land". In written sources they are mentioned only few times. Archeological data can trace the Selonians back to the beginning of 1st millennium AD when they lived on both sides of the Daugava River. But since the 6th and 7th centuries their settlements can be traced only on the left bank of the river. Selonian culture had a very strong Latgalian influence. Selonian and Latgalian burial traditions show little difference. Some scholars speculate that during the late Iron Age the Selonians were already partly assimilated by the Latgalians. The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia mentions the Selonians at the beginning of the 13th century, when they were conquered and christened. The author of the chronicle describes the Selonians as Lithuanian allies. Their lands were subjects of the principalities of Jersika and Koknese, which were vassals of the principality of Polotsk. The Southern lands however were ruled by Lithuanian lords. In 1207, the German Brothers of Sword together with their Livonian and Latgalian allies besieged the main Selonian centre at Sēlpils hillfort. Reason for the attack were German claims that Sēlpils hillfort was used as main Lithuanian support base for their attacks in Livonia. After a long siege the Selonians agreed to baptism and German rule and the stone Sēlpils Castle (German: Selburg) was built in place of the hillfort. The Selonians were last mentioned in written sources in the 15th century.	<urn:uuid:f0bd96d4-4912-48a7-a983-5ece9e1e91cc>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://everything.explained.today/Selonians/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250603761.28/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121103642-20200121132642-00553.warc.gz	en	0.980337	441	3.59375	4	[ -0.2457759827375412, 0.00991556141525507, 0.6280488967895508, -0.11950771510601044, -0.08403629064559937, -0.5514830350875854, -0.07351325452327728, 0.35404592752456665, -0.3257059156894684, 0.25019416213035583, -0.14498548209667206, -0.5810461044311523, -0.11722932010889053, 0.17460340261...	1	The Selonians (Latvian: sēļi; Lithuanian: sėliai, from sälli – "highlanders") were a tribe of Baltic peoples. They lived until the 15th century in Selonia, located in southeastern Latvia and northeastern Lithuania. They eventually merged with neighbouring tribes, contributing to the ethnogenesis of modern Latvians and Lithuanians. They spoke the Eastern Baltic Selonian language. Little is known about the Selonians. There is little archaeological evidence and in historic sources the region is often described as a "scarcely populated land". In written sources they are mentioned only few times. Archeological data can trace the Selonians back to the beginning of 1st millennium AD when they lived on both sides of the Daugava River. But since the 6th and 7th centuries their settlements can be traced only on the left bank of the river. Selonian culture had a very strong Latgalian influence. Selonian and Latgalian burial traditions show little difference. Some scholars speculate that during the late Iron Age the Selonians were already partly assimilated by the Latgalians. The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia mentions the Selonians at the beginning of the 13th century, when they were conquered and christened. The author of the chronicle describes the Selonians as Lithuanian allies. Their lands were subjects of the principalities of Jersika and Koknese, which were vassals of the principality of Polotsk. The Southern lands however were ruled by Lithuanian lords. In 1207, the German Brothers of Sword together with their Livonian and Latgalian allies besieged the main Selonian centre at Sēlpils hillfort. Reason for the attack were German claims that Sēlpils hillfort was used as main Lithuanian support base for their attacks in Livonia. After a long siege the Selonians agreed to baptism and German rule and the stone Sēlpils Castle (German: Selburg) was built in place of the hillfort. The Selonians were last mentioned in written sources in the 15th century.	452	ENGLISH	1
By Aaron Alonso On our trip to Berlin, Germany we got a more in-depth look at some of the groups of people persecuted in the Third Reich. I was also able to learn more about who was considered as being part of the German “Volk” through information displayed at the Topography of Terror. German residents (many holders of German citizenship) such as the Jews, Roma and the disabled were not seen to be people instead they were viewed as being sub-human. The views held by the Nazi regime led to the ultimate persecution of these groups who were all to be exterminated. The Roma, Jews and the disabled were othered by the Third Reich through various legal, political, social, and economic methods. Starting on March 31, 1933 Jews were persecuted through the anti-Jewish laws. The first laws enacted specifically targeted common occupations held by Jewish people such as lawyers, doctors, teachers, and government positions. Excluding Jews from these professions deprived the Jewish people of their livelihood and served to dehumanize them. They were not capable of holding these positions because they were seen as being undesirable for being “non-Aryan”. The Third Reich set up other laws to deprive Jews of their social positions such as preventing them from being in sports clubs, chess leagues, music groups, and spending time in public spaces by preventing them from going to the beach. These laws aided the Germans in reinforcing the Jew’s status as being “inferior” to the German people by preventing them from taking part in public life. Further steps were taken during the Nazi regime such as the implementation of the Reich Citizenship Law which stripped Jews of German citizenship in September of 1935. The Jewish people lost their citizenship because they were not of “German” blood. The Roma people have long faced persecution in Europe, finally reaching its peak after the establishment of the Third Reich. The Roma population in Germany, like the Jews, were systematically marginalized by the Nazi regime. This was based on the preconceived notions that the Roma people were uncivilized nomadic beings who could not assimilate (Zahra). The Nazi regime established a law on November 26, 1935, which classified “Gypsies” as being “enemies of the race-based state” effectively removing their German citizenship. The Roma people were systematically persecuted just like the Jews. In our visit to the Lety labor camp, we were able to learn about the approximately 1,300 Roma who were interned there, many of whom died while at Lety. The conditions were often horrible, and hundreds of Roma people were sent to Auschwitz to be exterminated About 90% of the Roma population of occupied Czech lands, known as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia were wiped out by the end of WWII. Yet, their existence has been continually othered before, during, and after the war has diminished the extent to what is known about these atrocities. The disabled people of the Third Reich were considered as being a detriment to the German race. During the Nazi Regime, eugenics played a pivotal role in shaping what defined German citizenship. The law for the prevention of progeny with hereditary diseases was established on July 14, 1933, which led to the sterilization of disabled people. The act of sterilization was not exclusively used on the disabled but as well as on Jews and Roma individuals. Disabled individuals were also murdered through “euthanasia,” which is to terminate someone’s life to relieve them of their suffering. These killings were not to relieve disabled people of their suffering but instead, it was to promote racial purity of the “Aryan race” as well as to relieve the country of their burden. The Nazi regime saw disabled people as a financial burden during the war taking up vital resources such as food, water, and hospital space. The Nazi regime relied heavily on the attached ideology of racial superiority of the “Aryan” race. This ideology was paramount in what was to occur to the Jewish, Roma, and disabled people. The loss of life was immense, and it was because these groups were all classified as not being worthy members of the superior German race. These people were effectively othered by the Nazi regime to the point that they were exterminated for simply existing. Zahra, Tara. “‘Condemned to Rootlessness and Unable to Budge’: Roma, Migration Panics, and Internment in the Habsburg Empire.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 8 June 2017, doi.org/10.1093/ahr/122.3.702.	<urn:uuid:b1fcb447-8de8-455b-88ac-b3f598f01a06>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://urbanlabsce.eu/the-otherization-by-the-nazi-regime/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00022.warc.gz	en	0.991163	955	3.3125	3	[ -0.06195608898997307, 0.4464128017425537, -0.11515401303768158, 0.049955591559410095, 0.004991814959794283, 0.32912296056747437, -0.1370578557252884, -0.028910381719470024, 0.13701745867729187, -0.14616331458091736, 0.17481163144111633, 0.0024073871318250895, -0.22917330265045166, -0.08883...	9	By Aaron Alonso On our trip to Berlin, Germany we got a more in-depth look at some of the groups of people persecuted in the Third Reich. I was also able to learn more about who was considered as being part of the German “Volk” through information displayed at the Topography of Terror. German residents (many holders of German citizenship) such as the Jews, Roma and the disabled were not seen to be people instead they were viewed as being sub-human. The views held by the Nazi regime led to the ultimate persecution of these groups who were all to be exterminated. The Roma, Jews and the disabled were othered by the Third Reich through various legal, political, social, and economic methods. Starting on March 31, 1933 Jews were persecuted through the anti-Jewish laws. The first laws enacted specifically targeted common occupations held by Jewish people such as lawyers, doctors, teachers, and government positions. Excluding Jews from these professions deprived the Jewish people of their livelihood and served to dehumanize them. They were not capable of holding these positions because they were seen as being undesirable for being “non-Aryan”. The Third Reich set up other laws to deprive Jews of their social positions such as preventing them from being in sports clubs, chess leagues, music groups, and spending time in public spaces by preventing them from going to the beach. These laws aided the Germans in reinforcing the Jew’s status as being “inferior” to the German people by preventing them from taking part in public life. Further steps were taken during the Nazi regime such as the implementation of the Reich Citizenship Law which stripped Jews of German citizenship in September of 1935. The Jewish people lost their citizenship because they were not of “German” blood. The Roma people have long faced persecution in Europe, finally reaching its peak after the establishment of the Third Reich. The Roma population in Germany, like the Jews, were systematically marginalized by the Nazi regime. This was based on the preconceived notions that the Roma people were uncivilized nomadic beings who could not assimilate (Zahra). The Nazi regime established a law on November 26, 1935, which classified “Gypsies” as being “enemies of the race-based state” effectively removing their German citizenship. The Roma people were systematically persecuted just like the Jews. In our visit to the Lety labor camp, we were able to learn about the approximately 1,300 Roma who were interned there, many of whom died while at Lety. The conditions were often horrible, and hundreds of Roma people were sent to Auschwitz to be exterminated About 90% of the Roma population of occupied Czech lands, known as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia were wiped out by the end of WWII. Yet, their existence has been continually othered before, during, and after the war has diminished the extent to what is known about these atrocities. The disabled people of the Third Reich were considered as being a detriment to the German race. During the Nazi Regime, eugenics played a pivotal role in shaping what defined German citizenship. The law for the prevention of progeny with hereditary diseases was established on July 14, 1933, which led to the sterilization of disabled people. The act of sterilization was not exclusively used on the disabled but as well as on Jews and Roma individuals. Disabled individuals were also murdered through “euthanasia,” which is to terminate someone’s life to relieve them of their suffering. These killings were not to relieve disabled people of their suffering but instead, it was to promote racial purity of the “Aryan race” as well as to relieve the country of their burden. The Nazi regime saw disabled people as a financial burden during the war taking up vital resources such as food, water, and hospital space. The Nazi regime relied heavily on the attached ideology of racial superiority of the “Aryan” race. This ideology was paramount in what was to occur to the Jewish, Roma, and disabled people. The loss of life was immense, and it was because these groups were all classified as not being worthy members of the superior German race. These people were effectively othered by the Nazi regime to the point that they were exterminated for simply existing. Zahra, Tara. “‘Condemned to Rootlessness and Unable to Budge’: Roma, Migration Panics, and Internment in the Habsburg Empire.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 8 June 2017, doi.org/10.1093/ahr/122.3.702.	954	ENGLISH	1
“It was not Martin Luther King who emancipated the modern Negro, but Stepin Fetchit…It was Step, who elevated the Negro to the dignity of a Hollywood star. I made the Negro a first-class citizen all over the world.”-Lincoln Perry A.K.A Stepin Fetchit. This quote surely produces shock and ill feelings to many, but it displays the misguided thought process of Mr. Perry, along with some other African Americans in the entertainment industry during his time. Although many would disagree, the writer Paul Laurence Dunbar appeared to share this sentiment. Essay due? We'll write it for you! Dunbar was one of the first black writers in American literature who was successfully commercial. He favored traditional or old-fashioned techniques and his works were exemplary of literary naturalism. His literary body includes novels, short stories, essays, and many poems written both in standard English and old negro dialect. He distinguished these poems as his major and minor works. He gathered the more fervent poems, those written in standard English, under the heading “Majors,” and he labeled the more superficial, works in dialect as “Minors.” Though Dunbar’s poems written in standard English counted for most of his poetry, they were mainly ignored. Instead, it was his works written in negro dialect that elevated him to the high level of commercial success and wide publication. During those times, most of the reading public were whites who were amused by the exploitive and stereotypical representations of the language and lifestyle of African Americans. The popular preference for the dialect did not sit well with Dunbar, and it placed him in a peculiar position that required him to choose between maintaining the dignity of himself and the African American people, and in turn alienate his white readers, or to continue to please the broader audience and maintain his fame. He continued to straddle that fence and wrote many more works in dialect. Dunbar resorted to the cowardly approach and therefore sold his soul. In 1828, T.D. “Big Daddy” Rice, a struggling white actor, emerged onto the acting scene with a new concept. Rice pioneered what was called the “minstrel show” or “blackface minstrelsy.” Blackface minstrelsy was a type of racially charged entertainment that was developed in the early 19th century. The shows were comprised of a mixture of dancing, variety acts, comic skits, and music performances that brazenly satirized African Americans. The shows were performed by white people in black make-up with over exaggerated features and the use of dialect that mimicked the stereotypical verbiage. Because of the cultural hierarchy in America, coupled with naively tolerant attitudes of many Americans who consider racism and bigotry harmless, the shows proved wildly popular. Later, African American actors began performing in the minstrel shows. However, like Dunbar, black minstrel performers felt the heavy responsibility to counteract the stereotypes of black identity. They appealed to white audiences on stage, but conducted themselves off-stage in a way to counter the negative representations of blacks with their connection with activist presentations, publications, and organizations. Nevertheless, they were not excused in their contributions to the embarrassment and oppression of African Americans. Dunbar’s straddling of the proverbial line by his attempts at countering the negative representations by producing intellectually written poetry in standard English are also unexcused. Dunbar’s dialect primarily consisted of dialogs and monologues spoken by illiterate, dimwitted, lazy, and buffoonish characters, that shared similarities with the personas of many cartoons and television programs of the Jim Crow era. In essence, his dialect poetry was a minstrel act on paper. It should be noted that many of the speakers in Dunbar’s dialect, seemed hopeful for social change and possessed a level of self-awareness. Dunbar did not write “protest” poetry, however, he inserted a hidden agenda of hope and defiance in the messages of many of his works written in dialect. His conventional poems had watered down versions of his message, if at all, but they were also less circumstantial. In the poem, “Speakin’ At De Cou’t–House,” Dunbar funneled the message of African-American’s disdain and mistrust of white politicians and their agendas. “When Malindy Sings,” conveyed admiration for the natural talents of the African American singing voice. It is certain that these two messages would not be well received if they were undisguised and more explicit, but it is likely that his messages were missed because they were too well hidden. Dunbar’s messages were counterproductive because rather than using his platform to frankly address racism of his time, he chose to imbed them into poetry that is socially harmful to the black culture. Dunbar’s “We Wear the Mask” relays the pain that African Americans endure while hiding behind counterfeit grins or “masks,” and also signifies the irony that he was conscious of his concealment of his anger in his works. The poem is a feeble attempt to unmask and reveal Dunbar’s true feelings about the plights of blacks without “stirring the pot.” Even the word “We” in the title is a generalized protest, as it can be utilized both generally and particularly as the reader wishes. This exemplifies yet another timid avoidance of backlash from his white counterparts. A diluted fight is insignificant, though some would argue that the difficulty of getting his message across would be more arduous because of the dynamics of the era, thus limiting his options. However, there are many African American authors during Dunbar’s time who did speak out against social injustices without resorting to hiding behind hurtful imagery. W.E.B. Dubois was one of the most influential African American poets in our society. He was very candid in his fight against racial inequalities and still retained his fame and status. Jupiter Hammon, Phillis Wheatley, and Frances Harper are also among those who took an outward stance on their beliefs without the abandonment of their values. Dunbar was considered an embarrassment to some, and a revolutionary of social vision to others. Many were critical of him, but perhaps his worst critic was himself. In a conversation with James Weldon Johnson, Dunbar states, “I didn’t start as a dialect poet. I simply came to the conclusion that I could write [dialect poetry] as well, if not better, than anybody else I knew of, and that by doing so I should gain a hearing. I gained the hearing, and now they don’t want me to write anything but dialect. I’ve kept on doing the same things, and doing them no better. I have never gotten to the things I really wanted to do.” It is unfortunate that Dunbar did not heed his own criticism. Instead, his talent clouded perceptions about blackness, and contributed to cultural transgression instead of using his voice to elevate African Americans. He truly wore the mask, and placed a dunce cap on the heads of his people. Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can order our professional work here. Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. If you’d like this or any other sample, we’ll happily email it to you. Your essay sample has been sent. Want us to write one just for you? We can custom edit this essay into an original, 100% plagiarism free essay.Order now	<urn:uuid:52f40002-0fc0-4374-a7f7-fa57957e6312>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://eduzaurus.com/free-essay-samples/messages-to-african-americans-in-dunbars-works/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251696046.73/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127081933-20200127111933-00110.warc.gz	en	0.982396	1,608	3.515625	4	[ -0.45645633339881897, 0.24996110796928406, 0.15007413923740387, -0.13711707293987274, -0.15919195115566254, 0.1478419303894043, 0.009786611422896385, 0.03807757794857025, -0.11822999268770218, -0.017320293933153152, 0.2761877179145813, 0.2730158567428589, 0.045072510838508606, 0.1362000554...	1	“It was not Martin Luther King who emancipated the modern Negro, but Stepin Fetchit…It was Step, who elevated the Negro to the dignity of a Hollywood star. I made the Negro a first-class citizen all over the world.”-Lincoln Perry A.K.A Stepin Fetchit. This quote surely produces shock and ill feelings to many, but it displays the misguided thought process of Mr. Perry, along with some other African Americans in the entertainment industry during his time. Although many would disagree, the writer Paul Laurence Dunbar appeared to share this sentiment. Essay due? We'll write it for you! Dunbar was one of the first black writers in American literature who was successfully commercial. He favored traditional or old-fashioned techniques and his works were exemplary of literary naturalism. His literary body includes novels, short stories, essays, and many poems written both in standard English and old negro dialect. He distinguished these poems as his major and minor works. He gathered the more fervent poems, those written in standard English, under the heading “Majors,” and he labeled the more superficial, works in dialect as “Minors.” Though Dunbar’s poems written in standard English counted for most of his poetry, they were mainly ignored. Instead, it was his works written in negro dialect that elevated him to the high level of commercial success and wide publication. During those times, most of the reading public were whites who were amused by the exploitive and stereotypical representations of the language and lifestyle of African Americans. The popular preference for the dialect did not sit well with Dunbar, and it placed him in a peculiar position that required him to choose between maintaining the dignity of himself and the African American people, and in turn alienate his white readers, or to continue to please the broader audience and maintain his fame. He continued to straddle that fence and wrote many more works in dialect. Dunbar resorted to the cowardly approach and therefore sold his soul. In 1828, T.D. “Big Daddy” Rice, a struggling white actor, emerged onto the acting scene with a new concept. Rice pioneered what was called the “minstrel show” or “blackface minstrelsy.” Blackface minstrelsy was a type of racially charged entertainment that was developed in the early 19th century. The shows were comprised of a mixture of dancing, variety acts, comic skits, and music performances that brazenly satirized African Americans. The shows were performed by white people in black make-up with over exaggerated features and the use of dialect that mimicked the stereotypical verbiage. Because of the cultural hierarchy in America, coupled with naively tolerant attitudes of many Americans who consider racism and bigotry harmless, the shows proved wildly popular. Later, African American actors began performing in the minstrel shows. However, like Dunbar, black minstrel performers felt the heavy responsibility to counteract the stereotypes of black identity. They appealed to white audiences on stage, but conducted themselves off-stage in a way to counter the negative representations of blacks with their connection with activist presentations, publications, and organizations. Nevertheless, they were not excused in their contributions to the embarrassment and oppression of African Americans. Dunbar’s straddling of the proverbial line by his attempts at countering the negative representations by producing intellectually written poetry in standard English are also unexcused. Dunbar’s dialect primarily consisted of dialogs and monologues spoken by illiterate, dimwitted, lazy, and buffoonish characters, that shared similarities with the personas of many cartoons and television programs of the Jim Crow era. In essence, his dialect poetry was a minstrel act on paper. It should be noted that many of the speakers in Dunbar’s dialect, seemed hopeful for social change and possessed a level of self-awareness. Dunbar did not write “protest” poetry, however, he inserted a hidden agenda of hope and defiance in the messages of many of his works written in dialect. His conventional poems had watered down versions of his message, if at all, but they were also less circumstantial. In the poem, “Speakin’ At De Cou’t–House,” Dunbar funneled the message of African-American’s disdain and mistrust of white politicians and their agendas. “When Malindy Sings,” conveyed admiration for the natural talents of the African American singing voice. It is certain that these two messages would not be well received if they were undisguised and more explicit, but it is likely that his messages were missed because they were too well hidden. Dunbar’s messages were counterproductive because rather than using his platform to frankly address racism of his time, he chose to imbed them into poetry that is socially harmful to the black culture. Dunbar’s “We Wear the Mask” relays the pain that African Americans endure while hiding behind counterfeit grins or “masks,” and also signifies the irony that he was conscious of his concealment of his anger in his works. The poem is a feeble attempt to unmask and reveal Dunbar’s true feelings about the plights of blacks without “stirring the pot.” Even the word “We” in the title is a generalized protest, as it can be utilized both generally and particularly as the reader wishes. This exemplifies yet another timid avoidance of backlash from his white counterparts. A diluted fight is insignificant, though some would argue that the difficulty of getting his message across would be more arduous because of the dynamics of the era, thus limiting his options. However, there are many African American authors during Dunbar’s time who did speak out against social injustices without resorting to hiding behind hurtful imagery. W.E.B. Dubois was one of the most influential African American poets in our society. He was very candid in his fight against racial inequalities and still retained his fame and status. Jupiter Hammon, Phillis Wheatley, and Frances Harper are also among those who took an outward stance on their beliefs without the abandonment of their values. Dunbar was considered an embarrassment to some, and a revolutionary of social vision to others. Many were critical of him, but perhaps his worst critic was himself. In a conversation with James Weldon Johnson, Dunbar states, “I didn’t start as a dialect poet. I simply came to the conclusion that I could write [dialect poetry] as well, if not better, than anybody else I knew of, and that by doing so I should gain a hearing. I gained the hearing, and now they don’t want me to write anything but dialect. I’ve kept on doing the same things, and doing them no better. I have never gotten to the things I really wanted to do.” It is unfortunate that Dunbar did not heed his own criticism. Instead, his talent clouded perceptions about blackness, and contributed to cultural transgression instead of using his voice to elevate African Americans. He truly wore the mask, and placed a dunce cap on the heads of his people. Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can order our professional work here. Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. If you’d like this or any other sample, we’ll happily email it to you. Your essay sample has been sent. Want us to write one just for you? We can custom edit this essay into an original, 100% plagiarism free essay.Order now	1,532	ENGLISH	1
‘Daniel in the Lion’s Den’ by Sir Peter Paul Rubens was created between 1614 and 1616 in Flemish, Belgian. It is now hanging in the National Art Gallery in a room that appears dwarfed by the paintings horizontal length, about 88 ¼ inches by 130 1/8 inches overall. A single bench faces this painting which enables the viewer to sit and contemplate its religious background. ‘Daniel in the Lion’s Den’ uses oil on canvas as its medium and media. The artist uses every inch of his canvas to fill with clues on where you are viewing the painting and of past events that lead to what was happening. The reason that Sir Peter Paul Rubens created this painting starts with his long history in the Catholic Church. He was a very devout man and was happily commissioned to depict a religious story. The church was losing followers at the time to Protestantism. This painting of Daniel was meant to tell people, mainly of the lower class because of their lack of reading ability, of the positive effects of staying with the Catholic faith. It was meant to excite people about the power that the church offers to its followers. The story of Daniel in the Lion’s den started with the Persian king Darius I “The Great” threw Daniel in a pit of lions because he would not change his faith against his “one true god”. The painting shows Daniel praying to his god, presumably all night as goes the story, that he not be eaten by the hungry lions. In the Bible it states, “Then said Daniel unto the king, O King, live for ever. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.” (Daniel 6:21-22). Thus, when the non-believers lift the rock covering the lion pit reveals that Daniel wasn’t eaten, god rewarded him for keeping his faith. Human bones and even a skull can be found in the foreground closest to the viewer to show what would really happen to someone if they found themselves among the nest of lions. Sir Peter chose to create this piece horizontally to create the illusion of a crowded room of lions pitted against a single man that could be more dramatically captured than if it were vertical. Sir Peter Paul Rubens’ use of theatrical lighting and values sets Daniel apart from the hungry lions at his feet. Shades of colors become lighter as you look toward the center of the painting where Daniel sits awkwardly praying. It’s meant to appear as if a spotlight has opened up above Daniel’s head. It was obvious that Sir Peter wanted the viewer’s attention to be focused on Daniel, still alive after a full night spent in a den of lions. This lighting could also be interpreted as sudden enlightenment as the Persian king realizes that he was miraculously spared. Warm colors are used for the majority of this painting, the only cool colors being in the small skylight above. Daniel is depicted as a fair-skinned man, also standing out against the reds and oranges of the lions, wearing nothing but a stark white loin cloth about his waist. You could go even further in your own analysis surrounding the colors of this painting. Daniel’s loincloth is an untarnished white which could represent the purity of his faith. As he sits on a boulder, under him is a red cloth which a viewer could interpret as the cruelty of the Persian king or the non-believers but is above all of them. You could also see it as the complete opposite, the red could symbolize the burning passion of his faith, which he stays upon. The detailing of the lions and of Daniel are over embellished, which goes along with Sir Peter’s pattern of dramatization. The exaggeration of expression on Daniel is very theatrical, and mostly why I love this piece so much. The man looks up in relief but you can still feel his terror. The lion’s mugs all fold in on themselves to reveal rows of pearly white, sharp teeth. The expressions of the lions vary from sneering to semi-peaceful sleep. In the description of the painting itself brought to us by the National Art Gallery explain that “Several lions, for instance, stare at us directly, suggesting that we share their space, and, like Daniel, experience the same menace.”. I don’t necessarily agree with this description. Only one lion looks directly at us and his stare more stone-faced than anything and I feel that it’s mild expression was meant to bring you the sense of strength and power from the lion. The power that the animals hold over this man is seen from the lion holding himself with pride beside the shaken Daniel. This interpretation of the particular lion’s expression and meaning could make the general purpose of this painting mean more, how strong these lions are but in the presence of faithful believer, they are harmless. The composition of ‘Daniel in the Lion’s Den is balanced. Daniel himself is to the slight right of the center of the painting and is accompanied by two lions at his feet on the same side as him. To the left of the painting to balance it out are six other lions. One of which, standing a little below Daniel’s height, is on the other side of the rock on which Daniel sits. The lion yawning in the background is placed to the slight right of the standing lion in front of it. Because Daniel is leaning to his left, away from the center of the painting, the far back lion was used to mimic his tilt by being placed perceptively closer to Daniel but further back. Sir Peter Paul Rubens’ painted this piece skillfully and with good reason to his faith. The shading on Daniel and the lions give them dimension and express dramatic feelings that make the viewer have to sit down to take everything in. The way he uses colors to represent a deeper meaning in his work reflects his feelings of the church that commissioned him. The piece was meant to bring back followers of the Catholic Church and I feel that this tactic was a good one. Instead of using fear to bring upon more followers, this painting depicts what their god could bring you if you give them undying faith.	<urn:uuid:17652af9-1028-4387-b7e6-56cd1fd2dc24>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://wallaceandjames.com/daniel-viewer-to-sit-and-contemplate-its-religious/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00270.warc.gz	en	0.980075	1,311	3.328125	3	[ 0.01831146702170372, 0.4361039400100708, 0.3513133227825165, 0.2561264634132385, -0.1937914490699768, -0.01690862700343132, -0.04362601041793823, 0.41313862800598145, 0.07671722024679184, 0.19072312116622925, 0.16689471900463104, -0.6276659965515137, 0.38273581862449646, 0.0309679079800844...	2	‘Daniel in the Lion’s Den’ by Sir Peter Paul Rubens was created between 1614 and 1616 in Flemish, Belgian. It is now hanging in the National Art Gallery in a room that appears dwarfed by the paintings horizontal length, about 88 ¼ inches by 130 1/8 inches overall. A single bench faces this painting which enables the viewer to sit and contemplate its religious background. ‘Daniel in the Lion’s Den’ uses oil on canvas as its medium and media. The artist uses every inch of his canvas to fill with clues on where you are viewing the painting and of past events that lead to what was happening. The reason that Sir Peter Paul Rubens created this painting starts with his long history in the Catholic Church. He was a very devout man and was happily commissioned to depict a religious story. The church was losing followers at the time to Protestantism. This painting of Daniel was meant to tell people, mainly of the lower class because of their lack of reading ability, of the positive effects of staying with the Catholic faith. It was meant to excite people about the power that the church offers to its followers. The story of Daniel in the Lion’s den started with the Persian king Darius I “The Great” threw Daniel in a pit of lions because he would not change his faith against his “one true god”. The painting shows Daniel praying to his god, presumably all night as goes the story, that he not be eaten by the hungry lions. In the Bible it states, “Then said Daniel unto the king, O King, live for ever. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.” (Daniel 6:21-22). Thus, when the non-believers lift the rock covering the lion pit reveals that Daniel wasn’t eaten, god rewarded him for keeping his faith. Human bones and even a skull can be found in the foreground closest to the viewer to show what would really happen to someone if they found themselves among the nest of lions. Sir Peter chose to create this piece horizontally to create the illusion of a crowded room of lions pitted against a single man that could be more dramatically captured than if it were vertical. Sir Peter Paul Rubens’ use of theatrical lighting and values sets Daniel apart from the hungry lions at his feet. Shades of colors become lighter as you look toward the center of the painting where Daniel sits awkwardly praying. It’s meant to appear as if a spotlight has opened up above Daniel’s head. It was obvious that Sir Peter wanted the viewer’s attention to be focused on Daniel, still alive after a full night spent in a den of lions. This lighting could also be interpreted as sudden enlightenment as the Persian king realizes that he was miraculously spared. Warm colors are used for the majority of this painting, the only cool colors being in the small skylight above. Daniel is depicted as a fair-skinned man, also standing out against the reds and oranges of the lions, wearing nothing but a stark white loin cloth about his waist. You could go even further in your own analysis surrounding the colors of this painting. Daniel’s loincloth is an untarnished white which could represent the purity of his faith. As he sits on a boulder, under him is a red cloth which a viewer could interpret as the cruelty of the Persian king or the non-believers but is above all of them. You could also see it as the complete opposite, the red could symbolize the burning passion of his faith, which he stays upon. The detailing of the lions and of Daniel are over embellished, which goes along with Sir Peter’s pattern of dramatization. The exaggeration of expression on Daniel is very theatrical, and mostly why I love this piece so much. The man looks up in relief but you can still feel his terror. The lion’s mugs all fold in on themselves to reveal rows of pearly white, sharp teeth. The expressions of the lions vary from sneering to semi-peaceful sleep. In the description of the painting itself brought to us by the National Art Gallery explain that “Several lions, for instance, stare at us directly, suggesting that we share their space, and, like Daniel, experience the same menace.”. I don’t necessarily agree with this description. Only one lion looks directly at us and his stare more stone-faced than anything and I feel that it’s mild expression was meant to bring you the sense of strength and power from the lion. The power that the animals hold over this man is seen from the lion holding himself with pride beside the shaken Daniel. This interpretation of the particular lion’s expression and meaning could make the general purpose of this painting mean more, how strong these lions are but in the presence of faithful believer, they are harmless. The composition of ‘Daniel in the Lion’s Den is balanced. Daniel himself is to the slight right of the center of the painting and is accompanied by two lions at his feet on the same side as him. To the left of the painting to balance it out are six other lions. One of which, standing a little below Daniel’s height, is on the other side of the rock on which Daniel sits. The lion yawning in the background is placed to the slight right of the standing lion in front of it. Because Daniel is leaning to his left, away from the center of the painting, the far back lion was used to mimic his tilt by being placed perceptively closer to Daniel but further back. Sir Peter Paul Rubens’ painted this piece skillfully and with good reason to his faith. The shading on Daniel and the lions give them dimension and express dramatic feelings that make the viewer have to sit down to take everything in. The way he uses colors to represent a deeper meaning in his work reflects his feelings of the church that commissioned him. The piece was meant to bring back followers of the Catholic Church and I feel that this tactic was a good one. Instead of using fear to bring upon more followers, this painting depicts what their god could bring you if you give them undying faith.	1,279	ENGLISH	1
Irons a Gateway Into the Labor Intensive Past Laundry day is universally dreaded by all, both past and present, even though the activity has evolved since the industrial revolution. Despite changes in technology and labor saving devices, the activity of ironing today reflects a time when the irons were actually made of their namesake. “Laundry was not that simple of an affair in the 1800s,” explained Bob Bluthardt, Site Manager of Fort Concho. “It was labor intensive and it took all day.” He mentioned that in the modern time, with electricity and permanent press materials, a week’s worth of worn clothing only takes an hour or so of actual labor. “When you and I go do our laundry, we take it in a basket, put in the machine, put in our soap, turn it on, and walk away,” Bluthardt described a modern laundry day. “Not for them. They had to build a fire out of wood they chopped, to boil water they had to go get.” That doesn’t even cover the actual labor of hand washing the material, and of course everything had to be ironed. Most clothing was made out of cotton and wool, therefore it needed ironing to not look like a grain sack, although Bluthardt laughed and mentioned a lot of clothing was indeed made out of grain sacks. Of course steam irons didn’t exist, so heavy devices made out of iron were placed on the stove to heat up, then used to iron the clothing. “It was an art knowing how hot it should be: if it was too cool it didn’t work well, and if it was too hot it would burn the clothing,” he shrugged. “It represents an era where the most basic chores were all consuming.” Due to irons being a very common household object, once electricity started reaching rural Texas in the 1940s, Fort Concho began receiving many irons as donations. One of the irons in Bluthardt's office is allegedly 153 years old, while the other is most certainly pre-1900. Bluthardt explains that the common objects like the iron are good gateways into the past, even one where the simplest chores were back breaking labor. “Things today, like laundry and cooking that take minutes and have minimal labor involved were not the same back then,” he said and gave example, “the meat didn’t come from the refrigerator, it came on the hoof.” Recommended for You Get more stories like this by signing up for our daily newsletter, The LIVE! Daily.	<urn:uuid:2b0bcc14-9365-4231-accc-3178a2186c0a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://sanangelolive.com/news/san-angelo/2014-01-29/irons-gateway-labor-intensive-past	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00312.warc.gz	en	0.980244	566	3.265625	3	[ -0.3789389729499817, 0.39295196533203125, 0.04840109497308731, 0.12711304426193237, -0.049285486340522766, -0.2324315309524536, 0.029017876833677292, 0.05527493357658386, -0.32129815220832825, -0.43434303998947144, 0.1491771638393402, 0.0012984463246539235, 0.0941789448261261, 0.1427064687...	1	Irons a Gateway Into the Labor Intensive Past Laundry day is universally dreaded by all, both past and present, even though the activity has evolved since the industrial revolution. Despite changes in technology and labor saving devices, the activity of ironing today reflects a time when the irons were actually made of their namesake. “Laundry was not that simple of an affair in the 1800s,” explained Bob Bluthardt, Site Manager of Fort Concho. “It was labor intensive and it took all day.” He mentioned that in the modern time, with electricity and permanent press materials, a week’s worth of worn clothing only takes an hour or so of actual labor. “When you and I go do our laundry, we take it in a basket, put in the machine, put in our soap, turn it on, and walk away,” Bluthardt described a modern laundry day. “Not for them. They had to build a fire out of wood they chopped, to boil water they had to go get.” That doesn’t even cover the actual labor of hand washing the material, and of course everything had to be ironed. Most clothing was made out of cotton and wool, therefore it needed ironing to not look like a grain sack, although Bluthardt laughed and mentioned a lot of clothing was indeed made out of grain sacks. Of course steam irons didn’t exist, so heavy devices made out of iron were placed on the stove to heat up, then used to iron the clothing. “It was an art knowing how hot it should be: if it was too cool it didn’t work well, and if it was too hot it would burn the clothing,” he shrugged. “It represents an era where the most basic chores were all consuming.” Due to irons being a very common household object, once electricity started reaching rural Texas in the 1940s, Fort Concho began receiving many irons as donations. One of the irons in Bluthardt's office is allegedly 153 years old, while the other is most certainly pre-1900. Bluthardt explains that the common objects like the iron are good gateways into the past, even one where the simplest chores were back breaking labor. “Things today, like laundry and cooking that take minutes and have minimal labor involved were not the same back then,” he said and gave example, “the meat didn’t come from the refrigerator, it came on the hoof.” Recommended for You Get more stories like this by signing up for our daily newsletter, The LIVE! Daily.	531	ENGLISH	1
Shakespeare’s poems and plays show love for nature and rural life which reflects his childhood. In London, Shakespeare’s career took off. It is believed that he may have become well I known in London theatrical life by 1592. By that time, he had joined one of die city’s repertory theatre companies. These companies were made up of a permanent cast of actors who presented different plays week after week. The companies were commercial organisations that depended on admission from their audience. Scholars know that Shakespeare belonged to one of the most popular acting companies in London called ‘the Lord Chamberlain’s Men’. Shakespeare was a leading member of the group from 1594 for the rest of his career. 1594 had produced at least six of Shakespeare’s plays; During Shakespeare’s life, there were two monarchs who ruled England. They were Henry the eighth and Elizabeth the first. Both were impressed with Shakespeare, which made his name known. There is evidence that he was a member of a traveling theatre group. In 1594, he became an actor and playwright for Lord Chamberlain’s Men. In 1599, he became a part owner of the prosperous Globe Theatre. He also was a part owner of the Black friars Theatre as of 1609. Shakespeare retired to Stratford in 1613 where he wrote many of his excellent plays. There are many reasons as to why William Shakespeare is so famous. He was able to find universal human qualities and put them in a dramatic situation creating characters that are timeless. Yet he had the ability to create characters that are highly individual human beings. Their struggles in life are universal. The world has admired and respected many great writers, but only Shakespeare has generated such enormous continuing interest. Shakespeare’s plays are usually divided into their major Categories. These are comedy, tragedy and history. Three plays, which are in the category of comedy, are The Comedy of Errors, The Taming of the Shrew and The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Three plays, which are in die category of tragedy, are Romeo and Juliet, Titus Andronicus and Julius Caesar. In the category of history, three plays are Henry V, Richard II and Richard III.	<urn:uuid:ec19f462-c1c6-4b17-8910-808299a0d2d6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://lucasdipasquale.com/509-words-essay-on-william-shakespeare/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00043.warc.gz	en	0.989563	461	3.5	4	[ 0.3987044095993042, -0.3170698881149292, 0.6038207411766052, -0.0519569031894207, -0.1732267439365387, 0.10912065953016281, 0.4339553117752075, -0.0858648493885994, -0.26980656385421753, -0.25383633375167847, -0.09746725112199783, -0.2232898324728012, 0.17475880682468414, 0.041109733283519...	2	Shakespeare’s poems and plays show love for nature and rural life which reflects his childhood. In London, Shakespeare’s career took off. It is believed that he may have become well I known in London theatrical life by 1592. By that time, he had joined one of die city’s repertory theatre companies. These companies were made up of a permanent cast of actors who presented different plays week after week. The companies were commercial organisations that depended on admission from their audience. Scholars know that Shakespeare belonged to one of the most popular acting companies in London called ‘the Lord Chamberlain’s Men’. Shakespeare was a leading member of the group from 1594 for the rest of his career. 1594 had produced at least six of Shakespeare’s plays; During Shakespeare’s life, there were two monarchs who ruled England. They were Henry the eighth and Elizabeth the first. Both were impressed with Shakespeare, which made his name known. There is evidence that he was a member of a traveling theatre group. In 1594, he became an actor and playwright for Lord Chamberlain’s Men. In 1599, he became a part owner of the prosperous Globe Theatre. He also was a part owner of the Black friars Theatre as of 1609. Shakespeare retired to Stratford in 1613 where he wrote many of his excellent plays. There are many reasons as to why William Shakespeare is so famous. He was able to find universal human qualities and put them in a dramatic situation creating characters that are timeless. Yet he had the ability to create characters that are highly individual human beings. Their struggles in life are universal. The world has admired and respected many great writers, but only Shakespeare has generated such enormous continuing interest. Shakespeare’s plays are usually divided into their major Categories. These are comedy, tragedy and history. Three plays, which are in the category of comedy, are The Comedy of Errors, The Taming of the Shrew and The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Three plays, which are in die category of tragedy, are Romeo and Juliet, Titus Andronicus and Julius Caesar. In the category of history, three plays are Henry V, Richard II and Richard III.	460	ENGLISH	1
About Governor Houston George S. Houston was born on January 17, 1811, near the town of Franklin, Tennessee. When Houston was sixteen years old, the family moved to Lauderdale County, Alabama. Houston worked on the family farm and attended school at a local academy. Early on, he developed a fondness for books, and he eventually completed his studies in a private law school at Harrodsburg, Kentucky. In 1834, Houston moved to Limestone County and opened a law office in the county seat of Athens. He became a prominent local attorney as well as a member of Congress and a two term Governor of the State of Alabama. Governor Houston spent a total of 36 years in public service. He was a state legislator, circuit solicitor, and served nine terms in Congress. Perhaps no member was ever more complimented with committee appointments than he. He was placed on the most important committees and served as Chairman of Ways and Means, Military Affairs, and the Judiciary--an honor rarely, if ever accorded to any other member. Due to his conservative fiscal policies while in Congress, he was known as “The Watchdog of the Treasury”. Some historical accounts report that Houston was particularly influential with Presidents Pierce and Polk. Houston, a Unionist, was consistently opposed to secession and vowed that secession was unconstitutional. Ironically, Houston was drafted to write and deliver the speech of secession which declared the resignation of the Alabama Congressmen from the House. Although Houston did not fight in the Confederate Army because of bad health, he cast his lot and loyalty to his home state. In 1874, Houston was elected the 24th governor of the State of Alabama. As Alabama’s governor, he reorganized the public school system and established the first department of public health in the South. Houston’s term restored Democratic control of state government and ended Radical Reconstruction in the state. He restored the budget to a reasonable amount and cut expenses and dead wood from state government. Houston was elected for a second term as governor in 1876. At the end of his second term, he was sent to the United States Senate. He served in the extra session of 1879 but did not return to Washington on account of his poor health. On December 31, 1879, he died at his home in Athens. Upon his death, it was ordered that the public offices be closed on the day of his burial and that the capital be draped in mourning for thirty days. He is buried in the Houston family plot in Athens City Cemetery.	<urn:uuid:201573d7-dc97-40fb-9e7f-159da076f922>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.houstonhomeathensal.com/gov-houston.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694176.67/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127020458-20200127050458-00320.warc.gz	en	0.989874	513	3.359375	3	[ -0.390252023935318, 0.05802878364920616, 0.5863134264945984, 0.041209761053323746, -0.3617985248565674, 0.06310121715068817, 0.17286917567253113, -0.17176119983196259, -0.3323848247528076, 0.0053777857683598995, 0.2237590253353119, 0.17739242315292358, 0.15052665770053864, 0.33554932475090...	5	About Governor Houston George S. Houston was born on January 17, 1811, near the town of Franklin, Tennessee. When Houston was sixteen years old, the family moved to Lauderdale County, Alabama. Houston worked on the family farm and attended school at a local academy. Early on, he developed a fondness for books, and he eventually completed his studies in a private law school at Harrodsburg, Kentucky. In 1834, Houston moved to Limestone County and opened a law office in the county seat of Athens. He became a prominent local attorney as well as a member of Congress and a two term Governor of the State of Alabama. Governor Houston spent a total of 36 years in public service. He was a state legislator, circuit solicitor, and served nine terms in Congress. Perhaps no member was ever more complimented with committee appointments than he. He was placed on the most important committees and served as Chairman of Ways and Means, Military Affairs, and the Judiciary--an honor rarely, if ever accorded to any other member. Due to his conservative fiscal policies while in Congress, he was known as “The Watchdog of the Treasury”. Some historical accounts report that Houston was particularly influential with Presidents Pierce and Polk. Houston, a Unionist, was consistently opposed to secession and vowed that secession was unconstitutional. Ironically, Houston was drafted to write and deliver the speech of secession which declared the resignation of the Alabama Congressmen from the House. Although Houston did not fight in the Confederate Army because of bad health, he cast his lot and loyalty to his home state. In 1874, Houston was elected the 24th governor of the State of Alabama. As Alabama’s governor, he reorganized the public school system and established the first department of public health in the South. Houston’s term restored Democratic control of state government and ended Radical Reconstruction in the state. He restored the budget to a reasonable amount and cut expenses and dead wood from state government. Houston was elected for a second term as governor in 1876. At the end of his second term, he was sent to the United States Senate. He served in the extra session of 1879 but did not return to Washington on account of his poor health. On December 31, 1879, he died at his home in Athens. Upon his death, it was ordered that the public offices be closed on the day of his burial and that the capital be draped in mourning for thirty days. He is buried in the Houston family plot in Athens City Cemetery.	535	ENGLISH	1
By English Tutor, Africa: Adverbs are used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously: Examples of adverbs: However, nevertheless, nonetheless, still, yet, even though, although, though, despite, in spite of, notwithstanding etc… There are quite a few of them and it can be up to you which adverb you choose to use. It has to be appropriate for the sentence you are using it in. E.g. the “orange peel” is said to be irreversible. However, your skin can improve with targeted exercise and clean eating. When ever is used for emphasis after how or why; it should be written as a separate word. Thus it is correct to write how ever did you manage? Rather than however did you manage? (as distinct from other uses of the adverb however, which is always written as one word). With other words such as what, where, and who, the situation is not clear-cut: both two-word and one-word forms (both what ever and whatever, and so on) are well represented, and neither is regarded as particularly more correct than the other. 3,783 total views, 2 views today	<urn:uuid:7aeafe34-1b0f-4192-bd52-9c7a1f22a3ba>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://readerscafeafrica.com/2014/03/adverbs/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00209.warc.gz	en	0.984171	256	3.5625	4	[ -0.10774951428174973, -0.31257593631744385, 0.021919505670666695, -0.07803363353013992, 0.04263807460665703, -0.3756338059902191, 0.31790244579315186, 0.22340178489685059, 0.1994825154542923, 0.03560590744018555, 0.06545184552669525, -0.4853940010070801, -0.12746067345142365, 0.21554759144...	1	By English Tutor, Africa: Adverbs are used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously: Examples of adverbs: However, nevertheless, nonetheless, still, yet, even though, although, though, despite, in spite of, notwithstanding etc… There are quite a few of them and it can be up to you which adverb you choose to use. It has to be appropriate for the sentence you are using it in. E.g. the “orange peel” is said to be irreversible. However, your skin can improve with targeted exercise and clean eating. When ever is used for emphasis after how or why; it should be written as a separate word. Thus it is correct to write how ever did you manage? Rather than however did you manage? (as distinct from other uses of the adverb however, which is always written as one word). With other words such as what, where, and who, the situation is not clear-cut: both two-word and one-word forms (both what ever and whatever, and so on) are well represented, and neither is regarded as particularly more correct than the other. 3,783 total views, 2 views today	246	ENGLISH	1
Paper type: Essay Pages: 4 (917 words) During the 1800’s, the institution of slavery was still ongoing in the few slave states left in America. Slavery was still proving to be unjust and unfair, not allowing for African Americans to be considered equals. However, some slaves were able to overcome the many restrictions and boundaries that slavery forced upon them. In Frederick Douglass’ essay “Learning to Read and Write,” Douglass portrays himself as an intelligent and dignified slave who’s able to overcome the racial boundaries placed upon him. Frederick Douglass saw that his only pathway to freedom was through literacy, so his goal was to learn how to read and write no matter the circumstances. Douglass realized becoming a literate slave was considered as having too much power because it made him aware of unjust circumstances of slavery. For a slave to become literate wasn’t tolerated. If a slaves knew how to read and write, it would make them unfit for being slaves. At the age of twelve, Frederick Douglass manipulates his circumstances caused by slavery and uses various stratagems to learn how to read and write. Eager to learn, Douglass manipulated his circumstances under slavery to become literate. At first, Master Hugh’s wife had started tutoring Douglass, teaching him the alphabet. These lessons continued until she was further instructed by her husband not to do so. He believed that if slaves could read and write they would no longer obey him without question or thought. Due to this belief, tutoring ended abruptly. Masters Hugh’s wife carried out her husband’s commands, but she also tried to prevent Douglass from becoming educated by anyone else either. However, Douglass was able to obtain newspapers and or various books to further his education. The mistress and her husband demonstrated with their actions and beliefs during this time, that slavery and education were incompatible. However, Douglass had already taken the first step in his eager pursuit to literacy. Douglass’ quest for literacy led him to use various stratagems in order to learn how to read. Douglass had already gained command of the alphabet, so he devised a plan to become friends with poor white children whom he met on errands and to use them as teachers. He paid for his reading lessons with pieces of bread. By meeting at various times and places, he had finally succeeded in learning to read. With the little money he had earned doing errands, he bought a copy of The Columbian Orator (The common text for schools in New England at the time). Douglass was particularly interested in a dialogue in The Columbian Orator, one pertaining to a slave being emancipated after trying to escape for the third time. The dialogue consisted of a conversation between the master and the slave. The slave had proven he was intelligent with the smart and impressive replies to the master in the dialogue, thus leading to the emancipation of the slave on behalf of the master. Douglass learned the morality of the power of truth over conscience in the dialogue, which made him envious. The more Frederick Douglass learned, the more slavery became a burden. Douglass had become more aware of the unjustness of slavery and the social forces placed upon his people because of it. Knowingly, Douglass was determined to overcome these social forces and become a freed slave. Becoming more aware of his situation in society, Douglass felt wretched by his condition and sought to learn to write in order to better it. After he realized the strongholds and stipulations held upon him, Douglass sought to hear anything he can about slavery. Douglass became fascinated with the word abolition, and not knowing what it meant bothered him. Douglass, eager to find the meaning of the word, picked up a newspaper containing an account of petitions for the abolition of slavery and slave trade. It was not long before Frederick realized what the word now meant. Young Douglass was enlightened with new ideas that both tormented and inspired him. He soon began to detest slavery, and he knew that writing was the final step to fulfill his plight to become literate. So Douglass traveled to Mr. Water’s Wharf where he met two Irishmen who felt sorry for him being a slave and advised him to run away. However, Douglass believed that if he learned to write he could possible write his own ticket out of slavery. With this new found idea, he traveled to Durgin and Bailey’s ship-yard where he learned to write by using abbreviations. Different abbreviations stood for various areas on the ship where the timber was to be placed. He soon learned the names of the abbreviated letters and challenged the boys who had taught him to read, in writing contests. This method, along with his rigorous copying of words from various copy-books and Webster’s Spelling Book, allowed Douglass to finally become a literate black male in America. Frederick Douglass was able to overcome the social boundaries and conflicts that slavery forced upon him in his quest for literacy. Although his journey was hard and against all odds, Douglass knew that his only escape from the narrow-minded world of slavery was to be able to become educated. With his literacy came power and his ability to write his own ticket. Frederick Douglass’ aspiration for a becoming an equal citizen in America was astounding. He overcame the stipulations and restrictions that slavery forced upon him. When he wanted to give up all hope, his search for freedom and wellbeing was his motivation. Cite this page Frederick Douglass How I Learned to Read and Write. (2017, Mar 13). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/frederick-douglass-how-i-learned-to-read-and-write-essay	<urn:uuid:2dc3d9e4-a9b9-4d1d-b041-99cc17b4fc15>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://studymoose.com/frederick-douglass-how-i-learned-to-read-and-write-essay	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00408.warc.gz	en	0.988765	1,197	3.546875	4	[ -0.4100201427936554, 0.30568739771842957, 0.0971207246184349, 0.24994683265686035, -0.37438786029815674, 0.03573133796453476, -0.059266798198223114, -0.1040007621049881, -0.02061137557029724, 0.0430121049284935, 0.15521489083766937, 0.0797230526804924, -0.32505691051483154, 0.1922892034053...	1	Paper type: Essay Pages: 4 (917 words) During the 1800’s, the institution of slavery was still ongoing in the few slave states left in America. Slavery was still proving to be unjust and unfair, not allowing for African Americans to be considered equals. However, some slaves were able to overcome the many restrictions and boundaries that slavery forced upon them. In Frederick Douglass’ essay “Learning to Read and Write,” Douglass portrays himself as an intelligent and dignified slave who’s able to overcome the racial boundaries placed upon him. Frederick Douglass saw that his only pathway to freedom was through literacy, so his goal was to learn how to read and write no matter the circumstances. Douglass realized becoming a literate slave was considered as having too much power because it made him aware of unjust circumstances of slavery. For a slave to become literate wasn’t tolerated. If a slaves knew how to read and write, it would make them unfit for being slaves. At the age of twelve, Frederick Douglass manipulates his circumstances caused by slavery and uses various stratagems to learn how to read and write. Eager to learn, Douglass manipulated his circumstances under slavery to become literate. At first, Master Hugh’s wife had started tutoring Douglass, teaching him the alphabet. These lessons continued until she was further instructed by her husband not to do so. He believed that if slaves could read and write they would no longer obey him without question or thought. Due to this belief, tutoring ended abruptly. Masters Hugh’s wife carried out her husband’s commands, but she also tried to prevent Douglass from becoming educated by anyone else either. However, Douglass was able to obtain newspapers and or various books to further his education. The mistress and her husband demonstrated with their actions and beliefs during this time, that slavery and education were incompatible. However, Douglass had already taken the first step in his eager pursuit to literacy. Douglass’ quest for literacy led him to use various stratagems in order to learn how to read. Douglass had already gained command of the alphabet, so he devised a plan to become friends with poor white children whom he met on errands and to use them as teachers. He paid for his reading lessons with pieces of bread. By meeting at various times and places, he had finally succeeded in learning to read. With the little money he had earned doing errands, he bought a copy of The Columbian Orator (The common text for schools in New England at the time). Douglass was particularly interested in a dialogue in The Columbian Orator, one pertaining to a slave being emancipated after trying to escape for the third time. The dialogue consisted of a conversation between the master and the slave. The slave had proven he was intelligent with the smart and impressive replies to the master in the dialogue, thus leading to the emancipation of the slave on behalf of the master. Douglass learned the morality of the power of truth over conscience in the dialogue, which made him envious. The more Frederick Douglass learned, the more slavery became a burden. Douglass had become more aware of the unjustness of slavery and the social forces placed upon his people because of it. Knowingly, Douglass was determined to overcome these social forces and become a freed slave. Becoming more aware of his situation in society, Douglass felt wretched by his condition and sought to learn to write in order to better it. After he realized the strongholds and stipulations held upon him, Douglass sought to hear anything he can about slavery. Douglass became fascinated with the word abolition, and not knowing what it meant bothered him. Douglass, eager to find the meaning of the word, picked up a newspaper containing an account of petitions for the abolition of slavery and slave trade. It was not long before Frederick realized what the word now meant. Young Douglass was enlightened with new ideas that both tormented and inspired him. He soon began to detest slavery, and he knew that writing was the final step to fulfill his plight to become literate. So Douglass traveled to Mr. Water’s Wharf where he met two Irishmen who felt sorry for him being a slave and advised him to run away. However, Douglass believed that if he learned to write he could possible write his own ticket out of slavery. With this new found idea, he traveled to Durgin and Bailey’s ship-yard where he learned to write by using abbreviations. Different abbreviations stood for various areas on the ship where the timber was to be placed. He soon learned the names of the abbreviated letters and challenged the boys who had taught him to read, in writing contests. This method, along with his rigorous copying of words from various copy-books and Webster’s Spelling Book, allowed Douglass to finally become a literate black male in America. Frederick Douglass was able to overcome the social boundaries and conflicts that slavery forced upon him in his quest for literacy. Although his journey was hard and against all odds, Douglass knew that his only escape from the narrow-minded world of slavery was to be able to become educated. With his literacy came power and his ability to write his own ticket. Frederick Douglass’ aspiration for a becoming an equal citizen in America was astounding. He overcame the stipulations and restrictions that slavery forced upon him. When he wanted to give up all hope, his search for freedom and wellbeing was his motivation. Cite this page Frederick Douglass How I Learned to Read and Write. (2017, Mar 13). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/frederick-douglass-how-i-learned-to-read-and-write-essay	1,163	ENGLISH	1
In William Shakespeare's Hamlet, what is the significance (including the literary devices) of Hamlet's first soliloquy? Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, explores Hamlet's journey from the loss of his father to his final act of revenge against his father's murderer. The first time we meet Hamlet is in Act One scene two, and he is not happy. His mother has just gotten married--to Claudius, her brother-in-law and the man who murdered King Hamlet--only a month or so after her husband, the man she seemed to have loved so desperately, died. Both Claudius and his mother scold Hamlet for acting so mournfully, and Hamlet says he will try to please them; however, as soon as he is alone we hear his thoughts in his first soliloquy of the play. The first thing he wishes in this monologue is that he could just die, that his "too too solid flesh would melt /Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!" His second wish is that God had not said that it was a sin to commit suicide, or obviously he would already have killed himself in his misery. Hamlet is a man who is concerned about the afterlife, which is one of the reasons he does not quickly kill Claudius, as Hamlet knows what God says about murder, too. Hamlet describes his unhappy and unprofitable life (in the form of a simile) as For the rest of the soliloquy, he is angry with his mother for seeming to love her husband so well that she cried "Niobe's tears" (an allusion to the Greek goddess Niobe who cried in her grief even after being turned into a stone statue) and then so quickly marrying Claudius. He compares his father to Hyperion and Claudius to a satyr; then he says Claudius is as much like King Hamlet as Hamlet is to Hercules--which means they are not at all alike (more allusions to Greek mythology). Hamlet says, "Frailty, thy name is woman!" and compares his mother to an animal, saying a dumb beast "would have mourn'd longer." He is disgusted that she is sleeping on "incestuous sheets," and knows "it is not nor it cannot come to good." Despite his heartbreak and anger, Hamlet knows he cannot speak his sorrow to these two people: "But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue." This is the first time we hear Hamlet's thoughts, and it is clear that he hates his current life. He does not like Claudius because he is an inferior man to Hamlet's father, and he is angry with his mother for making such a terrible choice after seeming to love her first husband so much. Anyone in Hamlet's position would undoubtedly be thinking the same things and feeling the same way, another example of Shakespeare's universal themes. check Approved by eNotes Editorial	<urn:uuid:a82d571f-091a-4176-abba-17529e9fbb38>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/state-significance-hamlets-first-soliloquy-1-2-131-444598?en_action=hh-question_click&en_label=hh-sidebar&en_category=internal_campaign	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594705.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119180644-20200119204644-00050.warc.gz	en	0.988117	612	4.09375	4	[ 0.082217276096344, -0.20125266909599304, 0.5826576948165894, -0.16623003780841827, -0.5903950929641724, -0.11203640699386597, 0.5549753904342651, 0.4607864320278168, 0.0751596987247467, -0.35405445098876953, -0.12464847415685654, -0.16804538667201996, -0.19578403234481812, 0.21978396177291...	1	In William Shakespeare's Hamlet, what is the significance (including the literary devices) of Hamlet's first soliloquy? Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, explores Hamlet's journey from the loss of his father to his final act of revenge against his father's murderer. The first time we meet Hamlet is in Act One scene two, and he is not happy. His mother has just gotten married--to Claudius, her brother-in-law and the man who murdered King Hamlet--only a month or so after her husband, the man she seemed to have loved so desperately, died. Both Claudius and his mother scold Hamlet for acting so mournfully, and Hamlet says he will try to please them; however, as soon as he is alone we hear his thoughts in his first soliloquy of the play. The first thing he wishes in this monologue is that he could just die, that his "too too solid flesh would melt /Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!" His second wish is that God had not said that it was a sin to commit suicide, or obviously he would already have killed himself in his misery. Hamlet is a man who is concerned about the afterlife, which is one of the reasons he does not quickly kill Claudius, as Hamlet knows what God says about murder, too. Hamlet describes his unhappy and unprofitable life (in the form of a simile) as For the rest of the soliloquy, he is angry with his mother for seeming to love her husband so well that she cried "Niobe's tears" (an allusion to the Greek goddess Niobe who cried in her grief even after being turned into a stone statue) and then so quickly marrying Claudius. He compares his father to Hyperion and Claudius to a satyr; then he says Claudius is as much like King Hamlet as Hamlet is to Hercules--which means they are not at all alike (more allusions to Greek mythology). Hamlet says, "Frailty, thy name is woman!" and compares his mother to an animal, saying a dumb beast "would have mourn'd longer." He is disgusted that she is sleeping on "incestuous sheets," and knows "it is not nor it cannot come to good." Despite his heartbreak and anger, Hamlet knows he cannot speak his sorrow to these two people: "But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue." This is the first time we hear Hamlet's thoughts, and it is clear that he hates his current life. He does not like Claudius because he is an inferior man to Hamlet's father, and he is angry with his mother for making such a terrible choice after seeming to love her first husband so much. Anyone in Hamlet's position would undoubtedly be thinking the same things and feeling the same way, another example of Shakespeare's universal themes. check Approved by eNotes Editorial	603	ENGLISH	1
From the series Inside the World of Sports Grade Range: 7th – 12th Page Count: 80 Lexile Level: 1200L An ancient sport of an ancient people, lacrosse has been played in North America for centuries. Part of the ritual of their lives and cultures, lacrosse was a sport practiced more so than played by the native people of eastern Canada and the North Eastern United States. European settlers were fascinated by the game, and over the centuries, it evolved to the sport with modern rules and modern equipment that is played in high schools and colleges across North America today. Lacrosse is played predominantly in the colleges of the northeast, but this is changing as its popularity grows and the game spreads. The University of Denver Pioneers was the first team outside of the Eastern Time zone to win the men's Division I championship in 2015. Lacrosse is also a popular women's sport, with more than 100 sanctioned Division I programs. Lightswitch Learning © 2020 All rights reserved. \| Sitemap	<urn:uuid:a00d58e3-84b3-4f95-b5e9-5261e52718e1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://lightswitchlearning.com/product/lacrosse/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00449.warc.gz	en	0.981418	205	3.609375	4	[ -0.03748967498540878, 0.3062203526496887, 0.43057960271835327, -0.4733773469924927, 0.11818499863147736, 0.41160646080970764, 0.26047107577323914, 0.40508610010147095, 0.258478581905365, 0.0085361422970891, -0.05066831037402153, -0.22890280187129974, -0.23313021659851074, 0.166534230113029...	4	From the series Inside the World of Sports Grade Range: 7th – 12th Page Count: 80 Lexile Level: 1200L An ancient sport of an ancient people, lacrosse has been played in North America for centuries. Part of the ritual of their lives and cultures, lacrosse was a sport practiced more so than played by the native people of eastern Canada and the North Eastern United States. European settlers were fascinated by the game, and over the centuries, it evolved to the sport with modern rules and modern equipment that is played in high schools and colleges across North America today. Lacrosse is played predominantly in the colleges of the northeast, but this is changing as its popularity grows and the game spreads. The University of Denver Pioneers was the first team outside of the Eastern Time zone to win the men's Division I championship in 2015. Lacrosse is also a popular women's sport, with more than 100 sanctioned Division I programs. Lightswitch Learning © 2020 All rights reserved. \| Sitemap	224	ENGLISH	1
West Haven’s Earliest Days We acknowledge the efforts of Lorraine Wood Rockefeller, who originally set these words down in about 1960. The first settlers believed in witchcraft and its punishment by law. In 1657, William Meeker was accused of practicing Black Magic, but when his case came to trial, his accuser admitted that he had falsely accused his neighbor. In the same court, a Thomas Mulliner was rebuked for settling his fence “so near to the edge of the bank by the sea that when the cattle are betwixt that and the sea, and the tide came in hastily upon them, they are in hazard to be drowned as some swine have been, and therefore he has been told that it must be removed and also any other set in like manner.” The courts united equity and law jurisdiction and administered both from the same bench without much regard to the form of action. The simple system of procedure in the days when New Haven existed as an independent colony seemed to give general satisfaction to the people although on many occasions the decisions were somewhat arbitrary and evidence was received contrary to the usual rules. The magistrates were honest, God-fearing men who tried to do what they considered the right thing between parties. These early settlers brought with them the idea, taste and customs of the mother country and these long survived despite the leveling tendencies and free spirit of the New World. They were strict in morals and Gov. Withrop prohibited cards and gaming tables. A man might be whipped for shooting fowl on Sunday. All conduct was shaped by a literal interpretation of the Scripture. Even articles of dress were limited and regulated by law. Most of the West Farmers were thrifty independent people who became less and less interested in the increasingly complicated affairs of the growing mother town, New Haven. A rigid social code developed with a definite line drawn between the several classes of society. Under this code the classes had different rights and duties. Society was then composed of church members and freemen, admitted planters who had taken the oath of fidelity, householders, day laborers, indentured servants and apprentices and a few Negro slaves. The group of servants and apprentices caused much trouble in New Haven Colony with “their coarse, quarrelsome and even beastly practices.” It was against this group that much of the early penal law was directed. In general, the inhabitants of West Farms were middle class householders with few who were very rich or very poor. They had few servants and as the bulk of the trade was in New Haven, still fewer apprentices. The only district taxes for many were collected by tithing-men from New Haven and were used for the minister’s salary. To be continued	<urn:uuid:4ee8c0c6-1dac-4445-ab20-da1262850e77>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://westhavenvoice.com/historians-corner-76/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00466.warc.gz	en	0.989664	559	3.359375	3	[ -0.40040284395217896, -0.03011179156601429, -0.043877266347408295, -0.27032843232154846, 0.04482283443212509, 0.20594707131385803, -0.04731426015496254, -0.3764103055000305, 0.05452926829457283, -0.1332629770040512, -0.2566329836845398, 0.09010126441717148, -0.11129270493984222, 0.42239680...	5	West Haven’s Earliest Days We acknowledge the efforts of Lorraine Wood Rockefeller, who originally set these words down in about 1960. The first settlers believed in witchcraft and its punishment by law. In 1657, William Meeker was accused of practicing Black Magic, but when his case came to trial, his accuser admitted that he had falsely accused his neighbor. In the same court, a Thomas Mulliner was rebuked for settling his fence “so near to the edge of the bank by the sea that when the cattle are betwixt that and the sea, and the tide came in hastily upon them, they are in hazard to be drowned as some swine have been, and therefore he has been told that it must be removed and also any other set in like manner.” The courts united equity and law jurisdiction and administered both from the same bench without much regard to the form of action. The simple system of procedure in the days when New Haven existed as an independent colony seemed to give general satisfaction to the people although on many occasions the decisions were somewhat arbitrary and evidence was received contrary to the usual rules. The magistrates were honest, God-fearing men who tried to do what they considered the right thing between parties. These early settlers brought with them the idea, taste and customs of the mother country and these long survived despite the leveling tendencies and free spirit of the New World. They were strict in morals and Gov. Withrop prohibited cards and gaming tables. A man might be whipped for shooting fowl on Sunday. All conduct was shaped by a literal interpretation of the Scripture. Even articles of dress were limited and regulated by law. Most of the West Farmers were thrifty independent people who became less and less interested in the increasingly complicated affairs of the growing mother town, New Haven. A rigid social code developed with a definite line drawn between the several classes of society. Under this code the classes had different rights and duties. Society was then composed of church members and freemen, admitted planters who had taken the oath of fidelity, householders, day laborers, indentured servants and apprentices and a few Negro slaves. The group of servants and apprentices caused much trouble in New Haven Colony with “their coarse, quarrelsome and even beastly practices.” It was against this group that much of the early penal law was directed. In general, the inhabitants of West Farms were middle class householders with few who were very rich or very poor. They had few servants and as the bulk of the trade was in New Haven, still fewer apprentices. The only district taxes for many were collected by tithing-men from New Haven and were used for the minister’s salary. To be continued	550	ENGLISH	1
The Catholic Church responded to the challenges posed by the Lutheran Reformation. The Council of Trent was created in order to change the Catholic Church. The ideas of the Lutheran reformation were becoming popular and therefore, the Catholic Church had lost many followers. The Council of Trent began the Catholic reformation by abolishing the corruption of the Catholic Church. In addition, the Council wanted to prevent the growth of Protestantism and affirm the beliefs of Catholicism. The Council of Trent was the key response to oppose the Lutheran Reformation. Catholic authorities got rid of corruption within the church. For example, absenteeism, simony, pluralism, and the selling of indulgences, were abolished. Bishops were no longer able to practice absenteeism or pluralism. They were not able to hold more than one church office at a time nor were they able to be absent from the spiritual duties of the position they held. Furthermore, simony was no longer tolerated. People were no longer able to purchase church offices. In addition, the Catholic Church ended the selling of indulgences. The life of the priest was changed. Seminaries were made to train priests and make sure they were literate. Priests were forced to stay celibate and live life in poverty. Catholic authorities were forced to take action and brought much change to the Catholic Church. Catholic authorities began affirming the beliefs of Catholicism. Authorities stated faith and good works were necessary in order to achieve salvation. They had also stated they believed in transubstantiation, where the bread and wine would turn into the body and blood of Christ during consecration. Catholic authorities had acknowledged the 7 sacraments and Ideas such as monasticism, celibacy of the clergy, and purgatory. The Pope’s teachings were infallible and the Pope continued to interpret scripture for the people. Reaffirming Catholic beliefs was an important process because it allowed people to see the difference between Protestant and Catholic theology. The Term Paper on History of the Catholic Church on the death penalty and how it has changed over time ... carried out. The papal authority has constantly called for an end to capital punishment. The Catholic Church under the leadership of ... executed as a result of the changes in the catechetical presentation of the Catholic Church’s moral stand (Gregory para, ... political order. This perception has however, changed over the years. The modern Catholic Church leadership has expressed its opinion against ... Catholic authorities would also check the growth of Protestantism. The Catholic Church began censoring books that contained Protestant thoughts and ideas. People would be severely punished if they possessed a censored book. Moreover, catholic authorities limited the printing press because it was able to spread Protestant ideas. In addition, catholic authorities began the Roman Inquisition because they wanted to end heresy against the Catholic Church. Ignatius Loyola was able to create the society of Jesuits. The Jesuits began educating young Europeans about Catholicism and even opened schools. The Jesuits were able to limit the spread of Protestantism by bringing Catholicism among European people. The Ursuline order of nuns had set up schools for girls and wanted to go against heresy through education. Furthermore, baroque art, had also limited Protestantism. Baroque art would consist of religious themes that had emotional involvement and brought people closer to god. These steps taken by the Catholic Church were able to limit the growth of Protestantism.	<urn:uuid:2659c39b-2e8e-4c3a-9da3-0194362ef5a6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://educheer.com/essays/what-were-the-responses-of-the-catholic-authorities-in-the-sixteenth-century-to-the-challenges-posed-by-the-lutheran-reformation/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00044.warc.gz	en	0.987053	695	3.859375	4	[ -0.016029618680477142, -0.032400574535131454, 0.03902086243033409, 0.15176910161972046, -0.20427757501602173, -0.09590570628643036, -0.20100563764572144, 0.025255423039197922, 0.09730437397956848, -0.21922586858272552, -0.16192734241485596, -0.08915586769580841, 0.06151798740029335, -0.095...	1	The Catholic Church responded to the challenges posed by the Lutheran Reformation. The Council of Trent was created in order to change the Catholic Church. The ideas of the Lutheran reformation were becoming popular and therefore, the Catholic Church had lost many followers. The Council of Trent began the Catholic reformation by abolishing the corruption of the Catholic Church. In addition, the Council wanted to prevent the growth of Protestantism and affirm the beliefs of Catholicism. The Council of Trent was the key response to oppose the Lutheran Reformation. Catholic authorities got rid of corruption within the church. For example, absenteeism, simony, pluralism, and the selling of indulgences, were abolished. Bishops were no longer able to practice absenteeism or pluralism. They were not able to hold more than one church office at a time nor were they able to be absent from the spiritual duties of the position they held. Furthermore, simony was no longer tolerated. People were no longer able to purchase church offices. In addition, the Catholic Church ended the selling of indulgences. The life of the priest was changed. Seminaries were made to train priests and make sure they were literate. Priests were forced to stay celibate and live life in poverty. Catholic authorities were forced to take action and brought much change to the Catholic Church. Catholic authorities began affirming the beliefs of Catholicism. Authorities stated faith and good works were necessary in order to achieve salvation. They had also stated they believed in transubstantiation, where the bread and wine would turn into the body and blood of Christ during consecration. Catholic authorities had acknowledged the 7 sacraments and Ideas such as monasticism, celibacy of the clergy, and purgatory. The Pope’s teachings were infallible and the Pope continued to interpret scripture for the people. Reaffirming Catholic beliefs was an important process because it allowed people to see the difference between Protestant and Catholic theology. The Term Paper on History of the Catholic Church on the death penalty and how it has changed over time ... carried out. The papal authority has constantly called for an end to capital punishment. The Catholic Church under the leadership of ... executed as a result of the changes in the catechetical presentation of the Catholic Church’s moral stand (Gregory para, ... political order. This perception has however, changed over the years. The modern Catholic Church leadership has expressed its opinion against ... Catholic authorities would also check the growth of Protestantism. The Catholic Church began censoring books that contained Protestant thoughts and ideas. People would be severely punished if they possessed a censored book. Moreover, catholic authorities limited the printing press because it was able to spread Protestant ideas. In addition, catholic authorities began the Roman Inquisition because they wanted to end heresy against the Catholic Church. Ignatius Loyola was able to create the society of Jesuits. The Jesuits began educating young Europeans about Catholicism and even opened schools. The Jesuits were able to limit the spread of Protestantism by bringing Catholicism among European people. The Ursuline order of nuns had set up schools for girls and wanted to go against heresy through education. Furthermore, baroque art, had also limited Protestantism. Baroque art would consist of religious themes that had emotional involvement and brought people closer to god. These steps taken by the Catholic Church were able to limit the growth of Protestantism.	694	ENGLISH	1
\|Nationalised companies (controlled by HM Government and reporting to the Ministry of Power)\| \|Predecessor\|\|1812 (as the Gas Light and Coke Company and various others\| \|Successor\|\|British Gas Corporation (by the Gas Act 1972)\| \|Founded\|\|1948 (by the Gas Act 1948)\| In the early 1900s the gas market in the United Kingdom was mainly run by county councils and small private firms. At this time the use of an inflammable gas (often known as "town gas") piped to houses as a fuel was still being marketed to consumers, by such means as the National Gas Congress and Exhibition in 1913. The gas used in the 19th and early 20th centuries was coal gas but in the period 1967–77 British domestic coal gas supplies were replaced by natural gas. In 1948 Clement Attlee's Labour government reshaped the gas industry, bringing in the Gas Act 1948. The act nationalised the UK gas industry and 1,064 privately owned and municipal gas companies were merged into twelve area gas boards each a separate body with its own management structure. Each area board was divided into geographical groups or divisions which were often further divided into smaller districts. These boards simply became known as the "gas board", a term people still use when referring to British Gas, the company that replaced the boards when the Gas Act 1972 was passed.	<urn:uuid:21720b51-fcf9-44d6-8835-f1d68c6dfd0e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_board	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00281.warc.gz	en	0.981506	281	3.296875	3	[ 0.02938343957066536, 0.13509945571422577, 0.5276944041252136, 0.022919360548257828, 0.3110639452934265, 0.37492385506629944, 0.10114802420139313, -0.019377533346414566, -0.4372653067111969, 0.025566892698407173, -0.3720548152923584, -0.31905555725097656, -0.06042505428195, 0.06964658945798...	1	\|Nationalised companies (controlled by HM Government and reporting to the Ministry of Power)\| \|Predecessor\|\|1812 (as the Gas Light and Coke Company and various others\| \|Successor\|\|British Gas Corporation (by the Gas Act 1972)\| \|Founded\|\|1948 (by the Gas Act 1948)\| In the early 1900s the gas market in the United Kingdom was mainly run by county councils and small private firms. At this time the use of an inflammable gas (often known as "town gas") piped to houses as a fuel was still being marketed to consumers, by such means as the National Gas Congress and Exhibition in 1913. The gas used in the 19th and early 20th centuries was coal gas but in the period 1967–77 British domestic coal gas supplies were replaced by natural gas. In 1948 Clement Attlee's Labour government reshaped the gas industry, bringing in the Gas Act 1948. The act nationalised the UK gas industry and 1,064 privately owned and municipal gas companies were merged into twelve area gas boards each a separate body with its own management structure. Each area board was divided into geographical groups or divisions which were often further divided into smaller districts. These boards simply became known as the "gas board", a term people still use when referring to British Gas, the company that replaced the boards when the Gas Act 1972 was passed.	321	ENGLISH	1
A biography of joseph stalin the leader of the soviet union By the time Stalin regained his resolve, German armies occupied all of the Ukraine and Belarus, and its artillery surrounded Leningrad. His father was a shoemaker and alcoholic who beat his son, and his mother was a laundress. The Russian Civil War lasted until His iron will and deft political skills enabled him to play the loyal ally while never abandoning his vision of an expanded postwar Soviet empire. Millions were killed in forced labor or starved during the ensuing famine. Unfortunately, the Germans were merciless in their occupation and ravaged the territory they conquered. Joseph stalin country Related Profiles. Stalin's parents were poor and he had a rough childhood. He targeted members of his cabinet and government, soldiers, clergy, intellectuals, or anyone else he deemed suspect. Although Stalin and Trotsky were rivals, Lenin appreciated their distinct abilities and promoted both. Between getting arrested, Stalin married Ekaterine Svanidze, a sister of a classmate from seminary, in He shrewdly used his new position to consolidate power in exactly this way--by controlling all appointments, setting agendas, and moving around Party staff in such a way that eventually everyone who counted for anything owed their position to him. Thanks for watching! By the time Stalin regained his resolve, German armies occupied all of the Ukraine and Belarus, and its artillery surrounded Leningrad. Sent by his mother to the seminary in Tiflis now Tbilisi , the capital of Georgia, to study to become a priest, the young Stalin never completed his education, and was instead soon completely drawn into the city's active revolutionary circles. Because the pockmarked Georgian was so obviously unintellectual, they thought him unintelligent—a gross error, and one literally fatal in their case. Soon Stalin became one of Lenin's top leaders. Stalin ruled up until his own death in President Harry Truman recognized that Stalin could not go unchecked. What did joseph stalin do Driven by his own sense of inferiority, which he projected onto his country as a whole, Stalin pursued an economic policy of mobilizing the entire country to achieve the goal of rapid industrialization, so that it could stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Capitalist powers. These governments were ran by the Soviet Union. Between and , he established Communist regimes in many Eastern European countries, creating a vast buffer zone between Western Europe and "Mother Russia. Before he had the name Stalin, he used the name "Koba". Although Stalin began to receive American equipment in , what he really wanted was Allied troops deployed to the Eastern Front. He was the son of a poor cobbler in the provincial Georgian town of Gori in the Caucasus , then an imperial Russian colony. Still, he was not finished. Any resistance was met with swift and lethal response; millions of people were exiled to the labor camps of the Gulag or were executed. He had factories built through the country. British parliamentary elections had replaced Prime Minister Churchill with Clement Attlee as Britain's chief negotiator. After escaping from exile, he was marked by the Okhranka, the tsar's secret police as an outlaw and continued his work in hiding, raising money through robberies, kidnappings and extortion. based on 34 review	<urn:uuid:2a177417-922b-44a1-acee-def1d0797479>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://nowajabezal.carriagehouseautoresto.com/a-biography-of-joseph-stalin-the-leader-of-the-soviet-union101185853sf.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00438.warc.gz	en	0.985802	673	3.390625	3	[ -0.4945037066936493, 0.18181447684764862, 0.4569181799888611, 0.24893251061439514, -0.1323697566986084, 0.027457457035779953, 0.6047518253326416, 0.085574671626091, -0.3224814534187317, -0.010430875234305859, 0.17372357845306396, -0.11393934488296509, 0.7355542182922363, 0.4692593216896057...	2	A biography of joseph stalin the leader of the soviet union By the time Stalin regained his resolve, German armies occupied all of the Ukraine and Belarus, and its artillery surrounded Leningrad. His father was a shoemaker and alcoholic who beat his son, and his mother was a laundress. The Russian Civil War lasted until His iron will and deft political skills enabled him to play the loyal ally while never abandoning his vision of an expanded postwar Soviet empire. Millions were killed in forced labor or starved during the ensuing famine. Unfortunately, the Germans were merciless in their occupation and ravaged the territory they conquered. Joseph stalin country Related Profiles. Stalin's parents were poor and he had a rough childhood. He targeted members of his cabinet and government, soldiers, clergy, intellectuals, or anyone else he deemed suspect. Although Stalin and Trotsky were rivals, Lenin appreciated their distinct abilities and promoted both. Between getting arrested, Stalin married Ekaterine Svanidze, a sister of a classmate from seminary, in He shrewdly used his new position to consolidate power in exactly this way--by controlling all appointments, setting agendas, and moving around Party staff in such a way that eventually everyone who counted for anything owed their position to him. Thanks for watching! By the time Stalin regained his resolve, German armies occupied all of the Ukraine and Belarus, and its artillery surrounded Leningrad. Sent by his mother to the seminary in Tiflis now Tbilisi , the capital of Georgia, to study to become a priest, the young Stalin never completed his education, and was instead soon completely drawn into the city's active revolutionary circles. Because the pockmarked Georgian was so obviously unintellectual, they thought him unintelligent—a gross error, and one literally fatal in their case. Soon Stalin became one of Lenin's top leaders. Stalin ruled up until his own death in President Harry Truman recognized that Stalin could not go unchecked. What did joseph stalin do Driven by his own sense of inferiority, which he projected onto his country as a whole, Stalin pursued an economic policy of mobilizing the entire country to achieve the goal of rapid industrialization, so that it could stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Capitalist powers. These governments were ran by the Soviet Union. Between and , he established Communist regimes in many Eastern European countries, creating a vast buffer zone between Western Europe and "Mother Russia. Before he had the name Stalin, he used the name "Koba". Although Stalin began to receive American equipment in , what he really wanted was Allied troops deployed to the Eastern Front. He was the son of a poor cobbler in the provincial Georgian town of Gori in the Caucasus , then an imperial Russian colony. Still, he was not finished. Any resistance was met with swift and lethal response; millions of people were exiled to the labor camps of the Gulag or were executed. He had factories built through the country. British parliamentary elections had replaced Prime Minister Churchill with Clement Attlee as Britain's chief negotiator. After escaping from exile, he was marked by the Okhranka, the tsar's secret police as an outlaw and continued his work in hiding, raising money through robberies, kidnappings and extortion. based on 34 review	673	ENGLISH	1
Do you know who was referred as the Father of Geometry? If not will give you a little background of who is the father of geometry and a bit about him. Euclid also known as Euclid of Alexandria is a Greek mathematician is referred as father of Geometry. Good Glory is the meaning of his name in Greek. In the history of mathematics his most influential work was “Elements”. From the time of this was publish till late 19th or the early 20th century this work of his was used as a main textbook in teaching mathematics most specially geometry. Here at Elements he works out the principles of Euclidean geometry from axions in small set. Aside from Elements he also did other works that has same logical structures as of this. This is the data, on division of figures, catoptrics, phaenomena and optics. For data is nearly correlated to the first four books of Elements. It deals with the information in the problem of geometrical. On division of figures is almost the same with the work of Heron of Alexandria in the 3rd century AD. Catoptrics it focuses on theory of mirrors mathematically most specific the image that is form in spherical and plane concave mirrors. Phaenomena is about spherical astronomy somehow similar with Autolycus of Pitane the On the Moving Sphere. Optics follows tradition of Platonic where in it is because by discrete rays that emanate from the eye. This is just some of his works that survived till now. He has other works but was lost such as conics, porisms and other more.	<urn:uuid:dbf56a92-a2f4-4ec4-9242-46678d9f12e3>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://cool-math-game-for-kids.com/euclid-of-alexandria	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00272.warc.gz	en	0.983466	333	3.75	4	[ 0.17023365199565887, 0.06935065239667892, 0.16513997316360474, -0.2527260184288025, -0.4211428165435791, -0.2665676474571228, 0.28429096937179565, 0.6344045996665955, -0.22991113364696503, -0.10243300348520279, -0.12217552214860916, -0.7952122092247009, -0.058355171233415604, 0.48688668012...	17	Do you know who was referred as the Father of Geometry? If not will give you a little background of who is the father of geometry and a bit about him. Euclid also known as Euclid of Alexandria is a Greek mathematician is referred as father of Geometry. Good Glory is the meaning of his name in Greek. In the history of mathematics his most influential work was “Elements”. From the time of this was publish till late 19th or the early 20th century this work of his was used as a main textbook in teaching mathematics most specially geometry. Here at Elements he works out the principles of Euclidean geometry from axions in small set. Aside from Elements he also did other works that has same logical structures as of this. This is the data, on division of figures, catoptrics, phaenomena and optics. For data is nearly correlated to the first four books of Elements. It deals with the information in the problem of geometrical. On division of figures is almost the same with the work of Heron of Alexandria in the 3rd century AD. Catoptrics it focuses on theory of mirrors mathematically most specific the image that is form in spherical and plane concave mirrors. Phaenomena is about spherical astronomy somehow similar with Autolycus of Pitane the On the Moving Sphere. Optics follows tradition of Platonic where in it is because by discrete rays that emanate from the eye. This is just some of his works that survived till now. He has other works but was lost such as conics, porisms and other more.	329	ENGLISH	1
Pages that link here: LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin was made in 1928 as a mean of restarting of German Zeppelin traffic after the World War One. It was the first aircraft in history to fly over a million miles; it flew around the world and to the Arctic and back. The Zeppelin LZ 18 –L 2 was a German military rigid airship first flown on 9 September 1913. It was the second Zeppelin airship to be bought by the Imperial German Navy. On 17 October 1913 it caught fire and crashed and the entire crew was killed. Read more about LZ 18. The Zeppelin LZ 16 - Z IV was a German military rigid airship first flown on 14 March 1913. It was accidentally crossed the French border due to a navigational error caused by poor visibility. Later it was used for reconnaissance, bombing and training before being decommissioned in the autumn of 1916. Read more about LZ 16. The Zeppelin LZ 7 was a German civilian, passenger-carrying airship, constructed for DELAG. It was first flown on 19 June 1910. On 28 June 1910, LZ 7 was damaged beyond repair after crashing during a thunderstorm over the Teutoburg Forest. Read more about LZ 7.	<urn:uuid:01838fdb-1b8b-4b33-8914-8639219504db>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.zeppelinhistory.com/picture/picture-of-lz-127-graf-zeppelin/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00114.warc.gz	en	0.980661	260	3.28125	3	[ -0.12846164405345917, 0.3528463840484619, 0.017708150669932365, -0.00955220963805914, -0.13290028274059296, 0.15672968327999115, 0.09116820245981216, 0.4753686189651489, -0.19719795882701874, -0.21250183880329132, 0.11635861545801163, -0.03846203163266182, 0.06802231818437576, 0.2630304396...	1	Pages that link here: LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin was made in 1928 as a mean of restarting of German Zeppelin traffic after the World War One. It was the first aircraft in history to fly over a million miles; it flew around the world and to the Arctic and back. The Zeppelin LZ 18 –L 2 was a German military rigid airship first flown on 9 September 1913. It was the second Zeppelin airship to be bought by the Imperial German Navy. On 17 October 1913 it caught fire and crashed and the entire crew was killed. Read more about LZ 18. The Zeppelin LZ 16 - Z IV was a German military rigid airship first flown on 14 March 1913. It was accidentally crossed the French border due to a navigational error caused by poor visibility. Later it was used for reconnaissance, bombing and training before being decommissioned in the autumn of 1916. Read more about LZ 16. The Zeppelin LZ 7 was a German civilian, passenger-carrying airship, constructed for DELAG. It was first flown on 19 June 1910. On 28 June 1910, LZ 7 was damaged beyond repair after crashing during a thunderstorm over the Teutoburg Forest. Read more about LZ 7.	299	ENGLISH	1
In the early hours on Friday 19th September, the Scottish people voted to stay as part of the United Kingdom. Voter turnout was exceedingly high - 85% overall. The referendum was not a normal political contest. People who had never voted before, including 16 and 17 year olds, went to the polls and cast their vote for a momentous political decision. Nevertheless, despite the democratic success of the Scottish referendum, the honeymoon period for British politics will be short lived. So, why was voter turnout so high for the Scottish referendum? A referendum meant the Scottish people were directly influencing their future; the fate of Scotland was in their hands. This was a decision taken through the fundamental involvement of the Scottish people as opposed to elected members voting on behalf of the nation. People felt empowered and felt part of a movement. It was a feeling that many had not felt nor experienced before. Secondly, because the stake of an independent Scotland was so high; it was not just a question of party politics, but of nationhood. The answer to which was irreversible. This article has so far made three assumptions. Firstly, voter turnout was so high because the people directly chose whether Scotland would be an independent country. Secondly, the issue at stake had high political and national consequences. Thirdly, voters are rational; they weigh up the costs and benefits of choosing whether to vote. In this instance, the cost was too great to ignore. It is worth comparing the voter turnout of the Scottish referendum, 85%, to the turnout of recent Westminster elections. If we go back to 1997 we see a 71.4% turnout when Blair was elected. However, there has been a gradual decline ever since. For example, in 2001 turnout dipped dramatically to 59.4%, before gradually rising to 61.4% in 2007 and 65.1% in 2010. The main overarching reason for why 2015 will fall victim to voter apathy, like recent general elections, is because people feel that their vote won’t make a difference. This in itself demands some explanation, something I will address later in the piece. However, for now it’s important to realise that during the referendum campaign people felt like they were part of a movement that could deliver change. They wouldn’t have turned out in the numbers they did if they didn’t think they could make a difference. This feeling was only possible because of the type of democratic process. Referendums are a form of direct democracy and thus when the issue at stake is high, like the future of Scotland, turnout will be high. The people of Scotland dictated Scotland’s future, not Westminster. To go back to my previous point, the reason why voters in general elections feel that their vote won’t make a difference is because Labour and the Conservatives economically converged in the centre. In 1997 Labour moved to the centre ground to maximise their chance of attracting the median voter. The fact that the Conservatives were sat further to the right at that time can help us to explain why turnout was relatively high in 1997. However, when Cameron started to modernise the Conservatives from 2005 onwards in order to become electable, the difference between both Labour and the Conservatives became blurred, the parties only differing on cultural factors. Neo-liberal economics prevailed and, as Tim Bale states, Blair in many ways taught the Tories how to restore their electoral fortunes. The Tories’ move to the centre was in many ways a testimony to New Labour’s Ideological hegemony. Therefore, the lack of perceived difference between both parties caused voters to believe that their vote would not make a difference. Hence, unlike the Scottish referendum, where the difference between remaining part of the union or going independent had vast political and national consequences, in many ways the option at recent general elections has not been significant enough to make people think about the political consequences. The Scottish referendum will go down in history not just for its record high turnout, but for politically engaging the young and the disengaged. However, it has also taught us some valuable lessons about the nature of our democratic and political system. The lesson is that, despite voter apathy being a problem in Britain and other Western liberal democracies, referendums renew the idea that people can influence government. Perhaps in the future, striking the balance between direct and representative forms of democracy will be a challenge governments can’t afford to ignore. By Alex Sargeson	<urn:uuid:5187c330-b870-4ed3-af99-e44ebd7cf5d8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.bbench.co.uk/single-post/2014/09/22/Unlike-the-Scottish-referendum-the-2015-UK-general-election-will-fall-victim-to-voter-apathy	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00043.warc.gz	en	0.980245	898	3.3125	3	[ -0.5365486145019531, 0.019595574587583542, 0.007991226390004158, -0.23865383863449097, -0.08340486139059067, 0.16982340812683105, 0.10504701733589172, 0.09700067341327667, 0.3040986657142639, 0.1938098967075348, 0.21317875385284424, 0.03626764565706253, 0.17236623167991638, -0.129079386591...	2	In the early hours on Friday 19th September, the Scottish people voted to stay as part of the United Kingdom. Voter turnout was exceedingly high - 85% overall. The referendum was not a normal political contest. People who had never voted before, including 16 and 17 year olds, went to the polls and cast their vote for a momentous political decision. Nevertheless, despite the democratic success of the Scottish referendum, the honeymoon period for British politics will be short lived. So, why was voter turnout so high for the Scottish referendum? A referendum meant the Scottish people were directly influencing their future; the fate of Scotland was in their hands. This was a decision taken through the fundamental involvement of the Scottish people as opposed to elected members voting on behalf of the nation. People felt empowered and felt part of a movement. It was a feeling that many had not felt nor experienced before. Secondly, because the stake of an independent Scotland was so high; it was not just a question of party politics, but of nationhood. The answer to which was irreversible. This article has so far made three assumptions. Firstly, voter turnout was so high because the people directly chose whether Scotland would be an independent country. Secondly, the issue at stake had high political and national consequences. Thirdly, voters are rational; they weigh up the costs and benefits of choosing whether to vote. In this instance, the cost was too great to ignore. It is worth comparing the voter turnout of the Scottish referendum, 85%, to the turnout of recent Westminster elections. If we go back to 1997 we see a 71.4% turnout when Blair was elected. However, there has been a gradual decline ever since. For example, in 2001 turnout dipped dramatically to 59.4%, before gradually rising to 61.4% in 2007 and 65.1% in 2010. The main overarching reason for why 2015 will fall victim to voter apathy, like recent general elections, is because people feel that their vote won’t make a difference. This in itself demands some explanation, something I will address later in the piece. However, for now it’s important to realise that during the referendum campaign people felt like they were part of a movement that could deliver change. They wouldn’t have turned out in the numbers they did if they didn’t think they could make a difference. This feeling was only possible because of the type of democratic process. Referendums are a form of direct democracy and thus when the issue at stake is high, like the future of Scotland, turnout will be high. The people of Scotland dictated Scotland’s future, not Westminster. To go back to my previous point, the reason why voters in general elections feel that their vote won’t make a difference is because Labour and the Conservatives economically converged in the centre. In 1997 Labour moved to the centre ground to maximise their chance of attracting the median voter. The fact that the Conservatives were sat further to the right at that time can help us to explain why turnout was relatively high in 1997. However, when Cameron started to modernise the Conservatives from 2005 onwards in order to become electable, the difference between both Labour and the Conservatives became blurred, the parties only differing on cultural factors. Neo-liberal economics prevailed and, as Tim Bale states, Blair in many ways taught the Tories how to restore their electoral fortunes. The Tories’ move to the centre was in many ways a testimony to New Labour’s Ideological hegemony. Therefore, the lack of perceived difference between both parties caused voters to believe that their vote would not make a difference. Hence, unlike the Scottish referendum, where the difference between remaining part of the union or going independent had vast political and national consequences, in many ways the option at recent general elections has not been significant enough to make people think about the political consequences. The Scottish referendum will go down in history not just for its record high turnout, but for politically engaging the young and the disengaged. However, it has also taught us some valuable lessons about the nature of our democratic and political system. The lesson is that, despite voter apathy being a problem in Britain and other Western liberal democracies, referendums renew the idea that people can influence government. Perhaps in the future, striking the balance between direct and representative forms of democracy will be a challenge governments can’t afford to ignore. By Alex Sargeson	924	ENGLISH	1
\|Long title\|\|An Act for the speedy and effectuall reducing of the Rebells in his Majesties Kingdome of Ireland to theire due obedience to his Majesty & the Crowne of England.\| \|Royal assent\|\|19 March 1642\| \|Commencement\|\|19 March 1642\| \|Repealed\|\|23 May 1950\| \|Repealed by\|\|Statute Law Revision Act 1950\| The Irish Rebellion of 1641 had broken out five months earlier, and the Act was designed to pay the army needed to subdue the rebellion by using borrowed money. Repayment would come from confiscating the rebels' lands and selling them. It was passed by the Long Parliament on 19 March 1642 as a way of raising funds to suppress the Irish Rebellion of 1641. The Act invited members of the public to invest £200 for which they would receive 1,000 acres (400 ha; 4.0 km2) of lands that would be confiscated from rebels in Ireland. 2.5 million acres (1.0 million hectares; 10,000 square kilometres) of Irish land were set aside by the English government for this purpose. The entire island of Ireland is about 20.9 million acres (8.5 million hectares; 85,000 square kilometres). The enactment was done at the request of King Charles in the House of Lords, joined by the Commons, and was unanimously accepted, without any debate. The Bill had been placed before the Houses for inspection but was not formally read into the record. The title of the Act - "An Act for the speedy and effectual reducing of the Rebels, in His Majesty's Kingdom of Ireland, to their due Obedience to His Majesty, and the Crown of England" - was read out to Parliament, followed by the statement: "le roy le veult". The "Adventurers" were so called because they were risking their money at a time when the Crown had just had to pay for the Bishops' Wars in 1639-40. "Reducing" the rebels meant leading them back (Latin: reducere) to the legal concept of the "King's Peace". King Charles could not subsequently enforce the Act, but it was realised by his political opponents following the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland in 1649-1653, and formed the main legal basis for the contentious Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1652. Ironically, in May 1642 the Confederate Irish rebels drafted the Confederate Oath of Association that recognised Charles as their monarch. The Adventurers' Act was extended and amended by three other acts the Lands of Irish Rebels; Adventurers' Subscriptions Act 1640 (c. 34), Lands of Irish Rebels; Adventurers' Subscriptions Act 1640 (c. 35), and Irish Rebels Act 1640 (c. 37). All four received Royal Assent in the summer of 1642, just before the start of the English Civil War, but are usually referred to as 1640 acts—the year the Long Parliament started to sit—and as that year was the 16th year of Charles I's reign are formally known as 16 Cha. I c.33 etc. In July 1643, Parliament passed the Doubling Ordinance which doubled the allocation of land to anyone who increased their original investment by 25%. The purpose of the Act was twofold, firstly to raise money for Parliament to help suppress the rebellion in Ireland, and secondly to deprive the King of the lands seized from rebels that would be his by prerogative. To enforce the Acts the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland was launched in 1649. In 1653, Ireland was declared subdued and the lands were allocated to the subscribers in what became known as the Cromwellian Settlement. The Adventurers Act, and the other three statutes (c.33 to 35, and 37), were repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1950.	<urn:uuid:c2d5524f-99a0-447a-8028-5cae9652e266>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://popflock.com/learn?s=Adventurers_Act	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00196.warc.gz	en	0.98119	799	3.71875	4	[ -0.3866114914417267, 0.29357361793518066, 0.46301737427711487, -0.04307880252599716, -0.04291468858718872, -0.16878733038902283, -0.0278384517878294, -0.41623228788375854, 0.11233902722597122, -0.010594350285828114, -0.11509644985198975, -0.5192808508872986, -0.06340331584215164, 0.2129546...	1	\|Long title\|\|An Act for the speedy and effectuall reducing of the Rebells in his Majesties Kingdome of Ireland to theire due obedience to his Majesty & the Crowne of England.\| \|Royal assent\|\|19 March 1642\| \|Commencement\|\|19 March 1642\| \|Repealed\|\|23 May 1950\| \|Repealed by\|\|Statute Law Revision Act 1950\| The Irish Rebellion of 1641 had broken out five months earlier, and the Act was designed to pay the army needed to subdue the rebellion by using borrowed money. Repayment would come from confiscating the rebels' lands and selling them. It was passed by the Long Parliament on 19 March 1642 as a way of raising funds to suppress the Irish Rebellion of 1641. The Act invited members of the public to invest £200 for which they would receive 1,000 acres (400 ha; 4.0 km2) of lands that would be confiscated from rebels in Ireland. 2.5 million acres (1.0 million hectares; 10,000 square kilometres) of Irish land were set aside by the English government for this purpose. The entire island of Ireland is about 20.9 million acres (8.5 million hectares; 85,000 square kilometres). The enactment was done at the request of King Charles in the House of Lords, joined by the Commons, and was unanimously accepted, without any debate. The Bill had been placed before the Houses for inspection but was not formally read into the record. The title of the Act - "An Act for the speedy and effectual reducing of the Rebels, in His Majesty's Kingdom of Ireland, to their due Obedience to His Majesty, and the Crown of England" - was read out to Parliament, followed by the statement: "le roy le veult". The "Adventurers" were so called because they were risking their money at a time when the Crown had just had to pay for the Bishops' Wars in 1639-40. "Reducing" the rebels meant leading them back (Latin: reducere) to the legal concept of the "King's Peace". King Charles could not subsequently enforce the Act, but it was realised by his political opponents following the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland in 1649-1653, and formed the main legal basis for the contentious Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1652. Ironically, in May 1642 the Confederate Irish rebels drafted the Confederate Oath of Association that recognised Charles as their monarch. The Adventurers' Act was extended and amended by three other acts the Lands of Irish Rebels; Adventurers' Subscriptions Act 1640 (c. 34), Lands of Irish Rebels; Adventurers' Subscriptions Act 1640 (c. 35), and Irish Rebels Act 1640 (c. 37). All four received Royal Assent in the summer of 1642, just before the start of the English Civil War, but are usually referred to as 1640 acts—the year the Long Parliament started to sit—and as that year was the 16th year of Charles I's reign are formally known as 16 Cha. I c.33 etc. In July 1643, Parliament passed the Doubling Ordinance which doubled the allocation of land to anyone who increased their original investment by 25%. The purpose of the Act was twofold, firstly to raise money for Parliament to help suppress the rebellion in Ireland, and secondly to deprive the King of the lands seized from rebels that would be his by prerogative. To enforce the Acts the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland was launched in 1649. In 1653, Ireland was declared subdued and the lands were allocated to the subscribers in what became known as the Cromwellian Settlement. The Adventurers Act, and the other three statutes (c.33 to 35, and 37), were repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1950.	898	ENGLISH	1
Approximately 3' x 5' From the Revolutionary War - Washington's Cruisers Flag - “An Appeal to Heaven". "An Appeal to Heaven" flags were first flown over six cruisers, which were commissioned under General George Washington in 1775. The large Eastern White Pine, depicted on the flags, was a highly desirable tree for use in building ship masts. England therefore enacted "The Mast Preservation" clause in order to reserve the best trees for itself. If an American Colonists desired to harvest a tree on his property, he would now have get the King's Surveyor to first inspect his trees. The trees suitable for building ship masts were then marked with a broad arrow by the surveyor, signifiying them off limits to the land owner. The Colonist would then need to purchase a royal license from the crown to harvest any trees on his lot. These requirements caused such ire among the Colonists, that it helped to spark the American Revolution. It was no coincidence that the flags were flown atop the Colonists' warships - the very thing for which England sought after them! The flags also served as a constant reminder to the sailors of the wrongs commited against them by the Crown.	<urn:uuid:1da91b58-bdce-4b92-bcf6-b186a58cb693>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.independentamericanparty.org/product-page/an-appeal-to-heaven-flag	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672537.90/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125131641-20200125160641-00198.warc.gz	en	0.981189	249	3.5	4	[ -0.0331437848508358, 0.12290666252374649, 0.08845311403274536, -0.6517897248268127, -0.015399079769849777, 0.19976823031902313, 0.11502198874950409, 0.18932591378688812, -0.038613736629486084, 0.24178150296211243, -0.010808787308633327, -0.16671660542488098, -0.20255984365940094, 0.1805662...	9	Approximately 3' x 5' From the Revolutionary War - Washington's Cruisers Flag - “An Appeal to Heaven". "An Appeal to Heaven" flags were first flown over six cruisers, which were commissioned under General George Washington in 1775. The large Eastern White Pine, depicted on the flags, was a highly desirable tree for use in building ship masts. England therefore enacted "The Mast Preservation" clause in order to reserve the best trees for itself. If an American Colonists desired to harvest a tree on his property, he would now have get the King's Surveyor to first inspect his trees. The trees suitable for building ship masts were then marked with a broad arrow by the surveyor, signifiying them off limits to the land owner. The Colonist would then need to purchase a royal license from the crown to harvest any trees on his lot. These requirements caused such ire among the Colonists, that it helped to spark the American Revolution. It was no coincidence that the flags were flown atop the Colonists' warships - the very thing for which England sought after them! The flags also served as a constant reminder to the sailors of the wrongs commited against them by the Crown.	250	ENGLISH	1
Christian-History.org does not receive any personally identifiable information from the search bar below. We need to begin our post-Nicene section with the time around the Council of Nicea because it changed the course of the history of Christianity. It began with the Great Persecution in A.D. 303. The Great Persecution came to an end in A.D. 311 with the Edict of Milan, and then Constantine rose to power with the defeat of Maximian in 312. I like to call the beginning of the post-Nicene period "the Great Judo Throw." In Judo, a throw is performed by first pushing your opponent, which causes him to push back. When he pushes back, you use his momentum to provide the force to throw him. The Great Persecution was the push, and Constantine performed the pull and throw. Though I am sure Constantine had no ill intentions, he was used by satan to bring about the fall of the Church. There are a lot of myths about Constantine and the Council of Nicea. The Council of Nicea, however, made only one major change to post-Nicene Christianity. It got the emperor involved in the government of the Church, and the Church involved in government. It was enough. Constantine did not become a Christian until he was on his deathbed in 337, but he showed great favor to Christians even while he was the official leader of Roman paganism. As a result, whereas perhaps only 10% of Romans were Christians during the Great Persecution, that number skyrocketed to 90% by the end of Constantine's reign. The result was the post-Nicene Church was full of unconverted pagans; the change was so dramatic that it can't be overstated. The evidence I constantly cite for this change is the difference between Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, covering the history of Christianity from the apostles through A.D. 323, and Socrates Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical History, which takes up where Eusebius left off and covers most of our post-Nicene era. Eusebius' history is what you would expect in a history of Christianity. It describes great men of God, some doctrinal disputes, the bravery of Christians under persecution, and some heresies that arose. Socrates' post-Nicene history is a horrifying mixture of violence, ambition, political intrigue, and, except for a few shining examples, has little to do with following Christ The office of bishop became a powerful political office after the time of Constantine. Before the Great Persecution leaders of the churches were not even paid. They were provided their basic needs along with the widows and orphans. After Constantine, they were on government salary, and such offices were often filled by corrupt and ambitious men. The Arian controversy is really the least notable part of the Nicene era. Though I thoroughly cover this controversy in the section on the Council of Nicea, I'll give you a brief description here. Arius was an elder in the church in Alexandria, one of the larger and more notable of the early churches. He believed that Jesus, though a God, was created in the beginning by God in the same way all other creatures were, from nothing. The Council of Nicea met in A.D. 325 to resolve this dispute, but it was really resolved in advance. The tradition of the apostles was clear, and there was no way for a council of all bishops to agree with Arius. They censured him, and Constantine banned him from the empire (temporarily). The Council of Nicea was held as much to hold the Roman empire together as it was to hold the Church together. So many Romans had become Christians under Constantine that a Church split could easily become a split in the empire. Constantine would have none of that. He called the Council and, with the permission of the bishops, attended and presided over it. The Council of Nicea did put their stamp upon some church hierarchy for the post-Nicene period. They acknowledged the authority of the bishop of Alexandria over all of Egypt and acknowledged the same authority in the bishops of Rome and Antioch. They established nothing, however. They simply agreed that the authority those three bishops already had was acceptable. Here we'll address the period from Nicea to the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. Honestly, here we depart from my area of expertise for a thousand years. The sidebar is worth reading. You'll get an idea how history works. What I'm telling you from the post-Nicene period until the Reformation is true and accurate, but I got it all secondhand. I'm not a professional historian. I can only study history part-time. It's impossible for me to read 2,000 years of original sources, though I'd love to do that. I hope that in the previous sections you can feel my passion for early Christianity. I've read and re-read those authors, and I feel like I know those guys. I understand what was important to them because it comes across in their writings. So here is information—good and accurate information—on the post-Nicene period, but you'll get a feel from the books I recommend that I will not be able to reproduce. The post-Nicene era is most noted for its ecumenical councils. To most historians, this was the period when the Church settled the matter of who Jesus Christ was in relation to divinity, to the Father, and to his divine and human natures. However, I'm no fan of the councils. How could I be? I've told you already that many of the post-Nicene bishops were ambitious men who obtained their position out of a desire for power. Gathering a bunch of politicians with competing agendas is no way to decide Church policy or doctrine. I've also told you that the ante-Nicene churches had no overarching hierarchy. The churches were independent. I believe it should have stayed that way. The Council of Nicea settled nothing. Though that council decided in favor of the historical doctrine of the Church, doctrine means nothing if it's not accompanied by holy living produced by the Spirit of God himself. Arius didn't quit after Nicea. Eventually Constantine sent him back to Alexandria to be restored to the church there against their wishes. He began the trip, but died under suspicious circumstances during a step in Jerusalem. Eusebius of Nicomedia (not to be confused with Eusebius the historian), who had recanted of Arian doctrine after being banished at Nicea, went right back to championing the Arian position as soon as Constantine died. Eusebius was a relative of the emperor's family, and he was able to influence Constantine's son, Constantius. Constantius then favored Arianism, and he appointed Arian bishops and removed Nicene bishops throughout his life. Emperors after Constantius did the same, depending on which party they favored. The issue wasn't settled for decades. Often during the post-Nicene period there were competing churches in the same city, one with an Arian bishop and one with a Nicene bishop. The situation was very sad, and often violence ensued. A decree by Emperor Theodosius I in A.D. 383 did finally settle the issue. The end of the Arian Controversy is often attributed to the Council of Constantinople of 381, but that's not accurate (reference coming soon). More councils followed to address "the Christological Controversy." The Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 addressed Nestorianism, the idea that in Christ there are two natures and two persons, one human and one divine. Twenty years later the Council of Chalcedon condemned monophysism, the teaching that Christ had only one nature, a divine one. Those are called ecumenical, but they led to permanent division during the post-Nicene period that has not been rectified to this day. A bishop named Nestorius was excommunicated at the Council of Ephesus and much of the church in Syria left the fellowship of catholic Churches at that time. Their descendants still exist and are known as the Church of the East and are often still called Nestorians. , though their bishop still attended the council of Chalcedon, and some middle Eastern bishops were excommunicated at Chalcedon. The ecumenical councils that happened during this period are: This was also the period of some of the most famous of the church fathers. Augustine and Jerome belong to this period, as do Basil the Great, John Chrysostom ("Golden Tongue") and two Gregories: Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzen. These fathers were noted for their theology. Theology became a much greater emphasis during the post-Nicene era. One historian writes: That shift of emphasis from conduct to belief characterized post-Nicene Christianity. Ante-Nicene Christianity was quite the opposite. Those "brief and concise utterances" were commands that Christians were to live by, not fight over. These things were what mattered to the ante-Nicene churches, not creeds to argue over. Monasticism first arose during the post-Nicene period. As unconverted Roman citizens flocked into the Church, those who wanted to completely devote themselves to Christ found it easier to just get away. The first monks are often called "the desert fathers." St. Anthony is the first and most famous of them, living a secluded life in the wilderness in Egypt. Philip Schaff writes of these early monks: What sort of people were attracted to this life? People of all sorts. Schaff continues: Again, we'll go further into this when I can put up a page on St. Anthony and hopefully on an even earlier hermit whose history is "lost in the mist of fable," Paul of Thebes. The Post-Nicene period must be best remembered for the influx of society into the Church, the general councils and great theologians, and the rise of monasticism. I call the post-Nicene period the fall of the Church.The holiness, unity, love, and testimony to the world were gone. Yes, men like Augustine, who maintained a holy and humble life even as a powerful and respected bishop, and St. Anthony, whose life of self-denial made a powerful impact during those rare times when he was seen in public, had powerful and positive influence on the people around them. For the most part, however, the Church had degenerated into a national religion. The post-Nicene era, more than anything, was preparation for the Dark Ages. The true church—the gathered people of God, forming a new society in the midst of the corrupt society of the world—became extremely difficult to find. My newest book, Rome's Audacious Claim, was released December 1!	<urn:uuid:9f6197d0-fbe3-4520-bf1e-74aedfe84b54>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.christian-history.org/post-nicene.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00312.warc.gz	en	0.983234	2,284	3.28125	3	[ -0.4026913344860077, 0.39357808232307434, 0.2569998800754547, 0.053556524217128754, -0.12882566452026367, 0.049808818846940994, -0.25872451066970825, 0.25339365005493164, 0.32700487971305847, -0.04688291251659393, -0.09268012642860413, 0.08298566937446594, 0.09393778443336487, 0.1781198382...	1	Christian-History.org does not receive any personally identifiable information from the search bar below. We need to begin our post-Nicene section with the time around the Council of Nicea because it changed the course of the history of Christianity. It began with the Great Persecution in A.D. 303. The Great Persecution came to an end in A.D. 311 with the Edict of Milan, and then Constantine rose to power with the defeat of Maximian in 312. I like to call the beginning of the post-Nicene period "the Great Judo Throw." In Judo, a throw is performed by first pushing your opponent, which causes him to push back. When he pushes back, you use his momentum to provide the force to throw him. The Great Persecution was the push, and Constantine performed the pull and throw. Though I am sure Constantine had no ill intentions, he was used by satan to bring about the fall of the Church. There are a lot of myths about Constantine and the Council of Nicea. The Council of Nicea, however, made only one major change to post-Nicene Christianity. It got the emperor involved in the government of the Church, and the Church involved in government. It was enough. Constantine did not become a Christian until he was on his deathbed in 337, but he showed great favor to Christians even while he was the official leader of Roman paganism. As a result, whereas perhaps only 10% of Romans were Christians during the Great Persecution, that number skyrocketed to 90% by the end of Constantine's reign. The result was the post-Nicene Church was full of unconverted pagans; the change was so dramatic that it can't be overstated. The evidence I constantly cite for this change is the difference between Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, covering the history of Christianity from the apostles through A.D. 323, and Socrates Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical History, which takes up where Eusebius left off and covers most of our post-Nicene era. Eusebius' history is what you would expect in a history of Christianity. It describes great men of God, some doctrinal disputes, the bravery of Christians under persecution, and some heresies that arose. Socrates' post-Nicene history is a horrifying mixture of violence, ambition, political intrigue, and, except for a few shining examples, has little to do with following Christ The office of bishop became a powerful political office after the time of Constantine. Before the Great Persecution leaders of the churches were not even paid. They were provided their basic needs along with the widows and orphans. After Constantine, they were on government salary, and such offices were often filled by corrupt and ambitious men. The Arian controversy is really the least notable part of the Nicene era. Though I thoroughly cover this controversy in the section on the Council of Nicea, I'll give you a brief description here. Arius was an elder in the church in Alexandria, one of the larger and more notable of the early churches. He believed that Jesus, though a God, was created in the beginning by God in the same way all other creatures were, from nothing. The Council of Nicea met in A.D. 325 to resolve this dispute, but it was really resolved in advance. The tradition of the apostles was clear, and there was no way for a council of all bishops to agree with Arius. They censured him, and Constantine banned him from the empire (temporarily). The Council of Nicea was held as much to hold the Roman empire together as it was to hold the Church together. So many Romans had become Christians under Constantine that a Church split could easily become a split in the empire. Constantine would have none of that. He called the Council and, with the permission of the bishops, attended and presided over it. The Council of Nicea did put their stamp upon some church hierarchy for the post-Nicene period. They acknowledged the authority of the bishop of Alexandria over all of Egypt and acknowledged the same authority in the bishops of Rome and Antioch. They established nothing, however. They simply agreed that the authority those three bishops already had was acceptable. Here we'll address the period from Nicea to the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. Honestly, here we depart from my area of expertise for a thousand years. The sidebar is worth reading. You'll get an idea how history works. What I'm telling you from the post-Nicene period until the Reformation is true and accurate, but I got it all secondhand. I'm not a professional historian. I can only study history part-time. It's impossible for me to read 2,000 years of original sources, though I'd love to do that. I hope that in the previous sections you can feel my passion for early Christianity. I've read and re-read those authors, and I feel like I know those guys. I understand what was important to them because it comes across in their writings. So here is information—good and accurate information—on the post-Nicene period, but you'll get a feel from the books I recommend that I will not be able to reproduce. The post-Nicene era is most noted for its ecumenical councils. To most historians, this was the period when the Church settled the matter of who Jesus Christ was in relation to divinity, to the Father, and to his divine and human natures. However, I'm no fan of the councils. How could I be? I've told you already that many of the post-Nicene bishops were ambitious men who obtained their position out of a desire for power. Gathering a bunch of politicians with competing agendas is no way to decide Church policy or doctrine. I've also told you that the ante-Nicene churches had no overarching hierarchy. The churches were independent. I believe it should have stayed that way. The Council of Nicea settled nothing. Though that council decided in favor of the historical doctrine of the Church, doctrine means nothing if it's not accompanied by holy living produced by the Spirit of God himself. Arius didn't quit after Nicea. Eventually Constantine sent him back to Alexandria to be restored to the church there against their wishes. He began the trip, but died under suspicious circumstances during a step in Jerusalem. Eusebius of Nicomedia (not to be confused with Eusebius the historian), who had recanted of Arian doctrine after being banished at Nicea, went right back to championing the Arian position as soon as Constantine died. Eusebius was a relative of the emperor's family, and he was able to influence Constantine's son, Constantius. Constantius then favored Arianism, and he appointed Arian bishops and removed Nicene bishops throughout his life. Emperors after Constantius did the same, depending on which party they favored. The issue wasn't settled for decades. Often during the post-Nicene period there were competing churches in the same city, one with an Arian bishop and one with a Nicene bishop. The situation was very sad, and often violence ensued. A decree by Emperor Theodosius I in A.D. 383 did finally settle the issue. The end of the Arian Controversy is often attributed to the Council of Constantinople of 381, but that's not accurate (reference coming soon). More councils followed to address "the Christological Controversy." The Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 addressed Nestorianism, the idea that in Christ there are two natures and two persons, one human and one divine. Twenty years later the Council of Chalcedon condemned monophysism, the teaching that Christ had only one nature, a divine one. Those are called ecumenical, but they led to permanent division during the post-Nicene period that has not been rectified to this day. A bishop named Nestorius was excommunicated at the Council of Ephesus and much of the church in Syria left the fellowship of catholic Churches at that time. Their descendants still exist and are known as the Church of the East and are often still called Nestorians. , though their bishop still attended the council of Chalcedon, and some middle Eastern bishops were excommunicated at Chalcedon. The ecumenical councils that happened during this period are: This was also the period of some of the most famous of the church fathers. Augustine and Jerome belong to this period, as do Basil the Great, John Chrysostom ("Golden Tongue") and two Gregories: Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzen. These fathers were noted for their theology. Theology became a much greater emphasis during the post-Nicene era. One historian writes: That shift of emphasis from conduct to belief characterized post-Nicene Christianity. Ante-Nicene Christianity was quite the opposite. Those "brief and concise utterances" were commands that Christians were to live by, not fight over. These things were what mattered to the ante-Nicene churches, not creeds to argue over. Monasticism first arose during the post-Nicene period. As unconverted Roman citizens flocked into the Church, those who wanted to completely devote themselves to Christ found it easier to just get away. The first monks are often called "the desert fathers." St. Anthony is the first and most famous of them, living a secluded life in the wilderness in Egypt. Philip Schaff writes of these early monks: What sort of people were attracted to this life? People of all sorts. Schaff continues: Again, we'll go further into this when I can put up a page on St. Anthony and hopefully on an even earlier hermit whose history is "lost in the mist of fable," Paul of Thebes. The Post-Nicene period must be best remembered for the influx of society into the Church, the general councils and great theologians, and the rise of monasticism. I call the post-Nicene period the fall of the Church.The holiness, unity, love, and testimony to the world were gone. Yes, men like Augustine, who maintained a holy and humble life even as a powerful and respected bishop, and St. Anthony, whose life of self-denial made a powerful impact during those rare times when he was seen in public, had powerful and positive influence on the people around them. For the most part, however, the Church had degenerated into a national religion. The post-Nicene era, more than anything, was preparation for the Dark Ages. The true church—the gathered people of God, forming a new society in the midst of the corrupt society of the world—became extremely difficult to find. My newest book, Rome's Audacious Claim, was released December 1!	2,285	ENGLISH	1
This term the children have really enjoyed their history topic and learning about Queen Victoria and what life was like as a Victorian child compared to their own lives. The children investigated the reign of Queen Victoria and learnt how life and society changed in her 63 years as Queen. They got to compare the life of rich and poor families and explored what life was like in the workhouses. To enhance their learning and understanding we took the children to the Milestones Museum where children got to experience a Victorian school, walk Victorian streets and go into Victorian shops to help prepare for the Queen’s Jubilee. We also held our own Victorian school days where the children enjoyed dressing up and got to practise writing using chalk and slate in English and Math as well as completing the Drill. Through using Ipads and green screen we were able to transport children back in time and take photos of them as Victorian children. We also looked at the toys Victorian children used to play with and got to try them out before planning and designing our own Victorian toys. The children made their own cup and ball toys and invited Mrs Cooper, Miss Lofting, Miss Clunie and Mr Wood to have a competition to see who could use our toys and catch the ball in the cup the most number of times.	<urn:uuid:a8ebef30-b6f5-4463-8e9b-e943720e5cb0>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.warrenpark.hants.sch.uk/children/year-1/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00557.warc.gz	en	0.981435	257	3.484375	3	[ -0.1733485460281372, -0.041407447308301926, 0.7055560350418091, 0.010199688374996185, -0.0006319289095699787, 0.3977915644645691, -0.038915056735277176, 0.02932056225836277, -0.18382588028907776, 0.28170067071914673, 0.10830766707658768, -0.3676810562610626, 0.0010057281469926238, 0.235746...	1	This term the children have really enjoyed their history topic and learning about Queen Victoria and what life was like as a Victorian child compared to their own lives. The children investigated the reign of Queen Victoria and learnt how life and society changed in her 63 years as Queen. They got to compare the life of rich and poor families and explored what life was like in the workhouses. To enhance their learning and understanding we took the children to the Milestones Museum where children got to experience a Victorian school, walk Victorian streets and go into Victorian shops to help prepare for the Queen’s Jubilee. We also held our own Victorian school days where the children enjoyed dressing up and got to practise writing using chalk and slate in English and Math as well as completing the Drill. Through using Ipads and green screen we were able to transport children back in time and take photos of them as Victorian children. We also looked at the toys Victorian children used to play with and got to try them out before planning and designing our own Victorian toys. The children made their own cup and ball toys and invited Mrs Cooper, Miss Lofting, Miss Clunie and Mr Wood to have a competition to see who could use our toys and catch the ball in the cup the most number of times.	253	ENGLISH	1
Amenhotep II (sometimes called Amenophis II and meaning Amun is Satisfied) was the seventh Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. Amenhotep inherited a vast kingdom from his father Thutmose III, and held it by means of a few military campaigns in Syria; however, he fought much less than his father, and his reign saw the effective cessation of hostilities between Egypt and Mitanni, the major kingdoms vying for power in Syria. His reign is usually dated from 1427 to 1401 BC. Amenhotep II was born to Thutmose III and a minor wife of the king: Merytre-Hatshepsut. He was not, however, the firstborn son of this pharaoh; his elder brother Amenemhat, the son of the great king's chief wife Satiah, was originally the intended heir to the throne since Amenemhat was designated the 'king's eldest son" and overseer of the cattle of Amun in Year 24 of Thutmose's reign. However, between Years 24 and 35 of Thutmose III, both queen Satiah and prince Amenemhat died, which prompted the pharaoh to marry the non-royal Merytre-Hatshepsut. She would bear Thutmose III a number of children including the future Amenhotep II. Amenhotep II was born and raised in Memphis in the north, instead of in Thebes, the traditional capital. While a prince, he oversaw deliveries of wood sent to the dockyard of Peru-n?fe in Memphis, and was made the Setem, the high priest over Lower Egypt. Amenhotep has left several inscriptions touting his athletic skills while he was a leader of the army before his crowning. Amenhotep was no less athletic than his powerful father. He claims to have been able to shoot an arrow through a copper target one palm thick, and that he was able to row his ship faster and farther than two hundred members of the navy could row theirs. Accordingly, some skepticism concerning the truth of his claims has been expressed among Egyptologists. Amenhotep acceded to the throne on the first day of the fourth month of Akhet, but his father died on the thirtieth day of the third month of Peret. If an Egyptian crown prince was proclaimed king but did not take the throne on the day after his father's death, it meant that he served as the junior coregent during his father's reign. A coregency with Thutmose III and Amenhotep II is believed to have lasted for two years and four months. When he assumed power, Amenhotep II was 18 years old according to an inscription from his great Sphinx stela: After becoming pharaoh, Amenhotep married a woman of uncertain parentage named Tiaa. As many as ten sons and one daughter have been attributed to him. Amenhotep's most important son was Thutmose IV, who succeeded him; however, there is significant evidence for him having many more children. Princes Amenhotep, Webensenu, Amenemopet, and Nedjem are all clearly attested, and Amenemhat, Khaemwaset, and Aakheperure as well as a daughter, Iaret, are also possible children. Papyrus B.M. 10056, which dates to sometime after Amenhotep II's tenth year, refers to a king's son and setem-priest Amenhotep. This Amenhotep might also be attested in a stele from Amenhotep II's temple at Giza, however the stele's name has been defaced so that positive identification is impossible. Stele B may belong to another son, Webensenu. Webensenu's name is otherwise attested on a statue of Amenhotep's chief architect, Minmose, and his canopic jars and a funerary statue have been found in Amenhotep II's tomb. Another Giza stele, stele C, records the name of a Prince Amenemopet, whose name is otherwise unattested. The same statue with the name Webensenu on it is also inscribed with the name of prince Nedjem, who is otherwise unattested. There are other references to king's sons from this period who may or may not be sons of Amenhotep II. Two graffiti from Sahel mention a king's son and stable master named Khaemwaset, but specifically which king is his father is unknown. A figure with the name Amenemhet is recorded behind a prince Amenhotep in Theban tomb 64, and assuming this Amenhotep is indeed the king's son from B.M. 10056, Amenemhat would also be Amenhotep II's son. Additionally, a prince Aakheperure is mentioned in a Konosso graffito alongside a prince Amenhotep, and if one again assumes that this Amenhotep was the same person as the one in B.M. 10056, Aakheperure would also have been Amenhotep II's son. However, in both these cases the figure identified as Amenhotep has been identified by some as possible references to the later King Amenhotep III, which would make these two princes sons Thutmose IV. In addition to sons, Amenhotep II may have had a daughter named Iaret, but she could have also been the daughter of Thutmose IV. Two more sons had been attributed to Amenhotep II in the past; however, they have since been proven to be of other parentage. Gauthier catalogued one Usersatet, the "King's son of Kush," (i.e. Viceroy of Nubia) as a son of Amenhotep II, as well as one Re; however, both are now known to be unrelated to the royal family. Usersatet merely served as Amenhotep's chief official in Nubia and was not a blood relative of the king. Amenhotep's coronation can be dated without much difficulty because of a number of lunar dates in the reign of his father, Thutmose III. These sightings limit the date of Thutmose's accession to either 1504 or 1479 BC. Thutmose died after 54 years of reign, at which time Amenhotep would have acceded to the throne. Amenhotep's short coregency with his father would then move his accession two years and four months earlier, dating his accession to either 1427 BC in the low chronology, or in 1454 BC in the high chronology. The length of his reign is indicated by a wine jar inscribed with the king's prenomen found in Amenhotep II's funerary temple at Thebes; it is dated to this king's highest known date--his Year 26--and lists the name of the pharaoh's vintner, Panehsy. Mortuary temples were generally not stocked until the king died or was near death; therefore, Amenhotep could not have lived much later beyond his 26th year. There are alternate theories which attempt to assign him a reign of up to 35 years, which is the absolute maximum length he could have reigned. In this chronology, he reigned from 1454 to 1419. However, there are problems facing these theories which cannot be resolved. In particular, this would mean Amenhotep died when he was 52, but an X-ray analysis of his mummy has shown him to have been about 40 when he died. Accordingly, Amenhotep II is usually given a reign of 26 years and said to have reigned from 1427 to 1401 BC. Amenhotep's first campaign took place in his third regnal year. It is known that the pharaoh was attacked by the host of Qatna while crossing the Orontes river, but he emerged victorious and acquired rich booty, among which even the equipment of a Mitanni charioteer is mentioned. The king was well known for his physical prowess and is said to have singlehandedly killed 7 rebel Princes at Kadesh, which successfully terminated his first Syrian campaign on a victorious note. After the campaign, the king ordered the bodies of the seven princes to be hung upside down on the prow of his ship. Upon reaching Thebes all but one of the princes were mounted on the city walls. The other was taken to the often rebellious territory of Nubia and hung on the city wall of Napata, as an example of the consequence of rising against Pharaoh and to demoralise any Nubian opponents of Egyptian authority there. Amenhotep called this campaign his first in a Stele from Amada, however he also called his second campaign his first, causing some confusion. The most common solution for this, although not universally accepted, is that this was the first campaign he fought alone before the death of his father and thus before he was the sole king of Egypt, and he counted his second campaign as his first because it was the first that was his and his alone. In April of his seventh year, Amenhotep was faced with a major rebellion in Syria by the vassal states of Naharin and dispatched his army to the Levant to suppress it. This rebellion was likely instigated by Egypt's chief Near Eastern rival, Mitanni. His stele of victory carved after this campaign records no major battles, which has been read a number of ways. It may be that this campaign was more similar to one of the tours of Syria which his father had fought, and he only engaged minor garrisons in battle and forced cities to swear allegiance to him–oaths immediately broken after his departure. Alternatively, it appears that the two weeks when Amenhotep would have been closest to Mitanni are omitted from the stele, thus it is possible that his army was defeated on this campaign. Amenhotep's last campaign took place in his ninth year, however it apparently did not proceed farther north than the Sea of Galilee. According to the list of plunder from this campaign, Amenhotep took 101,128 slaves, which is an obviously exaggerated figure. Some of these slaves may have been recounted from the year 7 campaign, such as 15,070 citizens of Nukhash, since Amenhotep did not campaign anywhere near Nukhash on his year 9 campaign. However, even accounting for this recounting, the numbers still are too high to be realistic, and are probably just exaggerated. After the campaign in Amenhotep's ninth year, Egyptian and Mitannian armies never fought again, and the two kingdoms seem to have reached some sort of peace. Amenhotep records that the kings of Babylon, the Hittites, and Mitanni came to make peace and pay tribute to him after his ninth year, although this may be outlandish boasting. However, a second passage appears on the walls of Karnak, saying that the princes of Mitanni came to seek peace with Amenhotep, and this cannot be so easily explained away. The rising power of the Hittites eventually persuaded Mitanni to seek an ally, and there was definitely a treaty of some sort between Egypt and Mitanni by the time of Amenhotep's successor, but it may be that it was enacted after Amenhotep's campaigns, to try to prevent any more campaigns of mass deportations. Whenever formal peace was enacted, an informal peace was maintained between Amenhotep and the king of Mitanni. Thereafter, Amenhotep concentrated on domestic matters, with one possible exception. A shrine of Amenhotep's Nubian viceroy shows Amenhotep receiving tribute after a Nubian campaign, but it is not possible to date when this happened. Since Thutmose III had devoted so much energy to expanding Karnak, Amenhotep's building projects were largely focused on enlarging smaller temples all over Egypt. In the Delta, his father's Overseer of Works, Minmose, is attested from an inscription at Tura as overseeing construction of more temples. In upper Egypt, small shrines are attested at Medamud, el-Tod, and Armant. Karnak, despite not receiving the attention given it by his father, also was not totally neglected. He commissioned a column to stand in the courtyard between the fourth and fifth pylons commemorating the reception of tribute from Mitanni. In Nubia, Amenhotep built at Qasr Ibrim and Semna, and ordered the decoration of the Temple at Kalabsha. However, his most famous Nubian temple was at Amada. Thutmose III had begun constructing a temple which, technically, was dedicated to Horus there, although the presence of Re-Harakhti and Amun-Re is easily observed. Amenhotep completed it and put in it the record of his year 3 campaign on a stele, which was until 1942 the source of most information about Amenhotep's wars. Amenhotep's mummy was discovered in March 1898 by Victor Loret in his KV35 tomb in the Valley of the Kings within his original sarcophagus. He had a mortuary temple constructed at the edge of the cultivation in the Theban Necropolis, close to where the Ramesseum was later built, but it was destroyed in ancient times. Amenhotep II's KV35 tomb also proved to contain a mummy cache containing several New Kingdom Pharaohs including Thutmose IV, Seti II, Ramesses III, Ramesses IV, and Ramesses VI. They had been re-buried in Amenhotep II's tomb by the 21st Dynasty High Priest of Amun, Pinedjem II, during Siamun's reign, to protect them from tomb robbers. The most detailed and balanced discussion on the chronology, events, and impact of Amenhotep II's reign was published by Peter Der Manuelian, in a 1987 book on this king. A stela from this pharaoh's final years highlights his openly contemptuous attitude towards non-Egyptians. The document, which dates to "Year 23 IV Akhet [day] 1, the day of the festival" of Amenhotep II's accession to power, is a copy of a personal letter which the king composed himself to Usersatet, his viceroy of Kush (Nubia). In it, Amenhotep II reminded Usersatet of their military exploits together in Syria and proceeds to criticise the way this official conducted his office as Viceroy. Amenhotep writes: \|"\|\|Copy of the order which His Majesty wrote himself, with his own hand, to the viceroy Usersatet. His Majesty was in the [royal] Residence...he spent a holiday sitting and drinking. Look, this order of the king is brought to you...who are in faraway Nubia, a hero who brought booty from all foreign countries, a charioteer...you (are) master of a wife from Babylon and a maidservant from Byblos, a young girl from Alalakh and an old woman from Arapkha. Now, these people from Tekshi (Syria) are worthless--what are they good for? Another message for the viceroy: Do not trust the Nubians, but beware of their people and their witchcraft. Take this servant of a commoner, for example, whom you made an official although he is not an official whom you should have suggested to His Majesty; or did you want to allude to the proverb: 'If you lack a gold battle-axe inlaid with bronze, a heavy club of acacia wood will do'? So, do not listen to their words and do not heed their messages!"\|\|"\| Usersatet was so impressed (or fearful) of Amenhotep's message that he ordered a copy of it to be engraved on a stela "that was once [located] at the Second Cataract [in Nubia] and is now in Boston." Amenhotep II did not openly record the names of his queens; some Egyptologists theorise that he felt that women had become too powerful under titles such as God's Wife of Amun. They point to the fact that he participated in his father's removal of Hatshepsut's name from her monuments and the destruction of her image. The destruction of Hatshepsut's images began during the co-regency of Amenhotep when his father was very old, but stopped during his reign. However, the king may have harboured his father's concern that another woman would sit on the throne. Despite his efforts however it is possible that a female co-regent of Akhenaten ruled as pharaoh before the end of his own 18th dynasty. His cause of death is unknown.	<urn:uuid:9809bdfc-c2e1-4602-b923-a80d515bdcf9>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://popflock.com/learn?s=Amenhotep_II	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592636.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118135205-20200118163205-00364.warc.gz	en	0.983533	3,483	3.375	3	[ -0.24243111908435822, 0.9849863052368164, 0.1377652883529663, -0.31095433235168457, -0.533545732498169, -0.39391395449638367, 0.5025873184204102, -0.15156881511211395, -0.20668208599090576, 0.09296344220638275, -0.23156607151031494, -0.692643940448761, 0.4006974995136261, 0.130416721105575...	1	Amenhotep II (sometimes called Amenophis II and meaning Amun is Satisfied) was the seventh Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. Amenhotep inherited a vast kingdom from his father Thutmose III, and held it by means of a few military campaigns in Syria; however, he fought much less than his father, and his reign saw the effective cessation of hostilities between Egypt and Mitanni, the major kingdoms vying for power in Syria. His reign is usually dated from 1427 to 1401 BC. Amenhotep II was born to Thutmose III and a minor wife of the king: Merytre-Hatshepsut. He was not, however, the firstborn son of this pharaoh; his elder brother Amenemhat, the son of the great king's chief wife Satiah, was originally the intended heir to the throne since Amenemhat was designated the 'king's eldest son" and overseer of the cattle of Amun in Year 24 of Thutmose's reign. However, between Years 24 and 35 of Thutmose III, both queen Satiah and prince Amenemhat died, which prompted the pharaoh to marry the non-royal Merytre-Hatshepsut. She would bear Thutmose III a number of children including the future Amenhotep II. Amenhotep II was born and raised in Memphis in the north, instead of in Thebes, the traditional capital. While a prince, he oversaw deliveries of wood sent to the dockyard of Peru-n?fe in Memphis, and was made the Setem, the high priest over Lower Egypt. Amenhotep has left several inscriptions touting his athletic skills while he was a leader of the army before his crowning. Amenhotep was no less athletic than his powerful father. He claims to have been able to shoot an arrow through a copper target one palm thick, and that he was able to row his ship faster and farther than two hundred members of the navy could row theirs. Accordingly, some skepticism concerning the truth of his claims has been expressed among Egyptologists. Amenhotep acceded to the throne on the first day of the fourth month of Akhet, but his father died on the thirtieth day of the third month of Peret. If an Egyptian crown prince was proclaimed king but did not take the throne on the day after his father's death, it meant that he served as the junior coregent during his father's reign. A coregency with Thutmose III and Amenhotep II is believed to have lasted for two years and four months. When he assumed power, Amenhotep II was 18 years old according to an inscription from his great Sphinx stela: After becoming pharaoh, Amenhotep married a woman of uncertain parentage named Tiaa. As many as ten sons and one daughter have been attributed to him. Amenhotep's most important son was Thutmose IV, who succeeded him; however, there is significant evidence for him having many more children. Princes Amenhotep, Webensenu, Amenemopet, and Nedjem are all clearly attested, and Amenemhat, Khaemwaset, and Aakheperure as well as a daughter, Iaret, are also possible children. Papyrus B.M. 10056, which dates to sometime after Amenhotep II's tenth year, refers to a king's son and setem-priest Amenhotep. This Amenhotep might also be attested in a stele from Amenhotep II's temple at Giza, however the stele's name has been defaced so that positive identification is impossible. Stele B may belong to another son, Webensenu. Webensenu's name is otherwise attested on a statue of Amenhotep's chief architect, Minmose, and his canopic jars and a funerary statue have been found in Amenhotep II's tomb. Another Giza stele, stele C, records the name of a Prince Amenemopet, whose name is otherwise unattested. The same statue with the name Webensenu on it is also inscribed with the name of prince Nedjem, who is otherwise unattested. There are other references to king's sons from this period who may or may not be sons of Amenhotep II. Two graffiti from Sahel mention a king's son and stable master named Khaemwaset, but specifically which king is his father is unknown. A figure with the name Amenemhet is recorded behind a prince Amenhotep in Theban tomb 64, and assuming this Amenhotep is indeed the king's son from B.M. 10056, Amenemhat would also be Amenhotep II's son. Additionally, a prince Aakheperure is mentioned in a Konosso graffito alongside a prince Amenhotep, and if one again assumes that this Amenhotep was the same person as the one in B.M. 10056, Aakheperure would also have been Amenhotep II's son. However, in both these cases the figure identified as Amenhotep has been identified by some as possible references to the later King Amenhotep III, which would make these two princes sons Thutmose IV. In addition to sons, Amenhotep II may have had a daughter named Iaret, but she could have also been the daughter of Thutmose IV. Two more sons had been attributed to Amenhotep II in the past; however, they have since been proven to be of other parentage. Gauthier catalogued one Usersatet, the "King's son of Kush," (i.e. Viceroy of Nubia) as a son of Amenhotep II, as well as one Re; however, both are now known to be unrelated to the royal family. Usersatet merely served as Amenhotep's chief official in Nubia and was not a blood relative of the king. Amenhotep's coronation can be dated without much difficulty because of a number of lunar dates in the reign of his father, Thutmose III. These sightings limit the date of Thutmose's accession to either 1504 or 1479 BC. Thutmose died after 54 years of reign, at which time Amenhotep would have acceded to the throne. Amenhotep's short coregency with his father would then move his accession two years and four months earlier, dating his accession to either 1427 BC in the low chronology, or in 1454 BC in the high chronology. The length of his reign is indicated by a wine jar inscribed with the king's prenomen found in Amenhotep II's funerary temple at Thebes; it is dated to this king's highest known date--his Year 26--and lists the name of the pharaoh's vintner, Panehsy. Mortuary temples were generally not stocked until the king died or was near death; therefore, Amenhotep could not have lived much later beyond his 26th year. There are alternate theories which attempt to assign him a reign of up to 35 years, which is the absolute maximum length he could have reigned. In this chronology, he reigned from 1454 to 1419. However, there are problems facing these theories which cannot be resolved. In particular, this would mean Amenhotep died when he was 52, but an X-ray analysis of his mummy has shown him to have been about 40 when he died. Accordingly, Amenhotep II is usually given a reign of 26 years and said to have reigned from 1427 to 1401 BC. Amenhotep's first campaign took place in his third regnal year. It is known that the pharaoh was attacked by the host of Qatna while crossing the Orontes river, but he emerged victorious and acquired rich booty, among which even the equipment of a Mitanni charioteer is mentioned. The king was well known for his physical prowess and is said to have singlehandedly killed 7 rebel Princes at Kadesh, which successfully terminated his first Syrian campaign on a victorious note. After the campaign, the king ordered the bodies of the seven princes to be hung upside down on the prow of his ship. Upon reaching Thebes all but one of the princes were mounted on the city walls. The other was taken to the often rebellious territory of Nubia and hung on the city wall of Napata, as an example of the consequence of rising against Pharaoh and to demoralise any Nubian opponents of Egyptian authority there. Amenhotep called this campaign his first in a Stele from Amada, however he also called his second campaign his first, causing some confusion. The most common solution for this, although not universally accepted, is that this was the first campaign he fought alone before the death of his father and thus before he was the sole king of Egypt, and he counted his second campaign as his first because it was the first that was his and his alone. In April of his seventh year, Amenhotep was faced with a major rebellion in Syria by the vassal states of Naharin and dispatched his army to the Levant to suppress it. This rebellion was likely instigated by Egypt's chief Near Eastern rival, Mitanni. His stele of victory carved after this campaign records no major battles, which has been read a number of ways. It may be that this campaign was more similar to one of the tours of Syria which his father had fought, and he only engaged minor garrisons in battle and forced cities to swear allegiance to him–oaths immediately broken after his departure. Alternatively, it appears that the two weeks when Amenhotep would have been closest to Mitanni are omitted from the stele, thus it is possible that his army was defeated on this campaign. Amenhotep's last campaign took place in his ninth year, however it apparently did not proceed farther north than the Sea of Galilee. According to the list of plunder from this campaign, Amenhotep took 101,128 slaves, which is an obviously exaggerated figure. Some of these slaves may have been recounted from the year 7 campaign, such as 15,070 citizens of Nukhash, since Amenhotep did not campaign anywhere near Nukhash on his year 9 campaign. However, even accounting for this recounting, the numbers still are too high to be realistic, and are probably just exaggerated. After the campaign in Amenhotep's ninth year, Egyptian and Mitannian armies never fought again, and the two kingdoms seem to have reached some sort of peace. Amenhotep records that the kings of Babylon, the Hittites, and Mitanni came to make peace and pay tribute to him after his ninth year, although this may be outlandish boasting. However, a second passage appears on the walls of Karnak, saying that the princes of Mitanni came to seek peace with Amenhotep, and this cannot be so easily explained away. The rising power of the Hittites eventually persuaded Mitanni to seek an ally, and there was definitely a treaty of some sort between Egypt and Mitanni by the time of Amenhotep's successor, but it may be that it was enacted after Amenhotep's campaigns, to try to prevent any more campaigns of mass deportations. Whenever formal peace was enacted, an informal peace was maintained between Amenhotep and the king of Mitanni. Thereafter, Amenhotep concentrated on domestic matters, with one possible exception. A shrine of Amenhotep's Nubian viceroy shows Amenhotep receiving tribute after a Nubian campaign, but it is not possible to date when this happened. Since Thutmose III had devoted so much energy to expanding Karnak, Amenhotep's building projects were largely focused on enlarging smaller temples all over Egypt. In the Delta, his father's Overseer of Works, Minmose, is attested from an inscription at Tura as overseeing construction of more temples. In upper Egypt, small shrines are attested at Medamud, el-Tod, and Armant. Karnak, despite not receiving the attention given it by his father, also was not totally neglected. He commissioned a column to stand in the courtyard between the fourth and fifth pylons commemorating the reception of tribute from Mitanni. In Nubia, Amenhotep built at Qasr Ibrim and Semna, and ordered the decoration of the Temple at Kalabsha. However, his most famous Nubian temple was at Amada. Thutmose III had begun constructing a temple which, technically, was dedicated to Horus there, although the presence of Re-Harakhti and Amun-Re is easily observed. Amenhotep completed it and put in it the record of his year 3 campaign on a stele, which was until 1942 the source of most information about Amenhotep's wars. Amenhotep's mummy was discovered in March 1898 by Victor Loret in his KV35 tomb in the Valley of the Kings within his original sarcophagus. He had a mortuary temple constructed at the edge of the cultivation in the Theban Necropolis, close to where the Ramesseum was later built, but it was destroyed in ancient times. Amenhotep II's KV35 tomb also proved to contain a mummy cache containing several New Kingdom Pharaohs including Thutmose IV, Seti II, Ramesses III, Ramesses IV, and Ramesses VI. They had been re-buried in Amenhotep II's tomb by the 21st Dynasty High Priest of Amun, Pinedjem II, during Siamun's reign, to protect them from tomb robbers. The most detailed and balanced discussion on the chronology, events, and impact of Amenhotep II's reign was published by Peter Der Manuelian, in a 1987 book on this king. A stela from this pharaoh's final years highlights his openly contemptuous attitude towards non-Egyptians. The document, which dates to "Year 23 IV Akhet [day] 1, the day of the festival" of Amenhotep II's accession to power, is a copy of a personal letter which the king composed himself to Usersatet, his viceroy of Kush (Nubia). In it, Amenhotep II reminded Usersatet of their military exploits together in Syria and proceeds to criticise the way this official conducted his office as Viceroy. Amenhotep writes: \|"\|\|Copy of the order which His Majesty wrote himself, with his own hand, to the viceroy Usersatet. His Majesty was in the [royal] Residence...he spent a holiday sitting and drinking. Look, this order of the king is brought to you...who are in faraway Nubia, a hero who brought booty from all foreign countries, a charioteer...you (are) master of a wife from Babylon and a maidservant from Byblos, a young girl from Alalakh and an old woman from Arapkha. Now, these people from Tekshi (Syria) are worthless--what are they good for? Another message for the viceroy: Do not trust the Nubians, but beware of their people and their witchcraft. Take this servant of a commoner, for example, whom you made an official although he is not an official whom you should have suggested to His Majesty; or did you want to allude to the proverb: 'If you lack a gold battle-axe inlaid with bronze, a heavy club of acacia wood will do'? So, do not listen to their words and do not heed their messages!"\|\|"\| Usersatet was so impressed (or fearful) of Amenhotep's message that he ordered a copy of it to be engraved on a stela "that was once [located] at the Second Cataract [in Nubia] and is now in Boston." Amenhotep II did not openly record the names of his queens; some Egyptologists theorise that he felt that women had become too powerful under titles such as God's Wife of Amun. They point to the fact that he participated in his father's removal of Hatshepsut's name from her monuments and the destruction of her image. The destruction of Hatshepsut's images began during the co-regency of Amenhotep when his father was very old, but stopped during his reign. However, the king may have harboured his father's concern that another woman would sit on the throne. Despite his efforts however it is possible that a female co-regent of Akhenaten ruled as pharaoh before the end of his own 18th dynasty. His cause of death is unknown.	3,561	ENGLISH	1
Her mother was his first wife, Roxana Footea deeply religious woman who died when Stowe was only five years old. Visit Website In Cincinnati, Stowe taught at the Western Female Institute, another school founded by Catharine, where she wrote many short stories and articles and co-authored a textbook. With Ohio located just across the river from Kentucky — a slave state — Stowe often encountered fugitive slaves and heard their heart-wrenching stories. It looks like you've lost connection to our server. Please check your internet connection or reload this page. And the only clue was the word Portrayed by Pat Jordan Clara Barton was a strong-willed. intelligent individual who knew what she wanted the early life and times of harriet beecher and found ways to accomplish her goals Several of her books online. The impact created in by Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin made her one of the most widely known American women writers of the nineteenth century. Childhood Harriet Elizabeth "Hattie" Beecher was born in Litchfield, Connecticut, on June 14, , into a family of powerful and very demanding kaja-net.com: Jul 01, This, and a visit to a Kentucky plantation, fueled her abolitionist fervor. The club gave Stowe the chance to hone her writing skills and network with publishers and influential people in the literary world. Stowe and Calvin married in January He encouraged her writing and she continued to churn out short stories and sketches. Along the way, she gave birth to six children. Inshe published The Mayflower: That same year, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Actwhich allowed runaway slaves to be hunted, caught and returned to their owners, even in states where slavery was outlawed. The tragedy helped her understand the heartbreak slave mothers went through when their children were wrenched from their arms and sold. The Fugitive Slave Law and her own great loss led Stowe to write about the plight of slaves. On a slave transport ship, he saves the life of Eva, a white girl from a wealthy family. In the meantime, Eliza — another slave from the same plantation as Tom — learns of plans to sell her son George. Eva becomes ill and, on her deathbed, asks her father to free his slaves. He agrees but is killed before he can, and Tom is sold to a ruthless new owner who employs violence and coercion to keep his slaves in line. After helping two slaves escape, Tom is beaten to death for not revealing their whereabouts. Throughout his life, he clings to his steadfast Christian faith, even as he lay dying. The book was first published in serial form as a group of sketches in the National Era and then as a two-volume novel. The book sold 10, copies the first week. Over the next year, it soldcopies in America and over one million copies in Britain. So, despite her fame, she seldom spoke about the book in public, even at events held in her honor. Instead, Calvin or one of her brothers spoke for her. Its characters and their daily experiences made people uncomfortable as they realized slaves had families and hopes and dreams like everyone else, yet were considered chattel and exposed to terrible living conditions and violence. It also sparked outrage. In the North, the book stoked anti-slavery views. In some parts of the South, the book was illegal.This item: All That Makes Life Bright: The Life and Love of Harriet Beecher Stowe (Proper Romance Historical) by Josi S. Kilpack Paperback $ Only 15 left in stock (more on the way). Ships from and sold by kaja-net.coms: Harriet Beecher Stowe By THE NEW YORK TIMES HARTFORD, July Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, the authoress of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," "Dred," and other works of worldwide reputation, died at her home, 73 Forest Street, at noon today without regaining consciousness. The impact created in by Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin made her one of the most widely known American women writers of the nineteenth century. Childhood Harriet Elizabeth "Hattie" Beecher was born in Litchfield, Connecticut, on June 14, , into a family of powerful and very demanding kaja-net.com: Jul 01, Harriet Beecher Stowe was an American author and social reformer. She was born at a time when the United States was experiencing a great deal of societal changes. Stowe had witnessed the cruelties of slavery firsthand and was active in the same social circles as many other abolitionists of the kaja-net.com Of Birth: Litchfield. She thought this would just make everything in her life just "that much" better. Harriet's sister Catherine did not see it that way. She thought Harriet was wasting her life getting married just to be "ruled" by a man. Catherine believed teaching and writing were what Harriet's true calling in kaja-net.com: $ In October Harriet's family moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, where the elder Beecher became director of the Lane Theological Seminary and where his older daughter, Catherine, opened her Western Female Institute, a school in which Harriet kaja-net.com: Jul 01,	<urn:uuid:054c3247-8333-4e1e-b0e8-d96ce4d6d4c0>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://hejasizipimylilu.kaja-net.com/the-early-life-and-times-of-harriet-beecher-49402oi.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00520.warc.gz	en	0.98049	1,112	3.28125	3	[ -0.09012250602245331, 0.1692095249891281, 0.2915055453777313, 0.1404859870672226, -0.16340371966362, 0.022942369803786278, -0.13827502727508545, -0.08669517934322357, 0.038840051740407944, 0.08130109310150146, 0.11971540749073029, 0.2994602918624878, -0.009701317176222801, 0.02701107971370...	1	Her mother was his first wife, Roxana Footea deeply religious woman who died when Stowe was only five years old. Visit Website In Cincinnati, Stowe taught at the Western Female Institute, another school founded by Catharine, where she wrote many short stories and articles and co-authored a textbook. With Ohio located just across the river from Kentucky — a slave state — Stowe often encountered fugitive slaves and heard their heart-wrenching stories. It looks like you've lost connection to our server. Please check your internet connection or reload this page. And the only clue was the word Portrayed by Pat Jordan Clara Barton was a strong-willed. intelligent individual who knew what she wanted the early life and times of harriet beecher and found ways to accomplish her goals Several of her books online. The impact created in by Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin made her one of the most widely known American women writers of the nineteenth century. Childhood Harriet Elizabeth "Hattie" Beecher was born in Litchfield, Connecticut, on June 14, , into a family of powerful and very demanding kaja-net.com: Jul 01, This, and a visit to a Kentucky plantation, fueled her abolitionist fervor. The club gave Stowe the chance to hone her writing skills and network with publishers and influential people in the literary world. Stowe and Calvin married in January He encouraged her writing and she continued to churn out short stories and sketches. Along the way, she gave birth to six children. Inshe published The Mayflower: That same year, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Actwhich allowed runaway slaves to be hunted, caught and returned to their owners, even in states where slavery was outlawed. The tragedy helped her understand the heartbreak slave mothers went through when their children were wrenched from their arms and sold. The Fugitive Slave Law and her own great loss led Stowe to write about the plight of slaves. On a slave transport ship, he saves the life of Eva, a white girl from a wealthy family. In the meantime, Eliza — another slave from the same plantation as Tom — learns of plans to sell her son George. Eva becomes ill and, on her deathbed, asks her father to free his slaves. He agrees but is killed before he can, and Tom is sold to a ruthless new owner who employs violence and coercion to keep his slaves in line. After helping two slaves escape, Tom is beaten to death for not revealing their whereabouts. Throughout his life, he clings to his steadfast Christian faith, even as he lay dying. The book was first published in serial form as a group of sketches in the National Era and then as a two-volume novel. The book sold 10, copies the first week. Over the next year, it soldcopies in America and over one million copies in Britain. So, despite her fame, she seldom spoke about the book in public, even at events held in her honor. Instead, Calvin or one of her brothers spoke for her. Its characters and their daily experiences made people uncomfortable as they realized slaves had families and hopes and dreams like everyone else, yet were considered chattel and exposed to terrible living conditions and violence. It also sparked outrage. In the North, the book stoked anti-slavery views. In some parts of the South, the book was illegal.This item: All That Makes Life Bright: The Life and Love of Harriet Beecher Stowe (Proper Romance Historical) by Josi S. Kilpack Paperback $ Only 15 left in stock (more on the way). Ships from and sold by kaja-net.coms: Harriet Beecher Stowe By THE NEW YORK TIMES HARTFORD, July Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, the authoress of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," "Dred," and other works of worldwide reputation, died at her home, 73 Forest Street, at noon today without regaining consciousness. The impact created in by Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin made her one of the most widely known American women writers of the nineteenth century. Childhood Harriet Elizabeth "Hattie" Beecher was born in Litchfield, Connecticut, on June 14, , into a family of powerful and very demanding kaja-net.com: Jul 01, Harriet Beecher Stowe was an American author and social reformer. She was born at a time when the United States was experiencing a great deal of societal changes. Stowe had witnessed the cruelties of slavery firsthand and was active in the same social circles as many other abolitionists of the kaja-net.com Of Birth: Litchfield. She thought this would just make everything in her life just "that much" better. Harriet's sister Catherine did not see it that way. She thought Harriet was wasting her life getting married just to be "ruled" by a man. Catherine believed teaching and writing were what Harriet's true calling in kaja-net.com: $ In October Harriet's family moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, where the elder Beecher became director of the Lane Theological Seminary and where his older daughter, Catherine, opened her Western Female Institute, a school in which Harriet kaja-net.com: Jul 01,	1,096	ENGLISH	1
The exact origin of cricket is unknown; however, it has been said that cricket originated in England, possibly back in the 13th Century. The game is played with a ball and bat between two teams that consist of eleven players on a field. When the game was created, one player would toss up an object whether it was a small piece of wood, rock, or a ball and the other player would hit it with a club or stick. Although, the game’s instruments have changed, cricket is still played basically the same way today and is a very popular sport in India, England, Pakistan, Australia, and South Africa. Records show that the earliest cricket match was played in Sussex back in 1697. It wasn’t until 1709 that rules were made up for the game, although the rules of the game played today dates back to 1744. It has been said that some parts of England restricted cricket during the 18th century, but the love for the game grew extremely popular and reached London. Amateur and professional players competed in the earliest structured cricket games. British Universities competed against one another during these early games as well. Since cricket games were increasing in popularity, the first official rules of the game were created and published in 1744. The London Club was responsible for these laws. It was back then when it was established that a cricket pitch had to be 22 yards long. Several other rules of the game were established over the next few decades. It wasn’t until the 18th century that the laws surrounding underarm bowling had changed. In 1835, the law was modified stating that from then on, the hand was allowed to be raised not to go above the shoulder. Much controversy sparked over the next several years because of the new rule. So much so, that in 1864, overhand bowling was deemed acceptable. This change heavily affected the game and made it much harder for a batter to judge the ball. The structure of the game as we know it today dates back to the late 19th century. In 1900, instead of a five-ball version of the game, a six-ball version was invented. Back then, international cricket had always been dominated by England, Australia, and South Africa, who were all members of the Imperial Cricket Conference. It was later renamed the International Cricket Conference and then the International Cricket Council, which gained control of the game back in 1909. The 21st century has seen the most changes in the history of the game, thus far. There is a new version of the sport, the shortest version of Twenty20 cricket. This new version of the game limits the position of fielders and shortens boundaries, which favors batting. This new style of playing was first played in county cricket in England in 2003. The emergence of Twenty20 cricket has resulted in a great revolution of the game.	<urn:uuid:62fc3495-e2e7-4025-bcc9-fc143f37fc8c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://academycricket.co.uk/the-origin-of-cricket/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601615.66/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121044233-20200121073233-00297.warc.gz	en	0.987388	580	3.28125	3	[ -0.29528751969337463, 0.1482311487197876, 0.2468763142824173, -0.5350562334060669, -0.0218631811439991, 0.28142619132995605, 0.15878836810588837, -0.11845354735851288, 0.3728906512260437, 0.3160935044288635, 0.21115589141845703, -0.4560336768627167, 0.006515287794172764, 0.0253776479512453...	9	The exact origin of cricket is unknown; however, it has been said that cricket originated in England, possibly back in the 13th Century. The game is played with a ball and bat between two teams that consist of eleven players on a field. When the game was created, one player would toss up an object whether it was a small piece of wood, rock, or a ball and the other player would hit it with a club or stick. Although, the game’s instruments have changed, cricket is still played basically the same way today and is a very popular sport in India, England, Pakistan, Australia, and South Africa. Records show that the earliest cricket match was played in Sussex back in 1697. It wasn’t until 1709 that rules were made up for the game, although the rules of the game played today dates back to 1744. It has been said that some parts of England restricted cricket during the 18th century, but the love for the game grew extremely popular and reached London. Amateur and professional players competed in the earliest structured cricket games. British Universities competed against one another during these early games as well. Since cricket games were increasing in popularity, the first official rules of the game were created and published in 1744. The London Club was responsible for these laws. It was back then when it was established that a cricket pitch had to be 22 yards long. Several other rules of the game were established over the next few decades. It wasn’t until the 18th century that the laws surrounding underarm bowling had changed. In 1835, the law was modified stating that from then on, the hand was allowed to be raised not to go above the shoulder. Much controversy sparked over the next several years because of the new rule. So much so, that in 1864, overhand bowling was deemed acceptable. This change heavily affected the game and made it much harder for a batter to judge the ball. The structure of the game as we know it today dates back to the late 19th century. In 1900, instead of a five-ball version of the game, a six-ball version was invented. Back then, international cricket had always been dominated by England, Australia, and South Africa, who were all members of the Imperial Cricket Conference. It was later renamed the International Cricket Conference and then the International Cricket Council, which gained control of the game back in 1909. The 21st century has seen the most changes in the history of the game, thus far. There is a new version of the sport, the shortest version of Twenty20 cricket. This new version of the game limits the position of fielders and shortens boundaries, which favors batting. This new style of playing was first played in county cricket in England in 2003. The emergence of Twenty20 cricket has resulted in a great revolution of the game.	611	ENGLISH	1
Am I debating this subject? No. Your trying to steal this thread towards some other idea and your're doing it poorly. My points is the idea is common Southerners did not all think alike and the majority were compassionate and found themselves looking at the slaves around them as people with the same wants as they. My points are... 1. Slavery could not have existed in the seven states of the first secession for very long, not as it had. So why secede to protect it? 2. Common Southerners did not all think alike and the majority were open-minding enough to realize during the war that the slaves around them were just people (albeit a lower class) with the same wants as they. 3. The importance of the Slavery Institution in the South evaporated to nothing within a few years from South Carolina's secession, whereas on December 19, 1860 Slavery was the social, cultural and economic life blood of the South and had been for nearly two hundred years. (I added more umph to this point).	<urn:uuid:a811785f-36a7-4508-b588-bd9c4fb03037>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs62x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=61960	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591234.15/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117205732-20200117233732-00067.warc.gz	en	0.987108	216	3.265625	3	[ -0.5256578922271729, -0.015071675181388855, -0.01388913206756115, -0.3214944005012512, 0.11891370266675949, -0.13223619759082794, 0.16451114416122437, -0.1184443011879921, 0.02654486522078514, -0.02656649611890316, 0.3503860533237457, -0.10035499930381775, -0.05235181748867035, 0.205561041...	4	Am I debating this subject? No. Your trying to steal this thread towards some other idea and your're doing it poorly. My points is the idea is common Southerners did not all think alike and the majority were compassionate and found themselves looking at the slaves around them as people with the same wants as they. My points are... 1. Slavery could not have existed in the seven states of the first secession for very long, not as it had. So why secede to protect it? 2. Common Southerners did not all think alike and the majority were open-minding enough to realize during the war that the slaves around them were just people (albeit a lower class) with the same wants as they. 3. The importance of the Slavery Institution in the South evaporated to nothing within a few years from South Carolina's secession, whereas on December 19, 1860 Slavery was the social, cultural and economic life blood of the South and had been for nearly two hundred years. (I added more umph to this point).	219	ENGLISH	1
Average 4.9 / 5. Votes 159 The earliest maps made of America by Columbus have all since been lost. However, a number of very early and accurate maps exist which were made by Piri Reis based on material including the maps by Columbus and used by the Turkish navy. \|Coordinates of Piri Reis map\| The discovery of a new continent, America, through the efforts to reach India by sailing around the Cape of Good Hope motivated great improvements in the field of marine geography in the 16th century. The Ottomans were also included in these activities for good reasons because in the 16th century the Ottoman Empire had expanded into three continents; the Black Sea and the Mediterranean were turned into Turkish lakes and Ottoman fleets had started to win victories in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. As a result, it became necessary for the Ottomans to improve themselves in marine geography. A Turkish Admiral Pîrî Reis, with his two world maps and his book Kitâb-i Bahriyye, became one of the most important representatives of marine geography not only in the Ottoman, Empire but in the world as well. Towards the end of the 15th century, the wealth of European nations depended on sea trade. The nation which knew the new shores and sea routes that the others did not know, gained dominance over sea trade and naturally had the opportunity of becoming the richest nation of Europe. It was for this reason that the Spanish had begun to keep all the maps drawn after Columbus’ first trip and discovery of the New World in the archives of Seville. Very few of these maps were allowed to be copied and then, only by the captains in whom the Spanish had complete confidence. The important maps drawn by famous explorers such as Columbus, Magellan and Cortes were copied, neither printed, nor engraved on copper or wood. The maps that were in circulation were the ones that had slipped through this close surveillance. During this period, quite a few maps and geography books were printed. However, the Spanish burnt them; on the pretext that they were full of errors or that, they disclosed secret information. In the 16th century, the English and French offered a reward of forty ingots of gold for a correctly drawn map of any part of America. With the disappearance of these maps from the archives of Seville, the map drawn in 1500 by Juan de la Cosa who was with Columbus on his trip to America in 1492 became the oldest map of America found. In this map, America was shown as the eastern coast of Asia. \|Portrait of Pîrî Reis\| The two other well-known maps are those of Cantina and Canneries and are of Spanish origin. Another map that drew interest was the rough sketch by Columbus’ son Bartholomea. The first map that was printed was the map of Contarini who drew the newly discovered land as the extension of Asia. The second map that showed America was the large-scale world map of Martin Waldseemüller, printed in 1507. Though it was based on the map drawn by Canneries in 1502, it differed from the first map in that America was shown as a separate continent from Asia and was called “America.” Martin Waldseemüller was born in Radolfzell, educated at Freiberg University, and later appointed as a priest at St. Die. Here, a small group working on cosmography, cartography, and philosophy was formed. The Duke’s secretary, Father Walter Ludd, founded a printing house to publish these studies. Waldseemüller began his studies by putting together the copies of Ptolemy’s maps in Basel and Strasbourg libraries. However, he could not ignore the studies of the Spanish and Portuguese on this subject. He cast Ptolemy aside for Amerigo Vespucci whom he admired and whose book Cosmographiae Introductio he used, in drawing a map of South America. He paid homage to the great explorer calling his map “America.” While the maps mentioned above have been accepted as the oldest maps of America, in 1929 Halil Eldem found a piece of a map in the Topkapi Place and took it to Ataturk who showed great interest in this map. After many studies, this map, or portolano, was proved to be a part of the world map drawn in 1513 by the famous Turkish Admiral Pîrî Reis. Pîrî Reis had also mentioned the sources he referred to while drawing this map. One of them, as he mentioned in Kitâb-i Bahriyye, is the map of Columbus. This map is most probably the map Columbus drew in 1498 and sent to Spain. Although it was not very customary to have copies of the original then, there were copies made of this map. However, today neither the original nor can any of its copies be found. The only map that has survived until now is that of Pîrî Reis, who drew it using the map of Columbus as a model. \|A Turkey Republic bank note contains Pîrî Reis’ map\| LIFE OF PÎRÎ REIS Although the exact date of his birth is not known, it is presumed that Muhyi al-Din Pîrî was born between 1465 and 1470 in Gallipoli, an important naval base along the Marmara coast. His father was Hajji Mehmed; his uncle, one of the famous admirals of the period, Kemal Reis. When Pîrî was about eleven, he joined the crew of his uncle who had started out as a pirate and then joined the Imperial Ottoman fleet. Between 1487 and 1493, Pîrî participated in many naval battles with his uncle. His independent career as naval captain corresponds to his heroic performances in the sea battles between 1499 and 1502. It is probably during one of these battles that he may have gotten hold of the Columbus Map. After his uncle’s death in 1511, he left the open seas to live in Gallipoli and started working on map drawing. After a while, he joined in the crew of the great Turkish sailor Barbarossa Hayr al-Din. In 1516-1517, Pîrî Reis was given command of several ships in the Ottoman campaign against Egypt. He showed great prowess in capturing Alexandria which was then the naval base of Egypt. This victory caused Pîrî to gain, the closer notice of Sultan Selim (1519-1520) and to present to him the world map which he had completed in Gallipoli. After the Egyptian campaign, Pîrî returned to Gallipoli and started to work on the Kitâb-i Bahriyye. In the meanwhile, Selim had died and Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent had ascended the throne; Pîrî was given a commission in the Turkish fleet. Around this time, there was some disturbance in Egypt and Pîrî Reis was asked to act as a marine guide to Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha of Parga who commanded the campaign. During the expedition, they were forced to take refuge at Rhodes due to storms. This gave Pîrî the opportunity of getting to know the Pasha better. Ibrahim Pasha, too, noticed that Pîrî often consulted some notes, that is, the book he was working on, Bahriyye. So, he asked Pîrî to make a proper book out of his notes. Eventually, Pîrî completed the book, with the help of Ibrahim Pasha, presented it to Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent, and won the Sultan’s appreciation. A second world map followed it. Today, only a portion of this map known as the North America map is available. About that time, the Portuguese had captured Aden. The Ottoman government made Pîrî Reis the Admiral of the Indian Ocean Fleet, and ordered him to take Aden back. Pîrî took Aden back in 1548 and other victories followed this one. These victories had angered his enemies, especially the governor of Basra, Kubat Pasha, who sent word to Istanbul that Pîrî had deserted the fleet at Basra. When the governor of Egypt seconded him, Dukaginzade Mehmed Pasha, Pîrî Reis was sentenced to death and was executed in Cairo in 1555, an old man over eighty. Brown, L.A., The Story of Maps, Canada 1953, 5th ed., p. 8. Tooley, R. V., Maps and Map-Makers, London, 1952, 2nd ed., p. no. 110. Tooley, p. no. 110. Brown, p. 110. Brown, p. 157. Average 4.9 / 5. Votes 159	<urn:uuid:3bef7250-e331-4a3f-815c-73ada036060d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://muslimheritage.com/earliest-maps-of-america/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00179.warc.gz	en	0.983484	1,874	3.71875	4	[ -0.30616387724876404, -0.15526464581489563, 0.24803942441940308, -0.073806531727314, -0.18633240461349487, -0.2579972743988037, -0.08375921845436096, 0.15052270889282227, 0.15676143765449524, -0.026354234665632248, -0.004623048007488251, -0.40102043747901917, -0.3544602692127228, 0.5224767...	2	Average 4.9 / 5. Votes 159 The earliest maps made of America by Columbus have all since been lost. However, a number of very early and accurate maps exist which were made by Piri Reis based on material including the maps by Columbus and used by the Turkish navy. \|Coordinates of Piri Reis map\| The discovery of a new continent, America, through the efforts to reach India by sailing around the Cape of Good Hope motivated great improvements in the field of marine geography in the 16th century. The Ottomans were also included in these activities for good reasons because in the 16th century the Ottoman Empire had expanded into three continents; the Black Sea and the Mediterranean were turned into Turkish lakes and Ottoman fleets had started to win victories in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. As a result, it became necessary for the Ottomans to improve themselves in marine geography. A Turkish Admiral Pîrî Reis, with his two world maps and his book Kitâb-i Bahriyye, became one of the most important representatives of marine geography not only in the Ottoman, Empire but in the world as well. Towards the end of the 15th century, the wealth of European nations depended on sea trade. The nation which knew the new shores and sea routes that the others did not know, gained dominance over sea trade and naturally had the opportunity of becoming the richest nation of Europe. It was for this reason that the Spanish had begun to keep all the maps drawn after Columbus’ first trip and discovery of the New World in the archives of Seville. Very few of these maps were allowed to be copied and then, only by the captains in whom the Spanish had complete confidence. The important maps drawn by famous explorers such as Columbus, Magellan and Cortes were copied, neither printed, nor engraved on copper or wood. The maps that were in circulation were the ones that had slipped through this close surveillance. During this period, quite a few maps and geography books were printed. However, the Spanish burnt them; on the pretext that they were full of errors or that, they disclosed secret information. In the 16th century, the English and French offered a reward of forty ingots of gold for a correctly drawn map of any part of America. With the disappearance of these maps from the archives of Seville, the map drawn in 1500 by Juan de la Cosa who was with Columbus on his trip to America in 1492 became the oldest map of America found. In this map, America was shown as the eastern coast of Asia. \|Portrait of Pîrî Reis\| The two other well-known maps are those of Cantina and Canneries and are of Spanish origin. Another map that drew interest was the rough sketch by Columbus’ son Bartholomea. The first map that was printed was the map of Contarini who drew the newly discovered land as the extension of Asia. The second map that showed America was the large-scale world map of Martin Waldseemüller, printed in 1507. Though it was based on the map drawn by Canneries in 1502, it differed from the first map in that America was shown as a separate continent from Asia and was called “America.” Martin Waldseemüller was born in Radolfzell, educated at Freiberg University, and later appointed as a priest at St. Die. Here, a small group working on cosmography, cartography, and philosophy was formed. The Duke’s secretary, Father Walter Ludd, founded a printing house to publish these studies. Waldseemüller began his studies by putting together the copies of Ptolemy’s maps in Basel and Strasbourg libraries. However, he could not ignore the studies of the Spanish and Portuguese on this subject. He cast Ptolemy aside for Amerigo Vespucci whom he admired and whose book Cosmographiae Introductio he used, in drawing a map of South America. He paid homage to the great explorer calling his map “America.” While the maps mentioned above have been accepted as the oldest maps of America, in 1929 Halil Eldem found a piece of a map in the Topkapi Place and took it to Ataturk who showed great interest in this map. After many studies, this map, or portolano, was proved to be a part of the world map drawn in 1513 by the famous Turkish Admiral Pîrî Reis. Pîrî Reis had also mentioned the sources he referred to while drawing this map. One of them, as he mentioned in Kitâb-i Bahriyye, is the map of Columbus. This map is most probably the map Columbus drew in 1498 and sent to Spain. Although it was not very customary to have copies of the original then, there were copies made of this map. However, today neither the original nor can any of its copies be found. The only map that has survived until now is that of Pîrî Reis, who drew it using the map of Columbus as a model. \|A Turkey Republic bank note contains Pîrî Reis’ map\| LIFE OF PÎRÎ REIS Although the exact date of his birth is not known, it is presumed that Muhyi al-Din Pîrî was born between 1465 and 1470 in Gallipoli, an important naval base along the Marmara coast. His father was Hajji Mehmed; his uncle, one of the famous admirals of the period, Kemal Reis. When Pîrî was about eleven, he joined the crew of his uncle who had started out as a pirate and then joined the Imperial Ottoman fleet. Between 1487 and 1493, Pîrî participated in many naval battles with his uncle. His independent career as naval captain corresponds to his heroic performances in the sea battles between 1499 and 1502. It is probably during one of these battles that he may have gotten hold of the Columbus Map. After his uncle’s death in 1511, he left the open seas to live in Gallipoli and started working on map drawing. After a while, he joined in the crew of the great Turkish sailor Barbarossa Hayr al-Din. In 1516-1517, Pîrî Reis was given command of several ships in the Ottoman campaign against Egypt. He showed great prowess in capturing Alexandria which was then the naval base of Egypt. This victory caused Pîrî to gain, the closer notice of Sultan Selim (1519-1520) and to present to him the world map which he had completed in Gallipoli. After the Egyptian campaign, Pîrî returned to Gallipoli and started to work on the Kitâb-i Bahriyye. In the meanwhile, Selim had died and Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent had ascended the throne; Pîrî was given a commission in the Turkish fleet. Around this time, there was some disturbance in Egypt and Pîrî Reis was asked to act as a marine guide to Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha of Parga who commanded the campaign. During the expedition, they were forced to take refuge at Rhodes due to storms. This gave Pîrî the opportunity of getting to know the Pasha better. Ibrahim Pasha, too, noticed that Pîrî often consulted some notes, that is, the book he was working on, Bahriyye. So, he asked Pîrî to make a proper book out of his notes. Eventually, Pîrî completed the book, with the help of Ibrahim Pasha, presented it to Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent, and won the Sultan’s appreciation. A second world map followed it. Today, only a portion of this map known as the North America map is available. About that time, the Portuguese had captured Aden. The Ottoman government made Pîrî Reis the Admiral of the Indian Ocean Fleet, and ordered him to take Aden back. Pîrî took Aden back in 1548 and other victories followed this one. These victories had angered his enemies, especially the governor of Basra, Kubat Pasha, who sent word to Istanbul that Pîrî had deserted the fleet at Basra. When the governor of Egypt seconded him, Dukaginzade Mehmed Pasha, Pîrî Reis was sentenced to death and was executed in Cairo in 1555, an old man over eighty. Brown, L.A., The Story of Maps, Canada 1953, 5th ed., p. 8. Tooley, R. V., Maps and Map-Makers, London, 1952, 2nd ed., p. no. 110. Tooley, p. no. 110. Brown, p. 110. Brown, p. 157. Average 4.9 / 5. Votes 159	1,917	ENGLISH	1
There were rumors during Shakespeare's life His contemporaries at the time appear to have harboured suspicions. Unlike his contemporaries, there is no historical documentation to suggest Shakespeare made a living from writing plays. Other writers at the time left documented evidence that they earned their living from writing. Even in cases where the writing itself has not survived, there are letters and payment records that showed they earned an income from writing. There is almost no indication in historical documents that Shakespeare ever earned an income from writing, despite his life being exceptionally well documented compared to most in Elizabethan England. We know he was an actor, had a stake in a theatre company, was a moneylender, a property investor, a tax dodger and had a restraining order imposed upon him. But nowhere do we have historical documentation pointing to an income earned from writing. The fact that there is more documentation about William Shakespeare than any other figure in Elizabethan theatre shows that he had the fame and public prestige we would expect from someone who wrote the plays. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there is no surviving documentation to show that he made his livelihood from writing does not mean that he didn't. It is possible there are just no surviving documents. There is extensive evidence which places him in the theatre world. He was in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, a troupe which would go on to become the King’s Men. But, perhaps most convincingly, his name is on the plays. Why would there need to be any further documentation beyond that? [P1] There is no documentation showing that Shakespeare earned any money from writing. [P2] There are many documents that show his contemporaries made their livelihoods from writing. [P3] Therefore, Shakespeare did not make money from writing. [P4] Therefore, he can't have written the plays. [Rejecting P3] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.	<urn:uuid:9f5598f4-78d2-4425-9675-1493bb508219>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://parlia.com/a/RrpKqHffPJmtzjRHlvKGkpbWf/who-was-shakespeare/the-anti-stratfordian-position/where-is-the-documentation	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00343.warc.gz	en	0.986971	399	3.453125	3	[ -0.2945127487182617, 0.18184705078601837, 0.4031672179698944, 0.11595200002193451, -0.009697246365249157, -0.05018289014697075, 0.07789628207683563, 0.11478547006845474, -0.1830284744501114, -0.11083581298589706, -0.02738809399306774, 0.03833678364753723, -0.10823652148246765, 0.2391567081...	1	There were rumors during Shakespeare's life His contemporaries at the time appear to have harboured suspicions. Unlike his contemporaries, there is no historical documentation to suggest Shakespeare made a living from writing plays. Other writers at the time left documented evidence that they earned their living from writing. Even in cases where the writing itself has not survived, there are letters and payment records that showed they earned an income from writing. There is almost no indication in historical documents that Shakespeare ever earned an income from writing, despite his life being exceptionally well documented compared to most in Elizabethan England. We know he was an actor, had a stake in a theatre company, was a moneylender, a property investor, a tax dodger and had a restraining order imposed upon him. But nowhere do we have historical documentation pointing to an income earned from writing. The fact that there is more documentation about William Shakespeare than any other figure in Elizabethan theatre shows that he had the fame and public prestige we would expect from someone who wrote the plays. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there is no surviving documentation to show that he made his livelihood from writing does not mean that he didn't. It is possible there are just no surviving documents. There is extensive evidence which places him in the theatre world. He was in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, a troupe which would go on to become the King’s Men. But, perhaps most convincingly, his name is on the plays. Why would there need to be any further documentation beyond that? [P1] There is no documentation showing that Shakespeare earned any money from writing. [P2] There are many documents that show his contemporaries made their livelihoods from writing. [P3] Therefore, Shakespeare did not make money from writing. [P4] Therefore, he can't have written the plays. [Rejecting P3] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.	391	ENGLISH	1
Work refers to any duty fulfilled for regular wages or salary. These duties don’t just happen by chance or at random but they have to be organized in a pre-determined manner. Otherwise there is no defined flow of events, then this leads to time and resource wastage. For instance, there must be set out rules on who does what, where, when, why and how. This is meant to ensure that there is accountability for every act done and also to minimize cases of blame games. In the pre-industrial era, human societies mostly engaged in hunting and gathering activities. They had very limited technology and therefore used stones for tools and weapons. Work was done collectively by all people be it old or young, men and women, or even political and religious leaders. However, due to sex differences and age groups, adult males specialized in hunting and fishing while adult female participated in food gathering and preservation. Despite all these specializations, it was with no doubt the responsibility of all to actively participate in shelter preparations. As time passed by, people slowly started doing some horticultural activities. This was mainly cultivation of crops and rearing of animals. During this period, there was some remarkably a notable improvement of technology as people now started using metal tools instead of the stones. This led to creation of more reliable economic surplus thus the level of trade also intensified. As a result, population got on the rise as well. Next to this development was the widespread of plough and the intensive use of animal power for agriculture and transport. Animals were used to pull a plough rather than the human beings. All these activities also led to massive expansion of production which in return led to high population growth. People began to see the need to own their land so as to realize more incomes and as a result of this economic growth and diversity, urban centers emerged whereby money was now being used as the medium of exchange. This more diversification brought in the aspect of industrial revolution. Here, energy sources e.g. electricity, gas, or nuclear power was used in production. New machine technology was now being applied. As a result of the high technology, there was establishment of large scale specialized work places like factories. These factories were majorly situated in the urban centers so as to solve the challenges resulting from accessibility to both raw materials and uninterrupted supply of machinery. Unlike in the earlier developments whereby labour was considerably for agriculture, here labour and technology were majorly on manufacturing. Another distinguishing feature associated with this stage of development was that it was profit – oriented besides private ownership of factors of production more so land. Again, as opposed to the earlier development of home or family ownership, this was associated with separation of home from home. This was made successful through creation of specialists to the different work stations. Workers were now being recruited on the basis of productiveness instead of parentage or how close one is attached to a family owning the factors of production. People began to move from homes in rural areas to urban areas to provide labour to the factories. This massive movement and migration of people from the rural to urban areas created a pool of workers with different character traits, culture and also of different abilities. Due to these differences, the employees felt like their jobs were at risk and thus they saw the need to join hands and form what is commonly referred to as Trade Unions. These trade unions made the workers to be more aware of their rights and hence any attempt by the employees was highly met with so much resistance. They also teamed up so as to increase their bargaining power in terms of their welfare and salaries and wages. It’s also of great importance to note that, a lot of revolution was experienced here in that both male and females were no longer gender biased and anyone could do any job as long as they have the minimum qualifications and requirements and above all were competent. Its therefore with no doubt that has gone through so much transitions up to the 21st century whereby employees now want more meaning from their work rather than just earning a livelihood and security. A lot of differences can be drawn from the history of where work was invented up to the 21st century. Some may include the following: • In terms of production, hand tools/ human energy were used but in the 21st century, machines tools instead. • Family/ households was the unit of production unlike large- scale production in the 21st century. • There was low degree of differentiation in terms of labour division but in the 21st century, division of labour was associated with high degree of differentiation. • Production was done at random, meaning that there was no specific or regular time of operation but in the 21st century, there is regular and permanent time frame. • Also, people worked for livelihood but in the 21st century, people are purposed to work for long term profits.	<urn:uuid:af68327b-3fbb-468d-9361-3de0ad7144a5>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://lotusstudy.com/work-refers-to-any-duty-fulfilled-for-regular-wages-or-salary/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250611127.53/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123160903-20200123185903-00259.warc.gz	en	0.984553	983	3.59375	4	[ -0.25810712575912476, 0.16505934298038483, 0.1730239987373352, -0.08595559000968933, 0.3164542019367218, -0.207183375954628, 0.3783372640609741, -0.2022596001625061, -0.2514301836490631, 0.20586375892162323, 0.23314882814884186, -0.16007789969444275, -0.032964885234832764, 0.17695041000843...	3	Work refers to any duty fulfilled for regular wages or salary. These duties don’t just happen by chance or at random but they have to be organized in a pre-determined manner. Otherwise there is no defined flow of events, then this leads to time and resource wastage. For instance, there must be set out rules on who does what, where, when, why and how. This is meant to ensure that there is accountability for every act done and also to minimize cases of blame games. In the pre-industrial era, human societies mostly engaged in hunting and gathering activities. They had very limited technology and therefore used stones for tools and weapons. Work was done collectively by all people be it old or young, men and women, or even political and religious leaders. However, due to sex differences and age groups, adult males specialized in hunting and fishing while adult female participated in food gathering and preservation. Despite all these specializations, it was with no doubt the responsibility of all to actively participate in shelter preparations. As time passed by, people slowly started doing some horticultural activities. This was mainly cultivation of crops and rearing of animals. During this period, there was some remarkably a notable improvement of technology as people now started using metal tools instead of the stones. This led to creation of more reliable economic surplus thus the level of trade also intensified. As a result, population got on the rise as well. Next to this development was the widespread of plough and the intensive use of animal power for agriculture and transport. Animals were used to pull a plough rather than the human beings. All these activities also led to massive expansion of production which in return led to high population growth. People began to see the need to own their land so as to realize more incomes and as a result of this economic growth and diversity, urban centers emerged whereby money was now being used as the medium of exchange. This more diversification brought in the aspect of industrial revolution. Here, energy sources e.g. electricity, gas, or nuclear power was used in production. New machine technology was now being applied. As a result of the high technology, there was establishment of large scale specialized work places like factories. These factories were majorly situated in the urban centers so as to solve the challenges resulting from accessibility to both raw materials and uninterrupted supply of machinery. Unlike in the earlier developments whereby labour was considerably for agriculture, here labour and technology were majorly on manufacturing. Another distinguishing feature associated with this stage of development was that it was profit – oriented besides private ownership of factors of production more so land. Again, as opposed to the earlier development of home or family ownership, this was associated with separation of home from home. This was made successful through creation of specialists to the different work stations. Workers were now being recruited on the basis of productiveness instead of parentage or how close one is attached to a family owning the factors of production. People began to move from homes in rural areas to urban areas to provide labour to the factories. This massive movement and migration of people from the rural to urban areas created a pool of workers with different character traits, culture and also of different abilities. Due to these differences, the employees felt like their jobs were at risk and thus they saw the need to join hands and form what is commonly referred to as Trade Unions. These trade unions made the workers to be more aware of their rights and hence any attempt by the employees was highly met with so much resistance. They also teamed up so as to increase their bargaining power in terms of their welfare and salaries and wages. It’s also of great importance to note that, a lot of revolution was experienced here in that both male and females were no longer gender biased and anyone could do any job as long as they have the minimum qualifications and requirements and above all were competent. Its therefore with no doubt that has gone through so much transitions up to the 21st century whereby employees now want more meaning from their work rather than just earning a livelihood and security. A lot of differences can be drawn from the history of where work was invented up to the 21st century. Some may include the following: • In terms of production, hand tools/ human energy were used but in the 21st century, machines tools instead. • Family/ households was the unit of production unlike large- scale production in the 21st century. • There was low degree of differentiation in terms of labour division but in the 21st century, division of labour was associated with high degree of differentiation. • Production was done at random, meaning that there was no specific or regular time of operation but in the 21st century, there is regular and permanent time frame. • Also, people worked for livelihood but in the 21st century, people are purposed to work for long term profits.	979	ENGLISH	1
Back in the early conquest period, the Ottoman Empire has made an impact over history as one of the recognized civilizations in the Middle East. From Middle East to the shores of Constantinople, the Ottoman Empire has managed to influence these locations and implement changes. However, one Sultan made a clear mark upon his ascendance to the Ottoman throne, and is still considered a hero due to his contributions to ancient history and to his homeland Turkey. This Sultan is none other than Mehmed II or the famous Conqueror, the known leader of the Ottoman forces in the famous Ottoman siege in Constantinople. His notable contributions for the growth of the Ottoman Empire from its territories, to its political, religious, and judicial foundation can be considered the reasons why the Empire held its power even after his unexpected death. His contributions enabled him to also establish his name as one of Turkish history’s powerful rulers and heroes. Mehmed II or Mehmed Celebi in his younger years was the third offspring of the Ottoman Sultan Murad II, born on March 30 sometime in 1430 or 1432 in some records in the Ottoman Capital Edirne. Murad II was known for his territorial expansion in Europe. As they reached the Danube River, Murad II’s forces were driven out of the Hungarian border. A few years later, Murad II swore to have a ceasefire with Hungary’s King Ladislas and noted they will never cross the Danube River for 10 years. Murad II moved back his army to Anatolia in acceptance to his oath. His mother, on the other hand, is speculated to be a French princess or an Italian woman called Estella. In latter records, she was referred to as the Huma Hattan. Experts have also noted that it is possible that Mehmed’s mother is a slave sold to Murad II from Adrianople, and converted from Judaism to give birth to the prince legally. As he grew up, he spent his days in the palace in Erdine up to 1434 when he was sent to Amaysa in Anatolia. As he was already five years old, he was also given the governor seat for the city, with councillors selected to aid him. It was also a tradition in the Ottoman Empire that the child of the Sultan is given authority at a young age. Five years later, he was returned back to Erdine to be circumcised, and be given another city to govern . Mehmed was not Murad’s favourite son given his rebellious nature. Mehmed II had been a very difficult student and he was unstoppable due to his headstrong behaviour. His position in the family changed when one of his brothers was found dead by strangulation in bed. Murad II then did the impossible by declaring Mehmed II as his successor. Under the guidance of Murad II’s grand vizier Candarli Halil Pasha, Mehmed was taught to rule over his father’s empire. Mehmed already had plans to invade Constantinople which made Halil to ask Murad back. Murad II took this chance to order Mehmed II to marry the daughter of the Prince of now-Turkmenistan, and live in Manisa, Anatolia. His peace was short lived as the Hungarians slowly invaded through their crusades. Mehmed fought alongside his father and successfully won the battle in 1448. Mehmed II returned back to his position as sultan in February 1451 upon the death of Murad II. Since he had another brother in competition for his slot back as sultan, he had his brother drowned. He formalized fratricide for his children, claiming “whichever of my sons inherits the throne, it behoves him to kill his brothers in the interest of the world order”. He also spent his time to make sure no one will oppose his rule. Europeans found Mehmed as good turn for their own interests, but after a few sieges, Mehmed did not continue improving his relationship with the West . Mehmed II’s notable success upon his reign is his conquest of Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire’s capital in 1453, two years after Murad II died. He despised Christianity and even vowed to destroy it. Despite the notions that Mehmed II would honour the ceasefire agreement they had with Hungary due to his father’s oath, Mehmed saw his opening when the Hungarians passed the Danube and eventually attacked. Mehmed saw Constantinople as a threat to the safety of the Ottoman Empire, and it must be claimed. Constantinople at that time already shrunk in size to only 50,000 from its 1 million populations back in its prime. The Byzantine Empire did not own any other territory outside Constantinople, but it reigned supreme in the Bosporus Strait area. The Bosporus Strait is seen as the gateway for the Ottomans to get in and out of their territories in Asia and in the Balkan area. Constantine XI even tried to work on a compromise with Mehmed II, but all his representatives were beheaded as Mehmed II wanted Constantinople. Despite Constantinople’s power, Mehmed II was undeterred and marched forward to Constantinople. Some of his warriors were not purely Mehmed’s forces first fired on Constantinople walls through the use of cannons that fired almost 1,200 pounds worth of boulders. Byzantine forces were able to stop the Turks through the Bosporus Strait and the Sea of Marmara, but Mehmed tried a daring tactic by dragging almost 70 ships to a hill then released it with greased runners. This allowed the army to attack the city in two sides. Constantine the XI managed to hold the city for seven weeks till the Ottoman forces found an opening and entered the city. His supplies were also running low to support both his fleet and citizens which is why Constantine lost control once the Turks found their ground. The Venetians and the Greeks also argued as to how they can properly defend the city. His victory eventually earned Mehmed II the title “The Conqueror” as he won over a powerful empire. He opened Constantine to all, no matter what their religion or background they have. The city was then rebuilt by these people, and eventually became known today as Istanbul . The spoils of war were divided by each Ottoman member and made sure each gotten their share of the loot. Mehmed II owned all the buildings in Constantinople. Once he reached the Hagia Sophia, he dismounted from his white horse, placed dirt on his turban and bowed down in respect. Later on, the Hagia Sophia became a holy place for the Ottomans, and became known as the Aya Sofya mosque . After his success in Constantinople, Mehmed II then moved on to the Balkan region, taking over Greece, Bosnia, and even the Aegean islands claimed by remaining Venetian forces. As his sieges continued, he also gained favour of several allies such as the Khan of Crimea. He almost conquered the whole peninsula, but he was hindered by the forces of John Hunyadi in Belgrade, Scanderbeg in Albania, and even by the Knights Hospitalers led by Aubusson in Rhodes. Asia also became his target as he annexed several dynasties and empires such as the one in Trebizond and Karamania led by the Seljuk Turks . Aside from all of these military successes and expansions, Mehmed II also became known for his changes in the domestic affairs of the Empire. He attempted to build a centralized empire that would properly distribute power amongst his leaders and to himself, but this strained the finances of the Empire, devaluing the currency. Mehmed II also had to extend several state taxing systems to support his projects. Nevertheless, the state still had three and a half million ducats until the death of Mehmed. Social discontent, in terms of seized lands, also reigned in Mehmed’s rule as this alienated former old families and even the rest of the public. He also paved the way to the creation of slave markets like the Yesir Bazary. Slaves were formerly sold in the streets before Mehmed II accidentally killed a slave while passing by the street. He ordered the creation of the market so that streets will be clean from obstruction. Many visitors such as Nicolas de Nicolay in 1526 and Philippe du Fresne-Canaye in 1573 noted that slave trading in this period was like selling horses. Slaves were displayed naked to see all the imperfections . Mehmed II was also a visionary as he is a known patron for the arts and learning due to his studies of Western art and culture. Some have also noted the sultan to be a renaissance figure and a freethinker, due to his unorthodox preferences and strict religious background. He was the brains behind the Topkapi Saray, which is now considered a legacy in the Ottoman rule, showing Mehmed’s preference of intellectual eclecticism. He was also interested with Italian innovations in architecture as he invited Aristotile Fieravante in 1465, to construct the Fatih mosque complex. The complex is said to be a similar structure to the Ospedale Maggiore of Milan. The Fatih mosque became the foundation of Ottoman architecture even after his death . Upon his death in May 43, 1481, many speculated the reasons as to why he died. Some say he was poisoned by his doctors, while others saw it as treason against him . Despite his untimely and speculated death, it is undeniable that Mehmed II made the Ottoman Empire one of the untouchable empires in its period. As of today, most of his structures and contributions to the Empire are widely displayed and preserved by its people. His achievement in conquering Constantinople cemented his position in Turkish history. Aside from this, his improvements in the Empire’s military, political, social, and artistic fields are still considered the foundation for Ottoman’s continuous influence in the region. Agoston, Gabor and Bruce Alan Masters. Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2009. Print. Beck, Roger and Littel McDougal. Modern World History: Patterns of Interaction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing, 2008. Print. Bourgoin, Suzan Michele. Encyclopedia of World Biography. Farmington Hills: Gale Publishing, 1997. Print. Columbia University. The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York\: Columbia University Press, 2004. Print. Feldman, Ruth Tenzer. The Fall of Constantinople. Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books, 2008. Print. Fisher, Alan. “The Sale of Slaves in the Ottoman Empire: Markets and State Taxes on Slave Sales, Some Preliminary Considerations.” Beseri Bilimler 6 (1978): 149-174. Print. Raby, Jullian. “A Sultan of Paradox: Mehmed the Conqueror as a Patron of the Arts.” The Oxford Art Journal 5.1 (1982): 3-8. Print.	<urn:uuid:e658b95c-9bb9-4a52-9a20-174e36351ff4>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.wowessays.com/free-samples/mehmed-ii-the-conqueror-research-paper/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700675.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127112805-20200127142805-00461.warc.gz	en	0.983091	2,272	3.5	4	[ -0.30294767022132874, 0.3553012013435364, 0.47626426815986633, -0.004653920419514179, -0.475195050239563, -0.5009099245071411, 0.22437940537929535, -0.07864166796207428, -0.3113037347793579, -0.1211928054690361, -0.017697755247354507, -0.5822147727012634, -0.20920608937740326, -0.015942394...	1	Back in the early conquest period, the Ottoman Empire has made an impact over history as one of the recognized civilizations in the Middle East. From Middle East to the shores of Constantinople, the Ottoman Empire has managed to influence these locations and implement changes. However, one Sultan made a clear mark upon his ascendance to the Ottoman throne, and is still considered a hero due to his contributions to ancient history and to his homeland Turkey. This Sultan is none other than Mehmed II or the famous Conqueror, the known leader of the Ottoman forces in the famous Ottoman siege in Constantinople. His notable contributions for the growth of the Ottoman Empire from its territories, to its political, religious, and judicial foundation can be considered the reasons why the Empire held its power even after his unexpected death. His contributions enabled him to also establish his name as one of Turkish history’s powerful rulers and heroes. Mehmed II or Mehmed Celebi in his younger years was the third offspring of the Ottoman Sultan Murad II, born on March 30 sometime in 1430 or 1432 in some records in the Ottoman Capital Edirne. Murad II was known for his territorial expansion in Europe. As they reached the Danube River, Murad II’s forces were driven out of the Hungarian border. A few years later, Murad II swore to have a ceasefire with Hungary’s King Ladislas and noted they will never cross the Danube River for 10 years. Murad II moved back his army to Anatolia in acceptance to his oath. His mother, on the other hand, is speculated to be a French princess or an Italian woman called Estella. In latter records, she was referred to as the Huma Hattan. Experts have also noted that it is possible that Mehmed’s mother is a slave sold to Murad II from Adrianople, and converted from Judaism to give birth to the prince legally. As he grew up, he spent his days in the palace in Erdine up to 1434 when he was sent to Amaysa in Anatolia. As he was already five years old, he was also given the governor seat for the city, with councillors selected to aid him. It was also a tradition in the Ottoman Empire that the child of the Sultan is given authority at a young age. Five years later, he was returned back to Erdine to be circumcised, and be given another city to govern . Mehmed was not Murad’s favourite son given his rebellious nature. Mehmed II had been a very difficult student and he was unstoppable due to his headstrong behaviour. His position in the family changed when one of his brothers was found dead by strangulation in bed. Murad II then did the impossible by declaring Mehmed II as his successor. Under the guidance of Murad II’s grand vizier Candarli Halil Pasha, Mehmed was taught to rule over his father’s empire. Mehmed already had plans to invade Constantinople which made Halil to ask Murad back. Murad II took this chance to order Mehmed II to marry the daughter of the Prince of now-Turkmenistan, and live in Manisa, Anatolia. His peace was short lived as the Hungarians slowly invaded through their crusades. Mehmed fought alongside his father and successfully won the battle in 1448. Mehmed II returned back to his position as sultan in February 1451 upon the death of Murad II. Since he had another brother in competition for his slot back as sultan, he had his brother drowned. He formalized fratricide for his children, claiming “whichever of my sons inherits the throne, it behoves him to kill his brothers in the interest of the world order”. He also spent his time to make sure no one will oppose his rule. Europeans found Mehmed as good turn for their own interests, but after a few sieges, Mehmed did not continue improving his relationship with the West . Mehmed II’s notable success upon his reign is his conquest of Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire’s capital in 1453, two years after Murad II died. He despised Christianity and even vowed to destroy it. Despite the notions that Mehmed II would honour the ceasefire agreement they had with Hungary due to his father’s oath, Mehmed saw his opening when the Hungarians passed the Danube and eventually attacked. Mehmed saw Constantinople as a threat to the safety of the Ottoman Empire, and it must be claimed. Constantinople at that time already shrunk in size to only 50,000 from its 1 million populations back in its prime. The Byzantine Empire did not own any other territory outside Constantinople, but it reigned supreme in the Bosporus Strait area. The Bosporus Strait is seen as the gateway for the Ottomans to get in and out of their territories in Asia and in the Balkan area. Constantine XI even tried to work on a compromise with Mehmed II, but all his representatives were beheaded as Mehmed II wanted Constantinople. Despite Constantinople’s power, Mehmed II was undeterred and marched forward to Constantinople. Some of his warriors were not purely Mehmed’s forces first fired on Constantinople walls through the use of cannons that fired almost 1,200 pounds worth of boulders. Byzantine forces were able to stop the Turks through the Bosporus Strait and the Sea of Marmara, but Mehmed tried a daring tactic by dragging almost 70 ships to a hill then released it with greased runners. This allowed the army to attack the city in two sides. Constantine the XI managed to hold the city for seven weeks till the Ottoman forces found an opening and entered the city. His supplies were also running low to support both his fleet and citizens which is why Constantine lost control once the Turks found their ground. The Venetians and the Greeks also argued as to how they can properly defend the city. His victory eventually earned Mehmed II the title “The Conqueror” as he won over a powerful empire. He opened Constantine to all, no matter what their religion or background they have. The city was then rebuilt by these people, and eventually became known today as Istanbul . The spoils of war were divided by each Ottoman member and made sure each gotten their share of the loot. Mehmed II owned all the buildings in Constantinople. Once he reached the Hagia Sophia, he dismounted from his white horse, placed dirt on his turban and bowed down in respect. Later on, the Hagia Sophia became a holy place for the Ottomans, and became known as the Aya Sofya mosque . After his success in Constantinople, Mehmed II then moved on to the Balkan region, taking over Greece, Bosnia, and even the Aegean islands claimed by remaining Venetian forces. As his sieges continued, he also gained favour of several allies such as the Khan of Crimea. He almost conquered the whole peninsula, but he was hindered by the forces of John Hunyadi in Belgrade, Scanderbeg in Albania, and even by the Knights Hospitalers led by Aubusson in Rhodes. Asia also became his target as he annexed several dynasties and empires such as the one in Trebizond and Karamania led by the Seljuk Turks . Aside from all of these military successes and expansions, Mehmed II also became known for his changes in the domestic affairs of the Empire. He attempted to build a centralized empire that would properly distribute power amongst his leaders and to himself, but this strained the finances of the Empire, devaluing the currency. Mehmed II also had to extend several state taxing systems to support his projects. Nevertheless, the state still had three and a half million ducats until the death of Mehmed. Social discontent, in terms of seized lands, also reigned in Mehmed’s rule as this alienated former old families and even the rest of the public. He also paved the way to the creation of slave markets like the Yesir Bazary. Slaves were formerly sold in the streets before Mehmed II accidentally killed a slave while passing by the street. He ordered the creation of the market so that streets will be clean from obstruction. Many visitors such as Nicolas de Nicolay in 1526 and Philippe du Fresne-Canaye in 1573 noted that slave trading in this period was like selling horses. Slaves were displayed naked to see all the imperfections . Mehmed II was also a visionary as he is a known patron for the arts and learning due to his studies of Western art and culture. Some have also noted the sultan to be a renaissance figure and a freethinker, due to his unorthodox preferences and strict religious background. He was the brains behind the Topkapi Saray, which is now considered a legacy in the Ottoman rule, showing Mehmed’s preference of intellectual eclecticism. He was also interested with Italian innovations in architecture as he invited Aristotile Fieravante in 1465, to construct the Fatih mosque complex. The complex is said to be a similar structure to the Ospedale Maggiore of Milan. The Fatih mosque became the foundation of Ottoman architecture even after his death . Upon his death in May 43, 1481, many speculated the reasons as to why he died. Some say he was poisoned by his doctors, while others saw it as treason against him . Despite his untimely and speculated death, it is undeniable that Mehmed II made the Ottoman Empire one of the untouchable empires in its period. As of today, most of his structures and contributions to the Empire are widely displayed and preserved by its people. His achievement in conquering Constantinople cemented his position in Turkish history. Aside from this, his improvements in the Empire’s military, political, social, and artistic fields are still considered the foundation for Ottoman’s continuous influence in the region. Agoston, Gabor and Bruce Alan Masters. Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2009. Print. Beck, Roger and Littel McDougal. Modern World History: Patterns of Interaction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing, 2008. Print. Bourgoin, Suzan Michele. Encyclopedia of World Biography. Farmington Hills: Gale Publishing, 1997. Print. Columbia University. The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York\: Columbia University Press, 2004. Print. Feldman, Ruth Tenzer. The Fall of Constantinople. Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books, 2008. Print. Fisher, Alan. “The Sale of Slaves in the Ottoman Empire: Markets and State Taxes on Slave Sales, Some Preliminary Considerations.” Beseri Bilimler 6 (1978): 149-174. Print. Raby, Jullian. “A Sultan of Paradox: Mehmed the Conqueror as a Patron of the Arts.” The Oxford Art Journal 5.1 (1982): 3-8. Print.	2,330	ENGLISH	1
Even after his death in 2013, former South African President Nelson Mandela is revered around the world as one of the most influential and best-loved leaders of our time. He spent his early years fighting against the racial inequality perpetuated by South Africa's apartheid regime, for which he was imprisoned for 27 years. After his release and the subsequent end of apartheid, Mandela was democratically elected as South Africa's first black president. He dedicated his time in office to the healing of a divided South Africa, and to promoting civil rights around the world. Nelson Mandela was born on July 18, 1918, in Mvezu, part of the Transkei region of South Africa's Eastern Cape province. His father, Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa, was a local chief and a descendant of the Thembu king. His mother, Nosekeni Fanny, was the third of Mphakanyiswa's four wives. Mandela was christened Rohlilahla, a Xhosa name that loosely translates as "troublemaker;" he was given the English name Nelson by a teacher at his primary school. Mandela grew up in his mother's village of Qunu until the age of nine when the death of his father led to his adoption by Thembu regent Jongintaba Dalindyebo. After his adoption, Mandela went through traditional Xhosa initiation and was enrolled in a series of schools and colleges, from the Clarkebury Boarding Institute to the University College of Fort Hare. Here, he became involved in student politics, for which he was ultimately suspended. Mandela left college without graduating and shortly afterward fled to Johannesburg to escape an arranged marriage. Politics: The Early Years In Johannesburg, Mandela completed a BA through the University of South Africa (UNISA) and enrolled at Wits University. He was also introduced to the African National Congress (ANC), an anti-imperialist group that believed in an independent South Africa, through a new friend, activist Walter Sisulu. Mandela started writing articles for a Johannesburg law firm, and in 1944 co-founded the ANC Youth League alongside fellow activist Oliver Tambo. In 1951, he became president of the Youth League, and a year later, he was elected ANC president for the Transvaal. The year 1952 was a busy one for Mandela. He set-up South Africa's first black law firm with Tambo, who would later go on to become ANC president. He also became one of the architects of the Youth League’s Campaign for the Defiance of Unjust Laws, a program of mass civil disobedience. His efforts earned him his first suspended conviction under the Suppression of Communism Act. In 1956, he was one of 156 defendants accused of treason in a trial that dragged on for nearly five years before it eventually collapsed. In the meantime, he continued to work behind the scenes to create ANC policy. Regularly arrested and banned from attending public meetings, he often traveled in disguise and under assumed names to evade police informers. Following the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960, the ANC was formally banned, and the views of Mandela and a number of his colleagues hardened into a belief that only armed struggle would suffice. On December 16, 1961, a new military organization called Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), was set up. Mandela was its commander-in-chief. Over the next two years, they carried out over 200 attacks and sent some 300 people abroad for military training, including Mandela himself. In 1962, Mandela was arrested upon return to the country and convicted to five years in prison for traveling without a passport. He made his first trip to Robben Island but was soon transferred back to Pretoria to join 10 other defendants, facing new charges of sabotage. During the eight-month-long Rivonia Trial—named after the Rivonia district where Umkhonto we Sizwe had their safe house, Liliesleaf Farm—Mandela made an impassioned speech from the dock. It echoed around the world: I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. The trial ended with eight of the accused, including Mandela being found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Mandela's lengthy sojourn on Robben Island had begun. The Long Walk to Freedom In 1982, after 18 years of imprisonment at Robben Island, Mandela was transferred to Pollsmoor Prison in Cape Town and from there, in December 1988, to Victor Verster Prison in Paarl. He rejected numerous offers to recognize the legitimacy of the black homelands that had been established during his imprisonment, which would have allowed him to return to the Transkei (now an independent state) and live out his life in exile. He also refused to renounce violence, declining to negotiate at all until he was a free man. In 1985, however, he began ‘talks about talks’ with the then Justice Minister, Kobie Coetsee, from his prison cell. A secret method of communication with the ANC leadership in Lusaka was eventually devised. On February 11, 1990, he was released from prison after 27 years, in the same year that the ban on the ANC was lifted. Mandela was elected ANC deputy president. His euphoric speech from the balcony of Cape Town City Hall and triumphant shout of ‘Amandla!’ (‘Power!’) was a defining moment in African history. Talks could begin in earnest. Life After Imprisonment In 1993, Mandela and President F.W. de Klerk jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to bring about the end of the apartheid regime. The following year, on April 27, 1994, South Africa held its first truly democratic elections. The ANC swept to victory, and on May 10, 1994, Nelson Mandela was sworn in as South Africa’s first black, democratically elected President. He spoke immediately of reconciliation, saying: Never, never, and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world. Let freedom reign. During his time as president, Mandela established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the purpose of which was to investigate crimes committed by both sides of the struggle during apartheid. He introduced social and economic legislation designed to address the poverty of the nation's black population, while also working to improve relations between all South African races. It was at this time that South Africa became known as the "Rainbow Nation." Mandela's government was multiracial, his new constitution reflected his desire for a united South Africa. In 1995, he famously encouraged both blacks and whites to support the efforts of the South African rugby team, which ultimately went on to achieve victory in 1995 Rugby World Cup. Mandela married three times. He married his first wife, Evelyn, in 1944 and had four children before divorcing in 1958. The following year he married Winnie Madikizela, with whom he had two children. Winnie was massively responsible for creating the Mandela legend through her robust campaign to free Nelson from Robben Island. The marriage couldn’t survive Winnie’s other activities, however. They separated in 1992 after her conviction for kidnapping and accessory to assault and divorced in 1996. Mandela lost three of his children—Makaziwe, who died in infancy, his son Thembekile, who was killed in a car accident whilst Mandela was imprisoned at Robben Island, and Makgatho, who died of AIDS. His third marriage, on his 80th birthday, in July 1998, was to Graça Machel, the widow of Mozambican president Samora Machel. She became the only woman in the world to marry two presidents of different nations. They remained married and she was by his side as he passed on December 5, 2013. Mandela stepped down as President in 1999, after one term in office. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2001 and officially retired from public life in 2004. However, he continued to work quietly on behalf of his charities, the Nelson Mandela Foundation, the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund and the Mandela-Rhodes Foundation. In 2005 he intervened on behalf of AIDS victims in South Africa, admitting that his son had died of the disease. And on his 89th birthday, he founded The Elders, a group of elder statesmen including Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson, and Desmond Tutu amongst other global luminaries to offer "guidance on the world’s toughest problems." Mandela published his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, in 1995, and the Nelson Mandela Museum first opened in 2000. Nelson Mandela died at his home in Johannesburg on December 5, 2013, at the age of 95 after a long battle with an illness. Dignitaries from around the world attended services in South Africa to commemorate one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known. South Africans and foreigners continue to celebrate his life at the many Mandela memorials located around the country.	<urn:uuid:b3958538-8cff-4e9b-9c97-613ef2245885>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.tripsavvy.com/biography-of-president-nelson-mandela-1454528	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00296.warc.gz	en	0.984637	1,932	3.46875	3	[ -0.4720087945461273, 1.1478617191314697, 0.04476119577884674, -0.3872523903846741, -0.05258838087320328, 0.05608954280614853, 0.3837330937385559, -0.4031393527984619, 0.059629764407873154, 0.17189852893352509, 0.5408220887184143, -0.045931994915008545, 0.3229437470436096, 0.286017805337905...	2	Even after his death in 2013, former South African President Nelson Mandela is revered around the world as one of the most influential and best-loved leaders of our time. He spent his early years fighting against the racial inequality perpetuated by South Africa's apartheid regime, for which he was imprisoned for 27 years. After his release and the subsequent end of apartheid, Mandela was democratically elected as South Africa's first black president. He dedicated his time in office to the healing of a divided South Africa, and to promoting civil rights around the world. Nelson Mandela was born on July 18, 1918, in Mvezu, part of the Transkei region of South Africa's Eastern Cape province. His father, Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa, was a local chief and a descendant of the Thembu king. His mother, Nosekeni Fanny, was the third of Mphakanyiswa's four wives. Mandela was christened Rohlilahla, a Xhosa name that loosely translates as "troublemaker;" he was given the English name Nelson by a teacher at his primary school. Mandela grew up in his mother's village of Qunu until the age of nine when the death of his father led to his adoption by Thembu regent Jongintaba Dalindyebo. After his adoption, Mandela went through traditional Xhosa initiation and was enrolled in a series of schools and colleges, from the Clarkebury Boarding Institute to the University College of Fort Hare. Here, he became involved in student politics, for which he was ultimately suspended. Mandela left college without graduating and shortly afterward fled to Johannesburg to escape an arranged marriage. Politics: The Early Years In Johannesburg, Mandela completed a BA through the University of South Africa (UNISA) and enrolled at Wits University. He was also introduced to the African National Congress (ANC), an anti-imperialist group that believed in an independent South Africa, through a new friend, activist Walter Sisulu. Mandela started writing articles for a Johannesburg law firm, and in 1944 co-founded the ANC Youth League alongside fellow activist Oliver Tambo. In 1951, he became president of the Youth League, and a year later, he was elected ANC president for the Transvaal. The year 1952 was a busy one for Mandela. He set-up South Africa's first black law firm with Tambo, who would later go on to become ANC president. He also became one of the architects of the Youth League’s Campaign for the Defiance of Unjust Laws, a program of mass civil disobedience. His efforts earned him his first suspended conviction under the Suppression of Communism Act. In 1956, he was one of 156 defendants accused of treason in a trial that dragged on for nearly five years before it eventually collapsed. In the meantime, he continued to work behind the scenes to create ANC policy. Regularly arrested and banned from attending public meetings, he often traveled in disguise and under assumed names to evade police informers. Following the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960, the ANC was formally banned, and the views of Mandela and a number of his colleagues hardened into a belief that only armed struggle would suffice. On December 16, 1961, a new military organization called Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), was set up. Mandela was its commander-in-chief. Over the next two years, they carried out over 200 attacks and sent some 300 people abroad for military training, including Mandela himself. In 1962, Mandela was arrested upon return to the country and convicted to five years in prison for traveling without a passport. He made his first trip to Robben Island but was soon transferred back to Pretoria to join 10 other defendants, facing new charges of sabotage. During the eight-month-long Rivonia Trial—named after the Rivonia district where Umkhonto we Sizwe had their safe house, Liliesleaf Farm—Mandela made an impassioned speech from the dock. It echoed around the world: I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. The trial ended with eight of the accused, including Mandela being found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Mandela's lengthy sojourn on Robben Island had begun. The Long Walk to Freedom In 1982, after 18 years of imprisonment at Robben Island, Mandela was transferred to Pollsmoor Prison in Cape Town and from there, in December 1988, to Victor Verster Prison in Paarl. He rejected numerous offers to recognize the legitimacy of the black homelands that had been established during his imprisonment, which would have allowed him to return to the Transkei (now an independent state) and live out his life in exile. He also refused to renounce violence, declining to negotiate at all until he was a free man. In 1985, however, he began ‘talks about talks’ with the then Justice Minister, Kobie Coetsee, from his prison cell. A secret method of communication with the ANC leadership in Lusaka was eventually devised. On February 11, 1990, he was released from prison after 27 years, in the same year that the ban on the ANC was lifted. Mandela was elected ANC deputy president. His euphoric speech from the balcony of Cape Town City Hall and triumphant shout of ‘Amandla!’ (‘Power!’) was a defining moment in African history. Talks could begin in earnest. Life After Imprisonment In 1993, Mandela and President F.W. de Klerk jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to bring about the end of the apartheid regime. The following year, on April 27, 1994, South Africa held its first truly democratic elections. The ANC swept to victory, and on May 10, 1994, Nelson Mandela was sworn in as South Africa’s first black, democratically elected President. He spoke immediately of reconciliation, saying: Never, never, and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world. Let freedom reign. During his time as president, Mandela established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the purpose of which was to investigate crimes committed by both sides of the struggle during apartheid. He introduced social and economic legislation designed to address the poverty of the nation's black population, while also working to improve relations between all South African races. It was at this time that South Africa became known as the "Rainbow Nation." Mandela's government was multiracial, his new constitution reflected his desire for a united South Africa. In 1995, he famously encouraged both blacks and whites to support the efforts of the South African rugby team, which ultimately went on to achieve victory in 1995 Rugby World Cup. Mandela married three times. He married his first wife, Evelyn, in 1944 and had four children before divorcing in 1958. The following year he married Winnie Madikizela, with whom he had two children. Winnie was massively responsible for creating the Mandela legend through her robust campaign to free Nelson from Robben Island. The marriage couldn’t survive Winnie’s other activities, however. They separated in 1992 after her conviction for kidnapping and accessory to assault and divorced in 1996. Mandela lost three of his children—Makaziwe, who died in infancy, his son Thembekile, who was killed in a car accident whilst Mandela was imprisoned at Robben Island, and Makgatho, who died of AIDS. His third marriage, on his 80th birthday, in July 1998, was to Graça Machel, the widow of Mozambican president Samora Machel. She became the only woman in the world to marry two presidents of different nations. They remained married and she was by his side as he passed on December 5, 2013. Mandela stepped down as President in 1999, after one term in office. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2001 and officially retired from public life in 2004. However, he continued to work quietly on behalf of his charities, the Nelson Mandela Foundation, the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund and the Mandela-Rhodes Foundation. In 2005 he intervened on behalf of AIDS victims in South Africa, admitting that his son had died of the disease. And on his 89th birthday, he founded The Elders, a group of elder statesmen including Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson, and Desmond Tutu amongst other global luminaries to offer "guidance on the world’s toughest problems." Mandela published his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, in 1995, and the Nelson Mandela Museum first opened in 2000. Nelson Mandela died at his home in Johannesburg on December 5, 2013, at the age of 95 after a long battle with an illness. Dignitaries from around the world attended services in South Africa to commemorate one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known. South Africans and foreigners continue to celebrate his life at the many Mandela memorials located around the country.	2,044	ENGLISH	1
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work! John Parker Hale Educated at Phillips Exeter Academy and Bowdoin College, Hale went on to study law and was admitted to the bar in 1830. He became a successful jury lawyer in Dover, N.H., and was known for his oratory and his frequently radical democratic principles. After a term in the state legislature, Hale was in 1834 appointed U.S. district attorney, a position he held until 1841. The following year he won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat. In the House, Hale came to prominence as a champion of the antislavery forces. In 1846, running as an independent, Hale won a seat in the U.S. Senate. While he maintained his antislavery activity, his major achievement as a senator was the passage of a bill abolishing flogging in the Navy. But it was his prominence in the antislavery movement that led to his receiving the presidential nomination of the Liberty Party in 1847. Hale withdrew his candidacy the following year, when the Free Soil Party absorbed the Liberty Party and ran Martin Van Buren for president. In 1852, however, Hale was the Free Soil candidate and garnered 150,000 votes. From 1852 to 1855 Hale returned to private law practice. In 1855 he was elected to fill the unexpired term of a deceased New Hampshire senator, and in 1858 he won reelection to a full term in the Senate. By this time he had switched to the new Republican Party and was regarded as one of its leaders. Shortly before his assassination, Pres. Abraham Lincoln appointed Hale minister to Spain. Hale did not do well as a diplomat, however, and he was recalled in 1869. Learn More in these related Britannica articles: Liberty Party…January 1848 the party nominated John P. Hale at its convention in New York City. Hale withdrew from the race, and the Liberty Party dissolved when many of its members joined “Barnburner” Democrats and “Conscience” Whigs in forming the Free-Soil Party (August 9, 1848).… LawLaw, the discipline and profession concerned with the customs, practices, and rules of conduct of a community that are recognized as binding by the community. Enforcement of the body of rules is through a controlling authority. The law is treated in a number of articles. For a description of legal… SlaverySlavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons. There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined.…	<urn:uuid:7eaf046c-92af-4f72-8c27-486606b7ea6d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Parker-Hale	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00182.warc.gz	en	0.985557	604	3.265625	3	[ -0.49739375710487366, 0.1199689581990242, 0.026881258934736252, -0.33375412225723267, -0.3280174732208252, 0.4230208396911621, 0.06537970900535583, -0.006550158839672804, -0.23782402276992798, 0.03502737730741501, -0.1836147904396057, 0.40548956394195557, 0.006450381129980087, 0.0686170607...	1	Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work! John Parker Hale Educated at Phillips Exeter Academy and Bowdoin College, Hale went on to study law and was admitted to the bar in 1830. He became a successful jury lawyer in Dover, N.H., and was known for his oratory and his frequently radical democratic principles. After a term in the state legislature, Hale was in 1834 appointed U.S. district attorney, a position he held until 1841. The following year he won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat. In the House, Hale came to prominence as a champion of the antislavery forces. In 1846, running as an independent, Hale won a seat in the U.S. Senate. While he maintained his antislavery activity, his major achievement as a senator was the passage of a bill abolishing flogging in the Navy. But it was his prominence in the antislavery movement that led to his receiving the presidential nomination of the Liberty Party in 1847. Hale withdrew his candidacy the following year, when the Free Soil Party absorbed the Liberty Party and ran Martin Van Buren for president. In 1852, however, Hale was the Free Soil candidate and garnered 150,000 votes. From 1852 to 1855 Hale returned to private law practice. In 1855 he was elected to fill the unexpired term of a deceased New Hampshire senator, and in 1858 he won reelection to a full term in the Senate. By this time he had switched to the new Republican Party and was regarded as one of its leaders. Shortly before his assassination, Pres. Abraham Lincoln appointed Hale minister to Spain. Hale did not do well as a diplomat, however, and he was recalled in 1869. Learn More in these related Britannica articles: Liberty Party…January 1848 the party nominated John P. Hale at its convention in New York City. Hale withdrew from the race, and the Liberty Party dissolved when many of its members joined “Barnburner” Democrats and “Conscience” Whigs in forming the Free-Soil Party (August 9, 1848).… LawLaw, the discipline and profession concerned with the customs, practices, and rules of conduct of a community that are recognized as binding by the community. Enforcement of the body of rules is through a controlling authority. The law is treated in a number of articles. For a description of legal… SlaverySlavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons. There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined.…	626	ENGLISH	1
King Cnut the Great, was born to Sweyn Forkbeard and his wife, the Polish princess, Gunhilda. Cnut’s father, Sweyn Forkbeard and his ally Olaf Trygvasson sailed up the River Thames and put London under siege. King Aethelred was forced to pay them £16,000 (5.3 kg of silver) to make them leave. Cnut’s brother, Harald, was born to Sweyn Forkbeard and his wife, the Polish princess, Gunhilda. c1000 (exact date unknown) Cnut’s father, Sweyn divorced Cnut’s mother Gunhilda and married Sigrid known as ‘The Haughty’ Sweyn Forkbeard defeated and killed his Norwegian rival Olaf Trygvasson and took control of Norway. Cnut’s father, Sweyn, made a series of raids along the South coast of England. St Brice’s Day Massacre King Aethelred ordered the massacre of all Danes living in England. He hoped that by ridding England of Danes he would minimise the risk of attack from within. A significant number of Danes were killed including Cnut’s aunt Gunhilde, the sister of Sweyn Forkbeard. Sweyn Forkbeard and a party of Vikings raided the South coast retaliation for the St Brice’s day massacre. They gained control of land from Exeter to Hampshire. King Aethelred was forced to pay Sweyn Forkbeard £24,000 (8kg of silver) to make him leave England. Cnut’s father, Sweyn Forkbeard returned to England and destroyed the town of Norwich. A famine in Denmark had led to unrest and hunger. Sweyn Forkbeard returned to Denmark to restore order. Sweyn Forkbeard and his Viking force returned to England and made a series of raids on Kent and Sussex. King Aethelred of England was again forced make another Danegeld payment of £36,000 (12 kg of silver) to make the Vikings leave. The Danes invaded East Anglia. A battle was fought near Ipswich which left the Danes in control of the town. Cnut accompanied his father, Sweyn Forkbeard to England where they took Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria. London alone held out against them. Cnut met Aelfgifu , daughter of the former ealdorman of Northumbria. They were married soon afterwards. It is likely that they married by Danish custom of handfasting. Having conquered the majority of England Sweyn Forkbeard proclaimed himself King of England. King Aethelred, his wife Emma and their children fled to Normandy. 1014 (3rd February) Sweyn Forkbeard died possibly following a fall from his horse in Gainsborough. He nominated his son, Cnut to succeed him. The English nobles were not happy about having Cnut as King and so called for King Aethelred to return as King. The people of Lindsey, however, gave their support to Cnut. Having been denied the kingship of England, Cnut returned to Denmark to raise an invasion force. A son, Sweyn was born to Cnut and Aelfgifu. Cnut was determined to take the English throne and invaded England with a large Danish force. A son, Harold was born to Cnut and Aelfgifu. Cnut took Northumberland then marched towards London. 1016 (23rd April) King Aethelred died, He was succeeded by his son, Edmund Ironside as King Edmund II 1016 (c. 9th May) Battle of Brentford Cnut’s force was defeated by Edmund Ironside. 1016 (18th October) Battle of Assandun This battle, fought between Cnut and Edmund Ironside, saw the Dane victorious and left Edmund in control of only Wessex. 1016 (after 18th October) King Edmund had no choice but to agree to share rule with Cnut. Cnut ruled Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia while Edmund ruled Wessex. It was agreed that on the death of either party the other would rule all of England. 1016 (30th November) Edmund Ironside died and Cnut seized the throne of England. Edmund Ironside’s two children, Edward and Edmund, were taken to Hungary as it was feared that they would be murdered by Cnut. The three children of Aethelred the Unready by Emma of Normandy , Edward, Alfred and Godgifu, were taken to Normandy as it was feared their lives were in danger. Cnut divided England into four earldoms: Wessex – controlled by Cnut himself, Mercia controlled by Eadric Streona, Northumbria controlled by Erik of Hlathir and East Anglia controlled by Thorkell the Tall. 1017 (6th January) Cnut was crowned King of England at St Paul’s Cathedral. 1017 (2nd July) Cnut married Aethelred’s widow, Emma of Normandy. This was a political marriage to gain the support of Normandy as well as the English over whom Emma had been queen for the last 15 years. It was agreed that the succession would be with the children of Emma and Cnut. Cnut had the Earl of Mercia, Eadric Streona executed for treachery. He was replaced by Leofric. Cnut collected a Danegeld from the Kingdom. The sum collected, more than £80,000 was used to pay off his Danish army and send them back to Denmark. Cnut inherited the throne of Denmark when his brother, King Harold, died. , the most powerful noble, allied himself to Cnut by marrying his sister in law, Gytha Cnut went to Denmark to claim the Kingdom. A daughter, Gunhilda, was born to Emma and Cnut. Thorkell the Tall fell from favour and was exiled. The exact reason for his fall from favour is unknown. Battle of Helgea A combined Norwegian and Swedish force launched an attack on Denmark. Cnut responded by sending a combined English and Danish fleet. Despite heavy casualties, the battle was won by Cnut. Emma was left in England when Cnut travelled to Rome to witness the coronation of Conrad II as Holy Roman Emperor Cnut became King of Norway. He was now King of England, Denmark and Norway and became referred to as Cnut the Great. Cnut left Hakon Eirksson as regent in Norway. 1028 (late Summer) Harthacnut, son of Emma and Cnut, was made regent of Denmark. Earl Godwin was given control of Wessex. Cnut’s regent in Norway, Hakon Eriksson, died. Cnut named his eldest son by Aelfgifu, Sweyn, as King of Noway and sent him and Aelfgifu to Norway. The rule of Aelfgifu and Sweyn in Norway had not been popular. They had tried to introduce Danish laws to Norway and and imposed heavy taxation. The people of Norway rose against their rule and they fled to Denmark. Magnus the Good took over as King of Norway. 1035 (12th November) King Cnut died. He was succeeded by his son by Emma, Harthacnut , who was in Denmark as regent. The story of Cnut and the Tide was first recorded in the Historia Anglorum written by Henry of Huntingdon. It states that “..he ordered his chair to be placed on the sea-shore as the tide was coming in. Then he said to the rising tide, “You are subject to me, as the land on which I am sitting is mine, and no one has resisted my overlordship with impunity. I command you, therefore, not to rise on to my land, nor to presume to wet the clothing or limbs of your master.” But the sea came up as usual, and disrespectfully drenched the king’s feet and shins. So jumping back, the king cried, “Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven, earth and sea obey eternal laws.”	<urn:uuid:05e12915-3c57-48b3-9c13-d67dbb509a54>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.totallytimelines.com/cnut-the-great-994-1035/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251669967.70/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125041318-20200125070318-00362.warc.gz	en	0.984984	1,793	3.9375	4	[ 0.17290782928466797, 0.5784115791320801, -0.1840592920780182, -0.25165486335754395, 0.04554693400859833, 0.1369595229625702, -0.03219164162874222, -0.06655490398406982, -0.16867369413375854, -0.33830979466438293, -0.16570894420146942, -0.48167693614959717, 0.09974001348018646, 0.0467068552...	1	King Cnut the Great, was born to Sweyn Forkbeard and his wife, the Polish princess, Gunhilda. Cnut’s father, Sweyn Forkbeard and his ally Olaf Trygvasson sailed up the River Thames and put London under siege. King Aethelred was forced to pay them £16,000 (5.3 kg of silver) to make them leave. Cnut’s brother, Harald, was born to Sweyn Forkbeard and his wife, the Polish princess, Gunhilda. c1000 (exact date unknown) Cnut’s father, Sweyn divorced Cnut’s mother Gunhilda and married Sigrid known as ‘The Haughty’ Sweyn Forkbeard defeated and killed his Norwegian rival Olaf Trygvasson and took control of Norway. Cnut’s father, Sweyn, made a series of raids along the South coast of England. St Brice’s Day Massacre King Aethelred ordered the massacre of all Danes living in England. He hoped that by ridding England of Danes he would minimise the risk of attack from within. A significant number of Danes were killed including Cnut’s aunt Gunhilde, the sister of Sweyn Forkbeard. Sweyn Forkbeard and a party of Vikings raided the South coast retaliation for the St Brice’s day massacre. They gained control of land from Exeter to Hampshire. King Aethelred was forced to pay Sweyn Forkbeard £24,000 (8kg of silver) to make him leave England. Cnut’s father, Sweyn Forkbeard returned to England and destroyed the town of Norwich. A famine in Denmark had led to unrest and hunger. Sweyn Forkbeard returned to Denmark to restore order. Sweyn Forkbeard and his Viking force returned to England and made a series of raids on Kent and Sussex. King Aethelred of England was again forced make another Danegeld payment of £36,000 (12 kg of silver) to make the Vikings leave. The Danes invaded East Anglia. A battle was fought near Ipswich which left the Danes in control of the town. Cnut accompanied his father, Sweyn Forkbeard to England where they took Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria. London alone held out against them. Cnut met Aelfgifu , daughter of the former ealdorman of Northumbria. They were married soon afterwards. It is likely that they married by Danish custom of handfasting. Having conquered the majority of England Sweyn Forkbeard proclaimed himself King of England. King Aethelred, his wife Emma and their children fled to Normandy. 1014 (3rd February) Sweyn Forkbeard died possibly following a fall from his horse in Gainsborough. He nominated his son, Cnut to succeed him. The English nobles were not happy about having Cnut as King and so called for King Aethelred to return as King. The people of Lindsey, however, gave their support to Cnut. Having been denied the kingship of England, Cnut returned to Denmark to raise an invasion force. A son, Sweyn was born to Cnut and Aelfgifu. Cnut was determined to take the English throne and invaded England with a large Danish force. A son, Harold was born to Cnut and Aelfgifu. Cnut took Northumberland then marched towards London. 1016 (23rd April) King Aethelred died, He was succeeded by his son, Edmund Ironside as King Edmund II 1016 (c. 9th May) Battle of Brentford Cnut’s force was defeated by Edmund Ironside. 1016 (18th October) Battle of Assandun This battle, fought between Cnut and Edmund Ironside, saw the Dane victorious and left Edmund in control of only Wessex. 1016 (after 18th October) King Edmund had no choice but to agree to share rule with Cnut. Cnut ruled Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia while Edmund ruled Wessex. It was agreed that on the death of either party the other would rule all of England. 1016 (30th November) Edmund Ironside died and Cnut seized the throne of England. Edmund Ironside’s two children, Edward and Edmund, were taken to Hungary as it was feared that they would be murdered by Cnut. The three children of Aethelred the Unready by Emma of Normandy , Edward, Alfred and Godgifu, were taken to Normandy as it was feared their lives were in danger. Cnut divided England into four earldoms: Wessex – controlled by Cnut himself, Mercia controlled by Eadric Streona, Northumbria controlled by Erik of Hlathir and East Anglia controlled by Thorkell the Tall. 1017 (6th January) Cnut was crowned King of England at St Paul’s Cathedral. 1017 (2nd July) Cnut married Aethelred’s widow, Emma of Normandy. This was a political marriage to gain the support of Normandy as well as the English over whom Emma had been queen for the last 15 years. It was agreed that the succession would be with the children of Emma and Cnut. Cnut had the Earl of Mercia, Eadric Streona executed for treachery. He was replaced by Leofric. Cnut collected a Danegeld from the Kingdom. The sum collected, more than £80,000 was used to pay off his Danish army and send them back to Denmark. Cnut inherited the throne of Denmark when his brother, King Harold, died. , the most powerful noble, allied himself to Cnut by marrying his sister in law, Gytha Cnut went to Denmark to claim the Kingdom. A daughter, Gunhilda, was born to Emma and Cnut. Thorkell the Tall fell from favour and was exiled. The exact reason for his fall from favour is unknown. Battle of Helgea A combined Norwegian and Swedish force launched an attack on Denmark. Cnut responded by sending a combined English and Danish fleet. Despite heavy casualties, the battle was won by Cnut. Emma was left in England when Cnut travelled to Rome to witness the coronation of Conrad II as Holy Roman Emperor Cnut became King of Norway. He was now King of England, Denmark and Norway and became referred to as Cnut the Great. Cnut left Hakon Eirksson as regent in Norway. 1028 (late Summer) Harthacnut, son of Emma and Cnut, was made regent of Denmark. Earl Godwin was given control of Wessex. Cnut’s regent in Norway, Hakon Eriksson, died. Cnut named his eldest son by Aelfgifu, Sweyn, as King of Noway and sent him and Aelfgifu to Norway. The rule of Aelfgifu and Sweyn in Norway had not been popular. They had tried to introduce Danish laws to Norway and and imposed heavy taxation. The people of Norway rose against their rule and they fled to Denmark. Magnus the Good took over as King of Norway. 1035 (12th November) King Cnut died. He was succeeded by his son by Emma, Harthacnut , who was in Denmark as regent. The story of Cnut and the Tide was first recorded in the Historia Anglorum written by Henry of Huntingdon. It states that “..he ordered his chair to be placed on the sea-shore as the tide was coming in. Then he said to the rising tide, “You are subject to me, as the land on which I am sitting is mine, and no one has resisted my overlordship with impunity. I command you, therefore, not to rise on to my land, nor to presume to wet the clothing or limbs of your master.” But the sea came up as usual, and disrespectfully drenched the king’s feet and shins. So jumping back, the king cried, “Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven, earth and sea obey eternal laws.”	1,761	ENGLISH	1
While divorce perhaps doesn’t have the same stigma connected to it as it once did, the practice is still a touchy subject in many parts of America. Indeed, as we will see throughout the article, it has changed drastically in law as well as in the attitudes of the general population across the history of the country. What was once a forbidden practice and only ever used as a last resort is now very common. The medium length of marriage in the US these days is around 11 years, and divorce rates have been rising steadily throughout the 20th century. Some 29% of marriages will suffer some form of ‘disruption’ and in many cases lead to a divorce. However, how has divorce law changed over time? Even before the United States officially became the nation that we know it as today divorce was a hot topic in the colonies. One of the earliest instances of divorce law was in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, which created a judicial tribunal that dealt with divorce matters in 1629. This legislative body was allowed to grant divorces on the basis of adultery, desertion, bigamy and in many cases impotence as well. In the North, the colonies adopted their own approaches that made divorce available whereas the southern colonies did all they could to prevent the act even if they did have legislation in place. After 1776, divorce law was less restrictive. Hearing divorce cases took the legislature away from what they deemed as more important work, so it was handed to the judiciary where it remains today. The big problem at the time, for women, at least, was that they were a legal non-entity in the sense that it was difficult for them to claim ownership of property or financial assets which worked against them in the case of a divorce. The Married Women’s Property Act in 1848 went some way to rectifying this, however, throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries divorce remains relatively uncommon if we think of how much it is used today and women were at a tremendous disadvantage from the get-go. READ MORE: Colonial America Early 20th Century By the end of the 18th century, there were numerous ‘divorce mill’ states or places such as Indiana, Utah, and the Dakotas where you could go and get a divorce. Many towns provided accommodation, restaurants, bars and events centered on this trade. In 1887, Congress ordered the first compilation of divorce statistics at a federal level to see how big the ‘problem’ had become. The Inter-Church Conference on Marriage and Divorce was held in 1903 in an attempt to use religion to ensure that divorce was kept to a minimum. However, with the onset of feminism and the general relaxation of views towards divorce from a societal and moral standpoint, the practice was gaining traction. In the 1920s trial marriages were established that allowed a couple to try a marriage without actually being married; not having kids or any lifelong financial commitments. In a way it was simply two people of the opposite sex living in the same quarters however for the time, it was a new concept and was one of the first ways in which the law tried to accommodate prenuptial contracts. In fact, marriage counseling was beginning to become popular as well and represented the recognition that a problem existed even if the law did not strictly prohibit it. The Family Court As the years rolled by and the nation found itself embroiled in two world wars, divorce took a back seat as far as lawmakers were concerned. However, the Family Court system that started in the 1950s was the first time in decades that the legislature and judicial system in the US tackled the divorce issue. For years, couples had to go through the traditional court system to get a divorce or, at least, plead their case to do so. However with new laws in the place that established the Family Court, this created a way for judges to ratify agreements between couples for divorce that had been previously created. While the law used to ensure that a case had to be heard in a court of law, this now changed. With these changes, law firms specializing in divorce started appearing all over the country and just about every other large city soon became involved in these family courts. Possibly the biggest change to divorce law in the United States in its history came with no-fault divorces in the 1970s. Up until now there still had to be a party at fault. Even in the Family Courts, there was still a need for an adulterer or such like to be identified and then for the terms of the divorce to be agreed however with the change in the law then a divorce could be granted if neither party was at fault. Latest Government Articles California led the way in 1969 however it wasn’t until the 1970s that other states (Iowa being the second) adopted the law. In many respects, it was enacted to bring down the cost of divorce regarding hiring lawyers and expensive court fees from drawn out trials that didn’t come to fruition. Divorce lawyers and financial advisors all still profited greatly from divorce proceedings even if both parties simply wanted to split and move on. Something that this change in the law didn’t focus on was child custody, and it remained a neglected topic. Laws to address this were: - The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act in 1968 - Parent Kidnapping Act in 1980 - The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction in 1986 While the law has attempted to create a fair and equal child custody process, it still isn’t quite right in many respects and even with the legislation that has been enacted over the years there remains work to do. Modern Day America Divorce towards the end of the 20th century and into the early 21st century was a much different proposition from a hundred years ago. While there are new laws being enacted all the time to deal with the finer points of divorce the no-fault legislation essentially changed everything about the practice and made it into the divorce proceedings that we know today. That being said the attitudes towards divorce are still traditional in many quarters. Even though it has been set in law and that, in general at least, the stigma around divorce has gone it still plays a major role in affecting a child’s upbringing and other societal problems. Furthermore, the equal share of property and finances is something else that the law is still trying to get right. Although this differs from state to state across the United States of America in most cases who is to blame doesn’t always transfer over to who gets the property. The legislature and the court system are still trying to find a balance in modern-day America between a system that allows for divorce without needing evidence of wrongdoing and one that is fair and equal while also addressing the child factor as well. It isn’t easy, but there is still a lot of work behind the scenes to address it. Divorces were being carried out before the United States of America was even a nation. The colonies had their own measures and laws for dealing with such things however for centuries they were largely used in extreme cases. Indeed, up until the No-Fault rule, it was unusual to see a divorce that was granted on the basis that both parties simply wanted to break up. This happens fairly regularly these days however back then there had to be a reason of some sort behind the divorce – women cheating on a man for instance or a man having several wives. The big question now is whether or not the law can develop even further and change with the rising divorce cases across the country and the more complicated financial and property ownership models. Up until now, at least, divorce law in the United States has developed at a fairly fast rate. It might not always have favored the couple given that much of the early legislation was there to deal with extreme cases that were even frowned upon by the religious orders of the day. Explore More Government Articles Divorce law was very reactionary and has been throughout the past 300 years aside from a few isolated cases. It is still adapting to a growing trend however while the stigma of divorce has largely vanished in many places the law is still trying to keep up.	<urn:uuid:19043850-bc86-43c7-a92e-2138181d4a80>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://historycooperative.org/the-history-of-divorce-law-in-the-usa/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00511.warc.gz	en	0.984202	1,680	3.4375	3	[ -0.16451725363731384, 0.08945950865745544, 0.3004785180091858, -0.32169848680496216, 0.1718532145023346, 0.37160277366638184, -0.17732825875282288, -0.30496835708618164, 0.20172208547592163, -0.06603828817605972, 0.38218453526496887, 0.6511269807815552, 0.027470365166664124, 0.204411059617...	5	While divorce perhaps doesn’t have the same stigma connected to it as it once did, the practice is still a touchy subject in many parts of America. Indeed, as we will see throughout the article, it has changed drastically in law as well as in the attitudes of the general population across the history of the country. What was once a forbidden practice and only ever used as a last resort is now very common. The medium length of marriage in the US these days is around 11 years, and divorce rates have been rising steadily throughout the 20th century. Some 29% of marriages will suffer some form of ‘disruption’ and in many cases lead to a divorce. However, how has divorce law changed over time? Even before the United States officially became the nation that we know it as today divorce was a hot topic in the colonies. One of the earliest instances of divorce law was in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, which created a judicial tribunal that dealt with divorce matters in 1629. This legislative body was allowed to grant divorces on the basis of adultery, desertion, bigamy and in many cases impotence as well. In the North, the colonies adopted their own approaches that made divorce available whereas the southern colonies did all they could to prevent the act even if they did have legislation in place. After 1776, divorce law was less restrictive. Hearing divorce cases took the legislature away from what they deemed as more important work, so it was handed to the judiciary where it remains today. The big problem at the time, for women, at least, was that they were a legal non-entity in the sense that it was difficult for them to claim ownership of property or financial assets which worked against them in the case of a divorce. The Married Women’s Property Act in 1848 went some way to rectifying this, however, throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries divorce remains relatively uncommon if we think of how much it is used today and women were at a tremendous disadvantage from the get-go. READ MORE: Colonial America Early 20th Century By the end of the 18th century, there were numerous ‘divorce mill’ states or places such as Indiana, Utah, and the Dakotas where you could go and get a divorce. Many towns provided accommodation, restaurants, bars and events centered on this trade. In 1887, Congress ordered the first compilation of divorce statistics at a federal level to see how big the ‘problem’ had become. The Inter-Church Conference on Marriage and Divorce was held in 1903 in an attempt to use religion to ensure that divorce was kept to a minimum. However, with the onset of feminism and the general relaxation of views towards divorce from a societal and moral standpoint, the practice was gaining traction. In the 1920s trial marriages were established that allowed a couple to try a marriage without actually being married; not having kids or any lifelong financial commitments. In a way it was simply two people of the opposite sex living in the same quarters however for the time, it was a new concept and was one of the first ways in which the law tried to accommodate prenuptial contracts. In fact, marriage counseling was beginning to become popular as well and represented the recognition that a problem existed even if the law did not strictly prohibit it. The Family Court As the years rolled by and the nation found itself embroiled in two world wars, divorce took a back seat as far as lawmakers were concerned. However, the Family Court system that started in the 1950s was the first time in decades that the legislature and judicial system in the US tackled the divorce issue. For years, couples had to go through the traditional court system to get a divorce or, at least, plead their case to do so. However with new laws in the place that established the Family Court, this created a way for judges to ratify agreements between couples for divorce that had been previously created. While the law used to ensure that a case had to be heard in a court of law, this now changed. With these changes, law firms specializing in divorce started appearing all over the country and just about every other large city soon became involved in these family courts. Possibly the biggest change to divorce law in the United States in its history came with no-fault divorces in the 1970s. Up until now there still had to be a party at fault. Even in the Family Courts, there was still a need for an adulterer or such like to be identified and then for the terms of the divorce to be agreed however with the change in the law then a divorce could be granted if neither party was at fault. Latest Government Articles California led the way in 1969 however it wasn’t until the 1970s that other states (Iowa being the second) adopted the law. In many respects, it was enacted to bring down the cost of divorce regarding hiring lawyers and expensive court fees from drawn out trials that didn’t come to fruition. Divorce lawyers and financial advisors all still profited greatly from divorce proceedings even if both parties simply wanted to split and move on. Something that this change in the law didn’t focus on was child custody, and it remained a neglected topic. Laws to address this were: - The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act in 1968 - Parent Kidnapping Act in 1980 - The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction in 1986 While the law has attempted to create a fair and equal child custody process, it still isn’t quite right in many respects and even with the legislation that has been enacted over the years there remains work to do. Modern Day America Divorce towards the end of the 20th century and into the early 21st century was a much different proposition from a hundred years ago. While there are new laws being enacted all the time to deal with the finer points of divorce the no-fault legislation essentially changed everything about the practice and made it into the divorce proceedings that we know today. That being said the attitudes towards divorce are still traditional in many quarters. Even though it has been set in law and that, in general at least, the stigma around divorce has gone it still plays a major role in affecting a child’s upbringing and other societal problems. Furthermore, the equal share of property and finances is something else that the law is still trying to get right. Although this differs from state to state across the United States of America in most cases who is to blame doesn’t always transfer over to who gets the property. The legislature and the court system are still trying to find a balance in modern-day America between a system that allows for divorce without needing evidence of wrongdoing and one that is fair and equal while also addressing the child factor as well. It isn’t easy, but there is still a lot of work behind the scenes to address it. Divorces were being carried out before the United States of America was even a nation. The colonies had their own measures and laws for dealing with such things however for centuries they were largely used in extreme cases. Indeed, up until the No-Fault rule, it was unusual to see a divorce that was granted on the basis that both parties simply wanted to break up. This happens fairly regularly these days however back then there had to be a reason of some sort behind the divorce – women cheating on a man for instance or a man having several wives. The big question now is whether or not the law can develop even further and change with the rising divorce cases across the country and the more complicated financial and property ownership models. Up until now, at least, divorce law in the United States has developed at a fairly fast rate. It might not always have favored the couple given that much of the early legislation was there to deal with extreme cases that were even frowned upon by the religious orders of the day. Explore More Government Articles Divorce law was very reactionary and has been throughout the past 300 years aside from a few isolated cases. It is still adapting to a growing trend however while the stigma of divorce has largely vanished in many places the law is still trying to keep up.	1,698	ENGLISH	1
Pol Pot ruled Cambodia as its Prime Minister from 1976 to 1979 and was instrumental in the deaths of millions of Cambodians. Together with the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia’s communist party), he worked to shift Cambodia to a classless agrarian society. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge sent people to detention centers and introduced harsh and inhumane policies that brought much suffering to the people. The inhumane treatment was focused especially on intellectuals, religious leaders, and those who lived in urban centers. Millions of Cambodians died from torture, execution, starvation, disease, and forced labor. Pol Pot was born Saloth Sar in May 1925 in Prek Sbauv, a small village about 100 miles from Phnom Penh. Compared to the national average, his parents were relatively wealthy. Sar spent time in a Buddhist monastery and then was enrolled by his parents in a French Catholic primary school. During this time, he lived with his brother and his family. Sar was held back two years. In 1949, he received a scholarship to go to Paris and study radio electronics. In Paris, he joined a communist movement known as the "Marxist Circle". Sar was very drawn to Stalin’s approach to Marxism and was influenced also by Mao’s writings. In December 1952, he volunteered to return to Cambodia and assess which organization the "Marxist Circle" should support. Rise to Power When Pol Pot returned to Cambodia in 1953, the country was already in revolt against its French colonial rule; within the year, Cambodia would gain its independence. He led an underground communist group referred to as the Khmer People’s Revolutionary Party (KPRP). From 1956 to 1963, Pol Pot taught at a private school in Phnom Penh and increased the Khmer Rouge’s membership and influence over the years. In 1963, he fled to rural areas in Northern Cambodia, so as to avoid police capture. There, he established guerrilla camps to fight the government led by Sihanouk. In 1968, he and the Khmer Rouge army began their advance in the remote villages of Cambodia. The movement was a slow one. It was not until April 1975 that Pol Pot led the Khmer Rouge army into Phnom Penh, ending the civil war. Immediately, Pol Pot took leadership of Cambodia. He was determined to build a new Cambodia and adopted the concept of year zero. Time in Power As leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol became the de facto ruler of the country when Phnom Penh was overtaken. In January of 1976, Cambodia adopted a new constitution and changed its name to Democratic Kampuchea. Pol Pot was elected as prime minister in April of that year. Under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge rule, the country took an agrarian approach. His goal was for Cambodia to become a self-reliant communist nation sustained solely by agriculture. He abolished religion, money, ownership of private property and selected books. Pol Pot was also against Westernization. Academics, government officials, Buddhist monks, and traders were executed under his command. Many intellectuals and educated civil servants were sent to the fields to participate in a “re-education” process. The evacuation of Phnom Penh was one of the first steps in this process. Its nearly 2 million residents were sent to the rural areas of the country. Anyone who complained or broke the rules was forced to a detention center. Many people working in the farms died due to overwork. Thousands of others starved to death. The Khmer Rouge regime under the leadership of Pol Pot is said to have been the most brutal regime of the 20th century. Close to 3 million people are said to have died between 1975 and 1979 when he ruled. Pol Pot eventually fled Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown. He died in the jungle on April 15, 1998, where he had been placed under house arrest for his crimes against humanity and was about to be handed to an international tribunal. Who Was Pol Pot? Pol Pot was a Cambodian politician and revolutionary who led the Khmer Rouge, one of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century. 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:333ffaa8-3c1c-4cc5-9adb-9e1c2d524e06>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/who-was-pol-pot.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251773463.72/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128030221-20200128060221-00285.warc.gz	en	0.985769	882	3.703125	4	[ -0.3078145384788513, 0.6394070982933044, 0.25567522644996643, -0.20967920124530792, -0.0322830006480217, 0.5252722501754761, 0.5321459174156189, -0.09242446720600128, -0.38640856742858887, 0.3954644203186035, 0.2693311274051666, -0.1537942886352539, 0.24703028798103333, 0.6284806132316589,...	2	Pol Pot ruled Cambodia as its Prime Minister from 1976 to 1979 and was instrumental in the deaths of millions of Cambodians. Together with the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia’s communist party), he worked to shift Cambodia to a classless agrarian society. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge sent people to detention centers and introduced harsh and inhumane policies that brought much suffering to the people. The inhumane treatment was focused especially on intellectuals, religious leaders, and those who lived in urban centers. Millions of Cambodians died from torture, execution, starvation, disease, and forced labor. Pol Pot was born Saloth Sar in May 1925 in Prek Sbauv, a small village about 100 miles from Phnom Penh. Compared to the national average, his parents were relatively wealthy. Sar spent time in a Buddhist monastery and then was enrolled by his parents in a French Catholic primary school. During this time, he lived with his brother and his family. Sar was held back two years. In 1949, he received a scholarship to go to Paris and study radio electronics. In Paris, he joined a communist movement known as the "Marxist Circle". Sar was very drawn to Stalin’s approach to Marxism and was influenced also by Mao’s writings. In December 1952, he volunteered to return to Cambodia and assess which organization the "Marxist Circle" should support. Rise to Power When Pol Pot returned to Cambodia in 1953, the country was already in revolt against its French colonial rule; within the year, Cambodia would gain its independence. He led an underground communist group referred to as the Khmer People’s Revolutionary Party (KPRP). From 1956 to 1963, Pol Pot taught at a private school in Phnom Penh and increased the Khmer Rouge’s membership and influence over the years. In 1963, he fled to rural areas in Northern Cambodia, so as to avoid police capture. There, he established guerrilla camps to fight the government led by Sihanouk. In 1968, he and the Khmer Rouge army began their advance in the remote villages of Cambodia. The movement was a slow one. It was not until April 1975 that Pol Pot led the Khmer Rouge army into Phnom Penh, ending the civil war. Immediately, Pol Pot took leadership of Cambodia. He was determined to build a new Cambodia and adopted the concept of year zero. Time in Power As leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol became the de facto ruler of the country when Phnom Penh was overtaken. In January of 1976, Cambodia adopted a new constitution and changed its name to Democratic Kampuchea. Pol Pot was elected as prime minister in April of that year. Under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge rule, the country took an agrarian approach. His goal was for Cambodia to become a self-reliant communist nation sustained solely by agriculture. He abolished religion, money, ownership of private property and selected books. Pol Pot was also against Westernization. Academics, government officials, Buddhist monks, and traders were executed under his command. Many intellectuals and educated civil servants were sent to the fields to participate in a “re-education” process. The evacuation of Phnom Penh was one of the first steps in this process. Its nearly 2 million residents were sent to the rural areas of the country. Anyone who complained or broke the rules was forced to a detention center. Many people working in the farms died due to overwork. Thousands of others starved to death. The Khmer Rouge regime under the leadership of Pol Pot is said to have been the most brutal regime of the 20th century. Close to 3 million people are said to have died between 1975 and 1979 when he ruled. Pol Pot eventually fled Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown. He died in the jungle on April 15, 1998, where he had been placed under house arrest for his crimes against humanity and was about to be handed to an international tribunal. Who Was Pol Pot? Pol Pot was a Cambodian politician and revolutionary who led the Khmer Rouge, one of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century. Your MLA Citation Your APA Citation Your Chicago Citation Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation.	934	ENGLISH	1
“A Jury of Her Peers”, is a short story written by Susan Glaspell regarding an investigation into a murder that had taken place in one of the houses in a rural farm. The story vividly shows how various families in the rural America lived and describes the challenges they encountered in their day-to-day lives. Despite the fact that the readers of this story never meet the suspect in the murder, Mrs. Wright, they come to know more about her due to the way she was perceived by her neighbors. The issue of gender difference is raised in the story and this can be well observed by the way Mrs. Wright’s female partners judge her. Despite the fact that the men in this story wanted to punish Mrs. Wright for what she had supposedly done, the women on their side portray great sympathy for the suspect. The story is, therefore, a good example of how events in life are viewed differently by men and women despite the fact that the setting of the story happened long ago in the 1900’s. The plot of this story can be best defined or described as the patterns and relationships of events. Buy "A Jury of Her Peers" by Susan Glaspell essay paper online “A Jury of Her Peers” was written originally by Susan Glaspell as a drama, which was entitled “Trifles”. The drama was written by Glaspell in 1917 and the next year she remade it into novella. While it covered an investigation into a murder, Glaspell got the inspiration for writing the story when she was working as a reporter for Des Moines Daily News. The subject of the story is how men are known to see the stereotypical women’s responsibilities and their seclusion that is caused by the society as a result of such views. This theme is further revealed when other women attempt to find the motive behind the murdering of the husband by Minnie Wright. This story, therefore, takes its readers in the past when women and men were known to have different functions in almost all the societies of the world. It is revealed eventually that as Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hales discover the motive of Minnie through being very attentive to what is considered by men to be “trifles” or in other words, women’s insignificant matters, the importance of such women in the story is brought to the fore. The readers are acquainted with a Mrs. Hale, the wife of the farmer, when the story opens and the significance given to keeping the household organized is seen immediately. Mrs. Hale at first can be assumed to be the protagonist, but as the readers continue with the story, they only realize that they are seeing into the details of her life and her own thoughts. Mrs. Hale’s inclination to cleanliness is, therefore, shown to the reader like, for instance, “…she hated to see things half-done…” and “…Mrs. Hale started to arrange the dirty pans under the sink…”. Moreover, Mrs. Hale’s neatness is further portrayed through statements such as “…unfinished things always bothered her…” All through the story, such quotes appear frequently and despite the fact that such details seem to be of no importance, the quotes become central points as the story finally starts to develop and they appear to be a characteristic manner that is directly opposite to that of Minnie Wright. The importance of the role played by women in the story is further revealed through their way of pointing at crucial facts, which indicated the indeed; Mrs. Wrights was responsible for the murder of her husband. For instance, “…I didn’t see or her anything …and still, it was all quiet inside… I knew they must be up… I opened the door… Despite the fact that the whole story is about Minnie, readers have a reason to wonder when Mrs. Hale seems to become a kind of the central character. This is because the whole story starts in Mrs. Hale’s kitchen as she leaves for the house of the Wright. Through the story, readers come to appreciate the fact that Mrs. Hale is a strong individual, who is not only a sharp observer, but also a neat individual, who is known for paying attention to detail. Throughout the whole story, Mrs. Hale is further depicted as a person, which is able to keep her voice and tone even. Whatever she says (Mrs. Hale), she chooses her words carefully. Mrs. Peters, on the other side, is a female character, who is married to a sheriff in the story. Where Mrs. Hale is seen to be confident and strong, Mrs. Peters is known to be a little, unsure and timid at times. According to Mrs. Hale, she understands Mrs. Peters as seeing “…a long way into things… because of her shrinking and quiet demeanor (pg.161). However, when Minnie attempts to hide a dead canary, Mrs. Peters exhibits empathy and compassion for her. This was a great courage on her side given the fact that a comment had been made by the County Attorney regarding her as being”…married to the Law”. Through their action and speech the men in the story are exhibited or portrayed as being a little bit chauvinistic and it is a fact that the county attorney is instigating. The insignificance of kitchen items is uttered through a joke by the county attorney, who seems to look at the women down his nose in the whole story. Eventually, the county attorney makes some insensitive comments regarding the kitchen’s condition and how Minnie was a bad housekeeper. Apart from that, it is through the story that readers can ascertain how the county attorney made light of the hard work that was done by Minnie. He observes that indeed, Minnie had other bigger issues to become worried of than her own personal preserves. Thus according to the county attorney, his opinion regarding women is that they are just trivial and simple creatures. Through being sarcastic, he speaks of intention to poke fun at Minnie during her trial for failing to wake up her murdered husband. The county attorney also makes fun of the women in the story for keeping themselves busy with little or small issues while the men were busy investigating. Women are later underestimated by him when he fails in investigating the things that the women had packed for Minnie. He had no idea that the women could pick out things that were dangerous despite Mr. Hale commenting on how women were capable of comprehending any useful clues in case they came across them. It is ironical that the men in the story miss all the vital clues in the story regarding the cause of the murder. It was, therefore, a surprise that it is the women, who finally uncovered many of the vital clues, which would later be used in Minnie’s incrimination. The discoveries made by Mrs. Hale, especially regarding the work that was half-finished, the half-wiped table, a bucket next to a bag of sugar that was never combined in totality by Minnie and the discovery made by Mrs. Peters that indeed Minnie had been working on a quilt and was nervous regarding something or some issue as she worked on the square, coupled with the fact that all the squares found in the house were sewn through the use of excellent craftsmanship except only one and a broken door were a clear indicator that there is something wrong with Minnie. However, it is the clue of a dead canary, which had a wrung neck that served as a final incriminating clue in the whole investigation. The women by the end of the story had become sure that indeed, Minnie was guilty. However, despite knowing from the start that Minnie was guilty, Mrs. Hale did not want to believe in that, a hope that was obvious as he talked to the CountyAttorney. The curious nature exhibited by women in the story and their peculiar attention and concentration on minute details are the things, which allow the women to find the incriminating evidence of the motives of Mrs. Wright while the men, on the other hand, became incapable of procuring any relevant evidence in the investigation of the murder. Finding justifications in the actions taken by Mrs. Wright, the women in the story go ahead to hide anything that they found from the men. They were concealing tangible evidence that may in the end prevent any meaningful conviction against Mrs. Wright. This story serves as a good lesson for both sexes (men and women) never to underestimate the sex of the other, but live together in harmony (Glaspell, 2012). Most popular orders	<urn:uuid:d00f2a6b-22f9-4987-9f1f-553e3ca808ff>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://exclusivepapers.com/essays/world-literature/a-jury-of-her-peers-by-susan-glaspell.php	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00127.warc.gz	en	0.984988	1,762	3.59375	4	[ 0.251473069190979, -0.04723270237445831, -0.1548241376876831, -0.05492381751537323, 0.0072385938838124275, 0.2932514548301697, 0.2684496343135834, 0.14634323120117188, 0.04557066410779953, -0.15248937904834747, 0.23386305570602417, 0.38671982288360596, 0.3467308282852173, 0.067675635218620...	1	“A Jury of Her Peers”, is a short story written by Susan Glaspell regarding an investigation into a murder that had taken place in one of the houses in a rural farm. The story vividly shows how various families in the rural America lived and describes the challenges they encountered in their day-to-day lives. Despite the fact that the readers of this story never meet the suspect in the murder, Mrs. Wright, they come to know more about her due to the way she was perceived by her neighbors. The issue of gender difference is raised in the story and this can be well observed by the way Mrs. Wright’s female partners judge her. Despite the fact that the men in this story wanted to punish Mrs. Wright for what she had supposedly done, the women on their side portray great sympathy for the suspect. The story is, therefore, a good example of how events in life are viewed differently by men and women despite the fact that the setting of the story happened long ago in the 1900’s. The plot of this story can be best defined or described as the patterns and relationships of events. Buy "A Jury of Her Peers" by Susan Glaspell essay paper online “A Jury of Her Peers” was written originally by Susan Glaspell as a drama, which was entitled “Trifles”. The drama was written by Glaspell in 1917 and the next year she remade it into novella. While it covered an investigation into a murder, Glaspell got the inspiration for writing the story when she was working as a reporter for Des Moines Daily News. The subject of the story is how men are known to see the stereotypical women’s responsibilities and their seclusion that is caused by the society as a result of such views. This theme is further revealed when other women attempt to find the motive behind the murdering of the husband by Minnie Wright. This story, therefore, takes its readers in the past when women and men were known to have different functions in almost all the societies of the world. It is revealed eventually that as Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hales discover the motive of Minnie through being very attentive to what is considered by men to be “trifles” or in other words, women’s insignificant matters, the importance of such women in the story is brought to the fore. The readers are acquainted with a Mrs. Hale, the wife of the farmer, when the story opens and the significance given to keeping the household organized is seen immediately. Mrs. Hale at first can be assumed to be the protagonist, but as the readers continue with the story, they only realize that they are seeing into the details of her life and her own thoughts. Mrs. Hale’s inclination to cleanliness is, therefore, shown to the reader like, for instance, “…she hated to see things half-done…” and “…Mrs. Hale started to arrange the dirty pans under the sink…”. Moreover, Mrs. Hale’s neatness is further portrayed through statements such as “…unfinished things always bothered her…” All through the story, such quotes appear frequently and despite the fact that such details seem to be of no importance, the quotes become central points as the story finally starts to develop and they appear to be a characteristic manner that is directly opposite to that of Minnie Wright. The importance of the role played by women in the story is further revealed through their way of pointing at crucial facts, which indicated the indeed; Mrs. Wrights was responsible for the murder of her husband. For instance, “…I didn’t see or her anything …and still, it was all quiet inside… I knew they must be up… I opened the door… Despite the fact that the whole story is about Minnie, readers have a reason to wonder when Mrs. Hale seems to become a kind of the central character. This is because the whole story starts in Mrs. Hale’s kitchen as she leaves for the house of the Wright. Through the story, readers come to appreciate the fact that Mrs. Hale is a strong individual, who is not only a sharp observer, but also a neat individual, who is known for paying attention to detail. Throughout the whole story, Mrs. Hale is further depicted as a person, which is able to keep her voice and tone even. Whatever she says (Mrs. Hale), she chooses her words carefully. Mrs. Peters, on the other side, is a female character, who is married to a sheriff in the story. Where Mrs. Hale is seen to be confident and strong, Mrs. Peters is known to be a little, unsure and timid at times. According to Mrs. Hale, she understands Mrs. Peters as seeing “…a long way into things… because of her shrinking and quiet demeanor (pg.161). However, when Minnie attempts to hide a dead canary, Mrs. Peters exhibits empathy and compassion for her. This was a great courage on her side given the fact that a comment had been made by the County Attorney regarding her as being”…married to the Law”. Through their action and speech the men in the story are exhibited or portrayed as being a little bit chauvinistic and it is a fact that the county attorney is instigating. The insignificance of kitchen items is uttered through a joke by the county attorney, who seems to look at the women down his nose in the whole story. Eventually, the county attorney makes some insensitive comments regarding the kitchen’s condition and how Minnie was a bad housekeeper. Apart from that, it is through the story that readers can ascertain how the county attorney made light of the hard work that was done by Minnie. He observes that indeed, Minnie had other bigger issues to become worried of than her own personal preserves. Thus according to the county attorney, his opinion regarding women is that they are just trivial and simple creatures. Through being sarcastic, he speaks of intention to poke fun at Minnie during her trial for failing to wake up her murdered husband. The county attorney also makes fun of the women in the story for keeping themselves busy with little or small issues while the men were busy investigating. Women are later underestimated by him when he fails in investigating the things that the women had packed for Minnie. He had no idea that the women could pick out things that were dangerous despite Mr. Hale commenting on how women were capable of comprehending any useful clues in case they came across them. It is ironical that the men in the story miss all the vital clues in the story regarding the cause of the murder. It was, therefore, a surprise that it is the women, who finally uncovered many of the vital clues, which would later be used in Minnie’s incrimination. The discoveries made by Mrs. Hale, especially regarding the work that was half-finished, the half-wiped table, a bucket next to a bag of sugar that was never combined in totality by Minnie and the discovery made by Mrs. Peters that indeed Minnie had been working on a quilt and was nervous regarding something or some issue as she worked on the square, coupled with the fact that all the squares found in the house were sewn through the use of excellent craftsmanship except only one and a broken door were a clear indicator that there is something wrong with Minnie. However, it is the clue of a dead canary, which had a wrung neck that served as a final incriminating clue in the whole investigation. The women by the end of the story had become sure that indeed, Minnie was guilty. However, despite knowing from the start that Minnie was guilty, Mrs. Hale did not want to believe in that, a hope that was obvious as he talked to the CountyAttorney. The curious nature exhibited by women in the story and their peculiar attention and concentration on minute details are the things, which allow the women to find the incriminating evidence of the motives of Mrs. Wright while the men, on the other hand, became incapable of procuring any relevant evidence in the investigation of the murder. Finding justifications in the actions taken by Mrs. Wright, the women in the story go ahead to hide anything that they found from the men. They were concealing tangible evidence that may in the end prevent any meaningful conviction against Mrs. Wright. This story serves as a good lesson for both sexes (men and women) never to underestimate the sex of the other, but live together in harmony (Glaspell, 2012). Most popular orders	1,724	ENGLISH	1
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bright, John BRIGHT, JOHN (1811–1889), British statesman, was born at Rochdale on the 16th of November 1811. His father, Jacob Bright, was a much-respected Quaker, who had started a cotton-mill at Rochdale in 1809. The family had reached Lancashire by two migrations. Abraham Bright was a Wiltshire yeoman, who, early in the 18th century, removed to Coventry, where his descendants remained, and where, in 1775, Jacob Bright was born. Jacob Bright was educated at the Ackworth school of the Society of Friends, and was apprenticed to a fustian manufacturer at New Mills. He married his employer’s daughter, and settled with his two brothers-in-law at Rochdale in 1802, going into business for himself seven years later. His first wife died without children, and in 1809 he married Martha Wood, daughter of a tradesman of Bolton-le-Moors. She had been educated at Ackworth school, and was a woman of great strength of character and refined taste. There were eleven children of this marriage, of whom John Bright was the second, but the death of his elder brother in childhood made him the eldest son. He was a delicate child, and was sent as a day-scholar to a boarding-school near his home, kept by Mr William Littlewood. A year at the Ackworth school, two years at a school at York, and a year and a half at Newton, near Clitheroe, completed his education. He learned, he himself said, but little Latin and Greek, but acquired a great love of English literature, which his mother fostered, and a love of outdoor pursuits. In his sixteenth year he entered his father’s mill, and in due time became a partner in the business. Two agitations were then going on in Rochdale—the first (in which Jacob Bright was a leader) in opposition to a local church-rate, and the second for parliamentary reform, by which Rochdale successfully claimed to have a member allotted to it under the Reform Bill. In both these movements John Bright took part. He was an ardent Nonconformist, proud to number among his ancestors John Gratton, a friend of George Fox, and one of the persecuted and imprisoned preachers of the Society of Friends. His political interest was probably first kindled by the Preston election in 1830, in which Lord Stanley, after a long struggle, was defeated by “Orator” Hunt. But it was as a member of the Rochdale Juvenile Temperance Band that he first learned public speaking. These young men went out into the villages, borrowed a chair of a cottager, and spoke from it at open-air meetings. In Mrs John Mills’s life of her husband is an account of John Bright’s first extempore speech. It was at a temperance meeting. Bright got his notes muddled, and broke down. The chairman gave out a temperance song, and during the singing told Bright to put his notes aside and say what came into his mind. Bright obeyed, began with much hesitancy, but found his tongue and made an excellent address. On some early occasions, however, he committed his speech to memory. In 1832 he called on the Rev. John Aldis, an eminent Baptist minister, to accompany him to a local Bible meeting. Mr Aldis described him as a slender, modest young gentleman, who surprised him by his intelligence and thoughtfulness, but who seemed nervous as they walked to the meeting together. At the meeting he made a stimulating speech, and on the way home asked for advice. Mr Aldis counselled him not to learn his speeches, but to write out and commit to memory certain passages and the peroration. Bright took the advice, and acted on it all his life. This “first lesson in public speaking,” as Bright called it, was given in his twenty-first year, but he had not then contemplated entering on a public career. He was a fairly prosperous man of business, very happy in his home, and always ready to take part in the social, educational and political life of his native town. He was one of the founders of the Rochdale Literary and Philosophical Society, took a leading part in its debates, and on returning from a holiday journey in the East, gave the society a lecture on his travels. He first met Richard Cobden in 1836 or 1837. Cobden was an alderman of the newly formed Manchester corporation, and Bright went to ask him to speak at an education meeting in Rochdale. “I found him,” said Bright, “in his office in Mosley Street, introduced myself to him, and told him what I wanted.” Cobden consented, and at the meeting was much struck by Bright’s short speech, and urged him to speak against the Corn Laws. His first speech on the Corn Laws was made at Rochdale in 1838, and in the same year he joined the Manchester provisional committee which in 1839 founded the Anti-Corn Law League He was still only the local public man, taking part in all public movements, especially in opposition to John Feilden’s proposed factory legislation, and to the Rochdale church-rate. In 1839 he built the house which he called “One Ash,” and married Elizabeth, daughter of Jonathan Priestman of Newcastle-on-Tyne. In November of the same year there was a dinner at Bolton to Abraham Paulton, who had just returned from a successful Anti-Corn Law tour in Scotland. Among the speakers were Cobden and Bright, and the dinner is memorable as the first occasion on which the two future leaders appeared together on a Free Trade platform. Bright is described by the historian of the League as “a young man then appearing for the first time in any meeting out of his own town, and giving evidence, by his energy and by his grasp of the subject, of his capacity soon to take a leading part in the great agitation.” But his call had not yet come. In 1840 he led a movement against the Rochdale church-rate, speaking from a tombstone in the churchyard, where it looks down on the town in the valley below. A very happy married life at home contented him, and at the opening of the Free Trade hall in January 1840 he sat with the Rochdale deputation, undistinguished in the body of the meeting. A daughter, Helen, was born to him; but his young wife, after a long illness, died of consumption in September 1841. Three days after her death at Leamington, Cobden called to see him. “I was in the depths of grief,” said Bright, when unveiling the statue of his friend at Bradford in 1877, “I might almost say of despair, for the life and sunshine of my house had been extinguished.” Cobden spoke some words of condolence, but after a time he looked up and said, 'There are thousands of homes in England at this moment where wives, mothers and children are dying of hunger. Now, when the first paroxysm of your grief is past, I would advise you to come with me, and we will never rest till the Corn Laws are repealed.' “I accepted his invitation,” added Bright, “and from that time we never ceased to labour hard on behalf of the resolution which we had made.” At the general election in 1841 Cobden was returned for Stockport, and in 1843 Bright was the Free Trade candidate at a by-election at Durham. He was defeated, but his successful competitor was unseated on petition, and at the second contest Bright was returned. He was already known in the country as Cobden’s chief ally, and was received in the House of Commons with a suspicion and hostility even greater than had met Cobden himself. In the Anti-Corn Law movement the two speakers were the complements and correlatives of each other. Cobden had the calmness and confidence of the political philosopher, Bright had the passion and the fervour of the popular orator. Cobden did the reasoning, Bright supplied the declamation, but like Demosthenes he mingled argument with appeal. No orator of modern times rose more rapidly to a foremost place. He was not known beyond his own borough when Cobden called him to his side in 1841, and he entered parliament towards the end of the session of 1843 with a formidable reputation as an agitator. He had been all over England and Scotland addressing vast meetings and, as a rule, carrying them with him; he had taken a leading part in a conference held by the Anti-Corn Law League in London, had led deputations to the duke of Sussex, to Sir James Graham, then home secretary, and to Lord Ripon and Mr Gladstone, the secretary and under secretary of the Board of Trade; and he was universally recognized as the chief orator of the Free Trade movement. Wherever “John Bright of Rochdale” was announced to speak, vast crowds assembled. He had been so announced, for the last time, at the first great meeting in Drury Lane theatre on 15th March 1843; henceforth his name was enough. He took his seat in the House of Commons as one of the members for Durham on 28th July 1843, and on 7th August delivered his maiden speech in support of a motion by Mr Ewart for reduction of import duties. He was there, he said, “not only as one of the representatives of the city of Durham, but also as one of the representatives of that benevolent organization, the Anti-Corn Law League.” A member who heard the speech described Bright as “about the middle size, rather firmly and squarely built, with a fair, clear complexion, and an intelligent and pleasing expression of countenance. His voice is good, his enunciation distinct, and his delivery free from any unpleasant peculiarity or mannerism.” He wore the usual Friend’s coat, and was regarded with much interest and hostile curiosity on both sides of the House. Mr Ewart’s motion was defeated, but the movement of which Cobden and Bright were the leaders continued to spread. In the autumn the League resolved to raise £100,000; an appeal was made to the agricultural interest by great meetings in the farming counties, and in November The Times startled the world by declaring, in a leading article, “The League is a great fact. It would be foolish, nay, rash, to deny its importance.” In London great meetings were held in Covent Garden theatre, at which William Johnson Fox was the chief orator, but Bright and Cobden were the leaders of the movement. Bright publicly deprecated the popular tendency to regard Cobden and himself as the chief movers in the agitation, and Cobden told a Rochdale audience that he always stipulated that he should speak first, and Bright should follow. His “more stately genius,” as Mr John Morley calls it, was already making him the undisputed master of the feelings of his audiences. In the House of Commons his progress was slower. Cobden’s argumentative speeches were regarded more sympathetically than Bright’s more rhetorical appeals, and in a debate on Villiers’s annual motion against the Corn Laws Bright was heard with so much impatience that he was obliged to sit down. In the next session (1845) he moved for an inquiry into the operation of the Game Laws. At a meeting of county members earlier in the day Peel had advised them not to be led into discussion by a violent speech from the member for Durham, but to let the committee be granted without debate. Bright was not violent, and Cobden said that he did his work admirably, and won golden opinions from all men. The speech established his position in the House of Commons. In this session Bright and Cobden came into opposition, Cobden voting for the Maynooth Grant and Bright against it. On only one other occasion—a vote for South Kensington—did they go into opposite lobbies, during twenty-five years of parliamentary life. In the autumn of 1845 Bright retained Cobden in the public career to which Cobden had invited him four years before. Bright was in Scotland when a letter came from Cobden announcing his determination, forced on him by business difficulties, to retire from public work. Bright replied that if Cobden retired the mainspring of the League was gone. “I can in no degree take your place,” he wrote. “As a second I can fight, but there are incapacities about me, of which I am fully conscious, which prevent my being more than second in such a work as we have laboured in.” A few days later he set off for Manchester, posting in that wettest of autumns through “the rain that rained away the Corn Laws,” and on his arrival got his friends together, and raised the money which tided Cobden over the emergency. The crisis of the struggle had come. Peel’s budget in 1845 was a first step towards Free Trade. The bad harvest and the potato disease drove him to the repeal of the Corn Laws, and at a meeting in Manchester on 2nd July 1846 Cobden moved and Bright seconded a motion dissolving the league. A library of twelve hundred volumes was presented to Bright as a memorial of the struggle. Bright married, in June 1847, Miss Margaret Elizabeth Leatham, of Wakefield, by whom he had seven children, Mr John Albert Bright being the eldest. In the succeeding July he was elected for Manchester, with Mr Milner Gibson, without a contest. In the new parliament, as in the previous session, he opposed legislation restricting the hours of labour, and, as a Nonconformist, spoke against clerical control of national education. In 1848 he voted for Hume’s household suffrage motion, and introduced a bill for the repeal of the Game Laws. When Lord John Russell brought forward his Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, Bright opposed it as “a little, paltry, miserable measure,” and foretold its failure. In this parliament he spoke much on Irish questions. In a speech in favour of the government bill for a rate in aid in 1849, he won loud cheers from both sides, and was complimented by Disraeli for having sustained the reputation of that assembly. From this time forward he had the ear of the House, and took effective part in the debates. He spoke against capital punishment, against church-rates, against flogging in the army, and against the Irish Established Church. He supported Cobden’s motion for the reduction of public expenditure, and in and out of parliament pleaded for peace. In the election of 1852 he was again returned for Manchester on the principles of free trade, electoral reform and religious freedom. But war was in the air, and the most impassioned speeches he ever delivered were addressed to this parliament in fruitless opposition to the Crimean War. Neither the House nor the country would listen. “I went to the House on Monday,” wrote Macaulay in March 1854, “and heard Bright say everything I thought.” His most memorable speech, the greatest he ever made, was delivered on the 23rd of February 1855. “The angel of death has been abroad throughout the land. You may almost hear the beating of his wings,” he said, and concluded with an appeal to the prime minister that moved the House as it had never been moved within living memory. There was a tremor in Bright’s voice in the touching parts of his great speeches which stirred the feelings even of hostile listeners. It was noted for the first time in this February speech, but the most striking instance was in a speech on Mr Osborne Morgan’s Burials Bill in April 1875, in which he described a Quaker funeral, and protested against the “miserable superstition of the phrase 'buried like a dog.'” “In that sense,” he said, “I shall be buried like a dog, and all those with whom I am best acquainted, whom I best love and esteem, will be ‘buried like a dog.’ Nay more, my own ancestors, who in past time suffered persecution for what is now held to be a righteous cause, have all been buried like dogs, if that phrase is true.” The tender, half-broken tones in which these words were said, the inexpressible pathos of his voice and manner, were never forgotten by those who heard that Wednesday morning speech. Bright was disqualified by illness during the whole of 1856 and 1857. In Palmerston’s penal dissolution in the latter year, Bright was rejected by Manchester, but in August, while ill and absent, Birmingham elected him without a contest. He returned to parliament in 1858, and in February seconded the motion which threw out Lord Palmerston’s government. Lord Derby thereupon came into office for the second time, and Bright had the satisfaction of assisting in the passing of two measures which he had long advocated—the admission of Jews to parliament and the transfer of the government of India from the East India Company to the crown. He was now restored to full political activity, and in October addressed his new constituents, and started a movement for parliamentary reform. He spoke at great gatherings at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bradford and Manchester, and his speeches filled the papers. For the next nine years he was the protagonist of Reform. Towards the close of the struggle he told the House of Commons that a thousand meetings had been held, that at every one the doors were open for any man to enter, yet that an almost unanimous vote for reform had been taken. In the debates on the Reform Bills submitted to the House of Commons from 1859. to 1867, Bright’s was the most influential voice. He rebuked Lowe’s “Botany Bay view,” and described Horsman as retiring to his “cave of Adullam,” and hooking in Lowe. “The party of two,” he said, “reminds me of the Scotch terrier, which was so covered with hair that you could not tell which was the head and which was the tail.” These and similar phrases, such as the excuse for withdrawing the Reform Bill in the year of the great budget of 1860—"you cannot get twenty wagons at once through Temple Bar"—were in all men’s mouths. It was one of the triumphs of Bright’s oratory that it constantly produced these popular cries. The phrase “a free breakfast table” was his; and on the rejection of Forster’s Compensation for Disturbance Bill he used the phrase as to Irish discontent, “Force is not a remedy." During his great reform agitation Bright had vigorously supported Cobden in the negotiations for the treaty of commerce with France, and had taken, with his usual vehemence, the side of the North in the discussions in England on the American Civil War. In March 1865 Cobden died, and Bright told the House of Commons he dared not even attempt to express the feelings which oppressed him, and sat down overwhelmed with grief. Their friendship was one of the most characteristic features of the public life of their time. “After twenty years of intimate and almost brotherly friendship with him,” said Bright, “I little knew how much I loved him till I had lost him.” In June 1865 parliament was dissolved, and Bright was returned for Birmingham without opposition. Palmerston’s death in the early autumn brought Lord John Russell into power, and for the first time Bright gave his support to the government. Russell’s fourth Reform Bill was introduced, was defeated by the Adullamites, and the Derby-Disraeli ministry was installed. Bright declared Lord Derby’s accession to be a declaration of war against the working classes, and roused the great towns in the demand for reform. Bright was the popular hero of the time. As a political leader the winter of 1866–1867 was the culminating point in his career. The Reform Bill was carried with a clause for minority representation, and in the autumn of 1868 Bright, with two Liberal colleagues, was again returned for Birmingham. Mr Gladstone came into power with a programme of Irish reform in church and land such as Bright had long urged, and he accepted the post of president of the Board of Trade. He thus became a member of the privy council, with the title of Right Honourable, and from this time forth was a recognized leader of the Liberal party in parliament and in the country. He made a great speech on the second reading of the Irish Church Bill, and wrote a letter on the House of Lords, in which he said, “In harmony with the nation they may go on for a long time, but throwing themselves athwart its course they may meet with accidents not pleasant for them to think of.” He also spoke strongly in the same session in favour of the bill permitting marriage with a deceased wife’s sister. The next session found him disqualified by a severe illness, which caused his retirement from office at the end of the year, and kept him out of public life for four years. In August 1873 Mr Gladstone reconstructed his cabinet, and Bright returned to it as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. But his hair had become white, and though he spoke again with much of his former vigour, he was now an old man. In the election in January 1874 Bright and his colleagues were returned for Birmingham without opposition. When Mr Gladstone resigned the leadership of his party in 1875, Bright was chairman of the party meeting which chose Lord Hartington as his successor. He took a less prominent part in political discussion till the Eastern Question brought Great Britain to the verge of war with Russia, and his old energy flamed up afresh. In the debate on the vote of credit in February 1878, he made one of his impressive speeches, urging the government not to increase the difficulties manufacturers had in finding employment for their workpeople by any single word or act which could shake confidence in business. The debate lasted five days. On the fifth day a telegram from Mr Layard was published announcing that the Russians were nearing Constantinople. The day, said The Times, “was crowded with rumours, alarms, contradictions, fears, hopes, resolves, uncertainties.” In both Houses Mr Layard’s despatch was read, and in the excited Commons Mr Forster’s resolution opposing the vote of credit was withdrawn. Bright, however, distrusted the ambassador at the Porte, and gave reasons for doubting the alarming telegram. While he was speaking a note was put into the hands of Sir Stafford Northcote, and when Bright sat down he read it to the House. It was a confirmation from the Russian prime minister of Bright’s doubts: “There is not a word of truth in the rumours which have reached you.” At the general election in 1880 he was re-elected at Birmingham, and joined Mr Gladstone’s new government as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. For two sessions he spoke and voted with his colleagues, but after the bombardment of the Alexandria forts he left the ministry and never held office again. He felt most painfully the severance from his old and trusted leader, but it was forced on him by his conviction of the danger and impolicy of foreign entanglements. He, however, gave a general support to Mr Gladstone’s government. In 1883 he took the chair at a meeting of the Liberation Society in Mr Spurgeon's chapel; and in June of that year was the object of an unparalleled demonstration at Birmingham to celebrate his twenty-five years of service as its representative. At this celebration he spoke strongly of “the Irish rebel party,” and accused the Conservatives of “alliance” with them, but withdrew the imputation when Sir Stafford Northcote moved that such language was a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. At a banquet to Lord Spencer he accused the Irish members of having “exhibited a boundless sympathy for criminals and murderers.” He refused in the House of Commons to apologise for these words, and was supported in his refusal by both sides of the House. At the Birmingham election in 1885 he stood for the central division of the redistributed constituency; he was opposed by Lord Randolph Churchill, but was elected by a large majority. In the new parliament he voted against the Home Rule Bill, and it was generally felt that in the election of 1886 which followed its defeat, when he was re-elected without opposition, his letters told with fatal effect against the Home Rule Liberals. His contribution to the discussion was a suggestion that the Irish members should form a grand committee to which every Irish bill should go after first reading. The break-up of the Liberal party filled him with gloom. His last speech at Birmingham was on 29th March 1888, at a banquet to celebrate Mr Chamberlain’s return from his peace mission to the United States. He spoke of imperial federation as a “dream and an absurdity.” In May his illness returned, he took to his bed in October, and died on the 27th of March 1889. He was buried in the graveyard of the meeting-house of the Society of Friends in Rochdale. Bright had much literary and social recognition in his later years. In 1882 he was elected lord rector of the university of Glasgow, and Dr Dale wrote of his rectorial address: “It was not the old Bright.” “I am weary of public speaking,” he had told Dr Dale; “my mind is almost a blank.” He was given an honorary degree of the university of Oxford in 1886, and in 1888 a statue of him was erected at Birmingham. The 3rd marquess of Salisbury said of him, and it sums up his character as a public man: “He was the greatest master of English oratory that this generation—I may say several generations—has seen.... At a time when much speaking has depressed, has almost exterminated eloquence, he maintained that robust, powerful and vigorous style in which he gave fitting expression to the burning and noble thoughts he desired to utter.” See The Life and Speeches of the Right Hon. John Bright, M.P., by George Barnett Smith, 2 vols. 8vo (1881); The Life of John Bright, M.P., by John McGilchrist, in Cassell’s Representative Biographies (1868); John Bright, by C. A. Vince (1898); Speeches on Parliamentary Reform by John Bright, M.P., revised by Himself (1866); Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, by John Bright, M.P., edited by J. E. Thorold Rogers, 2 vols. 8vo (1868); Public Addresses, edited by J. E. Thorold Rogers, 8vo (1879); Public Letters of the Right Hon. John Bright, M.P., collected by H. J. Leech (1885). (P. W. C.)	<urn:uuid:205864aa-8a8d-4204-858e-8678a2d1f6be>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Bright,_John	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592565.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118110141-20200118134141-00020.warc.gz	en	0.990387	5,738	3.296875	3	[ 0.04495147615671158, 0.5808529853820801, -0.09996215999126434, 0.33501508831977844, -0.030171765014529228, -0.30794772505760193, 0.07388918101787567, 0.03752860426902771, -0.16846708953380585, -0.28751862049102783, -0.4538755416870117, -0.24167701601982117, 0.2712898552417755, -0.307985663...	1	1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bright, John BRIGHT, JOHN (1811–1889), British statesman, was born at Rochdale on the 16th of November 1811. His father, Jacob Bright, was a much-respected Quaker, who had started a cotton-mill at Rochdale in 1809. The family had reached Lancashire by two migrations. Abraham Bright was a Wiltshire yeoman, who, early in the 18th century, removed to Coventry, where his descendants remained, and where, in 1775, Jacob Bright was born. Jacob Bright was educated at the Ackworth school of the Society of Friends, and was apprenticed to a fustian manufacturer at New Mills. He married his employer’s daughter, and settled with his two brothers-in-law at Rochdale in 1802, going into business for himself seven years later. His first wife died without children, and in 1809 he married Martha Wood, daughter of a tradesman of Bolton-le-Moors. She had been educated at Ackworth school, and was a woman of great strength of character and refined taste. There were eleven children of this marriage, of whom John Bright was the second, but the death of his elder brother in childhood made him the eldest son. He was a delicate child, and was sent as a day-scholar to a boarding-school near his home, kept by Mr William Littlewood. A year at the Ackworth school, two years at a school at York, and a year and a half at Newton, near Clitheroe, completed his education. He learned, he himself said, but little Latin and Greek, but acquired a great love of English literature, which his mother fostered, and a love of outdoor pursuits. In his sixteenth year he entered his father’s mill, and in due time became a partner in the business. Two agitations were then going on in Rochdale—the first (in which Jacob Bright was a leader) in opposition to a local church-rate, and the second for parliamentary reform, by which Rochdale successfully claimed to have a member allotted to it under the Reform Bill. In both these movements John Bright took part. He was an ardent Nonconformist, proud to number among his ancestors John Gratton, a friend of George Fox, and one of the persecuted and imprisoned preachers of the Society of Friends. His political interest was probably first kindled by the Preston election in 1830, in which Lord Stanley, after a long struggle, was defeated by “Orator” Hunt. But it was as a member of the Rochdale Juvenile Temperance Band that he first learned public speaking. These young men went out into the villages, borrowed a chair of a cottager, and spoke from it at open-air meetings. In Mrs John Mills’s life of her husband is an account of John Bright’s first extempore speech. It was at a temperance meeting. Bright got his notes muddled, and broke down. The chairman gave out a temperance song, and during the singing told Bright to put his notes aside and say what came into his mind. Bright obeyed, began with much hesitancy, but found his tongue and made an excellent address. On some early occasions, however, he committed his speech to memory. In 1832 he called on the Rev. John Aldis, an eminent Baptist minister, to accompany him to a local Bible meeting. Mr Aldis described him as a slender, modest young gentleman, who surprised him by his intelligence and thoughtfulness, but who seemed nervous as they walked to the meeting together. At the meeting he made a stimulating speech, and on the way home asked for advice. Mr Aldis counselled him not to learn his speeches, but to write out and commit to memory certain passages and the peroration. Bright took the advice, and acted on it all his life. This “first lesson in public speaking,” as Bright called it, was given in his twenty-first year, but he had not then contemplated entering on a public career. He was a fairly prosperous man of business, very happy in his home, and always ready to take part in the social, educational and political life of his native town. He was one of the founders of the Rochdale Literary and Philosophical Society, took a leading part in its debates, and on returning from a holiday journey in the East, gave the society a lecture on his travels. He first met Richard Cobden in 1836 or 1837. Cobden was an alderman of the newly formed Manchester corporation, and Bright went to ask him to speak at an education meeting in Rochdale. “I found him,” said Bright, “in his office in Mosley Street, introduced myself to him, and told him what I wanted.” Cobden consented, and at the meeting was much struck by Bright’s short speech, and urged him to speak against the Corn Laws. His first speech on the Corn Laws was made at Rochdale in 1838, and in the same year he joined the Manchester provisional committee which in 1839 founded the Anti-Corn Law League He was still only the local public man, taking part in all public movements, especially in opposition to John Feilden’s proposed factory legislation, and to the Rochdale church-rate. In 1839 he built the house which he called “One Ash,” and married Elizabeth, daughter of Jonathan Priestman of Newcastle-on-Tyne. In November of the same year there was a dinner at Bolton to Abraham Paulton, who had just returned from a successful Anti-Corn Law tour in Scotland. Among the speakers were Cobden and Bright, and the dinner is memorable as the first occasion on which the two future leaders appeared together on a Free Trade platform. Bright is described by the historian of the League as “a young man then appearing for the first time in any meeting out of his own town, and giving evidence, by his energy and by his grasp of the subject, of his capacity soon to take a leading part in the great agitation.” But his call had not yet come. In 1840 he led a movement against the Rochdale church-rate, speaking from a tombstone in the churchyard, where it looks down on the town in the valley below. A very happy married life at home contented him, and at the opening of the Free Trade hall in January 1840 he sat with the Rochdale deputation, undistinguished in the body of the meeting. A daughter, Helen, was born to him; but his young wife, after a long illness, died of consumption in September 1841. Three days after her death at Leamington, Cobden called to see him. “I was in the depths of grief,” said Bright, when unveiling the statue of his friend at Bradford in 1877, “I might almost say of despair, for the life and sunshine of my house had been extinguished.” Cobden spoke some words of condolence, but after a time he looked up and said, 'There are thousands of homes in England at this moment where wives, mothers and children are dying of hunger. Now, when the first paroxysm of your grief is past, I would advise you to come with me, and we will never rest till the Corn Laws are repealed.' “I accepted his invitation,” added Bright, “and from that time we never ceased to labour hard on behalf of the resolution which we had made.” At the general election in 1841 Cobden was returned for Stockport, and in 1843 Bright was the Free Trade candidate at a by-election at Durham. He was defeated, but his successful competitor was unseated on petition, and at the second contest Bright was returned. He was already known in the country as Cobden’s chief ally, and was received in the House of Commons with a suspicion and hostility even greater than had met Cobden himself. In the Anti-Corn Law movement the two speakers were the complements and correlatives of each other. Cobden had the calmness and confidence of the political philosopher, Bright had the passion and the fervour of the popular orator. Cobden did the reasoning, Bright supplied the declamation, but like Demosthenes he mingled argument with appeal. No orator of modern times rose more rapidly to a foremost place. He was not known beyond his own borough when Cobden called him to his side in 1841, and he entered parliament towards the end of the session of 1843 with a formidable reputation as an agitator. He had been all over England and Scotland addressing vast meetings and, as a rule, carrying them with him; he had taken a leading part in a conference held by the Anti-Corn Law League in London, had led deputations to the duke of Sussex, to Sir James Graham, then home secretary, and to Lord Ripon and Mr Gladstone, the secretary and under secretary of the Board of Trade; and he was universally recognized as the chief orator of the Free Trade movement. Wherever “John Bright of Rochdale” was announced to speak, vast crowds assembled. He had been so announced, for the last time, at the first great meeting in Drury Lane theatre on 15th March 1843; henceforth his name was enough. He took his seat in the House of Commons as one of the members for Durham on 28th July 1843, and on 7th August delivered his maiden speech in support of a motion by Mr Ewart for reduction of import duties. He was there, he said, “not only as one of the representatives of the city of Durham, but also as one of the representatives of that benevolent organization, the Anti-Corn Law League.” A member who heard the speech described Bright as “about the middle size, rather firmly and squarely built, with a fair, clear complexion, and an intelligent and pleasing expression of countenance. His voice is good, his enunciation distinct, and his delivery free from any unpleasant peculiarity or mannerism.” He wore the usual Friend’s coat, and was regarded with much interest and hostile curiosity on both sides of the House. Mr Ewart’s motion was defeated, but the movement of which Cobden and Bright were the leaders continued to spread. In the autumn the League resolved to raise £100,000; an appeal was made to the agricultural interest by great meetings in the farming counties, and in November The Times startled the world by declaring, in a leading article, “The League is a great fact. It would be foolish, nay, rash, to deny its importance.” In London great meetings were held in Covent Garden theatre, at which William Johnson Fox was the chief orator, but Bright and Cobden were the leaders of the movement. Bright publicly deprecated the popular tendency to regard Cobden and himself as the chief movers in the agitation, and Cobden told a Rochdale audience that he always stipulated that he should speak first, and Bright should follow. His “more stately genius,” as Mr John Morley calls it, was already making him the undisputed master of the feelings of his audiences. In the House of Commons his progress was slower. Cobden’s argumentative speeches were regarded more sympathetically than Bright’s more rhetorical appeals, and in a debate on Villiers’s annual motion against the Corn Laws Bright was heard with so much impatience that he was obliged to sit down. In the next session (1845) he moved for an inquiry into the operation of the Game Laws. At a meeting of county members earlier in the day Peel had advised them not to be led into discussion by a violent speech from the member for Durham, but to let the committee be granted without debate. Bright was not violent, and Cobden said that he did his work admirably, and won golden opinions from all men. The speech established his position in the House of Commons. In this session Bright and Cobden came into opposition, Cobden voting for the Maynooth Grant and Bright against it. On only one other occasion—a vote for South Kensington—did they go into opposite lobbies, during twenty-five years of parliamentary life. In the autumn of 1845 Bright retained Cobden in the public career to which Cobden had invited him four years before. Bright was in Scotland when a letter came from Cobden announcing his determination, forced on him by business difficulties, to retire from public work. Bright replied that if Cobden retired the mainspring of the League was gone. “I can in no degree take your place,” he wrote. “As a second I can fight, but there are incapacities about me, of which I am fully conscious, which prevent my being more than second in such a work as we have laboured in.” A few days later he set off for Manchester, posting in that wettest of autumns through “the rain that rained away the Corn Laws,” and on his arrival got his friends together, and raised the money which tided Cobden over the emergency. The crisis of the struggle had come. Peel’s budget in 1845 was a first step towards Free Trade. The bad harvest and the potato disease drove him to the repeal of the Corn Laws, and at a meeting in Manchester on 2nd July 1846 Cobden moved and Bright seconded a motion dissolving the league. A library of twelve hundred volumes was presented to Bright as a memorial of the struggle. Bright married, in June 1847, Miss Margaret Elizabeth Leatham, of Wakefield, by whom he had seven children, Mr John Albert Bright being the eldest. In the succeeding July he was elected for Manchester, with Mr Milner Gibson, without a contest. In the new parliament, as in the previous session, he opposed legislation restricting the hours of labour, and, as a Nonconformist, spoke against clerical control of national education. In 1848 he voted for Hume’s household suffrage motion, and introduced a bill for the repeal of the Game Laws. When Lord John Russell brought forward his Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, Bright opposed it as “a little, paltry, miserable measure,” and foretold its failure. In this parliament he spoke much on Irish questions. In a speech in favour of the government bill for a rate in aid in 1849, he won loud cheers from both sides, and was complimented by Disraeli for having sustained the reputation of that assembly. From this time forward he had the ear of the House, and took effective part in the debates. He spoke against capital punishment, against church-rates, against flogging in the army, and against the Irish Established Church. He supported Cobden’s motion for the reduction of public expenditure, and in and out of parliament pleaded for peace. In the election of 1852 he was again returned for Manchester on the principles of free trade, electoral reform and religious freedom. But war was in the air, and the most impassioned speeches he ever delivered were addressed to this parliament in fruitless opposition to the Crimean War. Neither the House nor the country would listen. “I went to the House on Monday,” wrote Macaulay in March 1854, “and heard Bright say everything I thought.” His most memorable speech, the greatest he ever made, was delivered on the 23rd of February 1855. “The angel of death has been abroad throughout the land. You may almost hear the beating of his wings,” he said, and concluded with an appeal to the prime minister that moved the House as it had never been moved within living memory. There was a tremor in Bright’s voice in the touching parts of his great speeches which stirred the feelings even of hostile listeners. It was noted for the first time in this February speech, but the most striking instance was in a speech on Mr Osborne Morgan’s Burials Bill in April 1875, in which he described a Quaker funeral, and protested against the “miserable superstition of the phrase 'buried like a dog.'” “In that sense,” he said, “I shall be buried like a dog, and all those with whom I am best acquainted, whom I best love and esteem, will be ‘buried like a dog.’ Nay more, my own ancestors, who in past time suffered persecution for what is now held to be a righteous cause, have all been buried like dogs, if that phrase is true.” The tender, half-broken tones in which these words were said, the inexpressible pathos of his voice and manner, were never forgotten by those who heard that Wednesday morning speech. Bright was disqualified by illness during the whole of 1856 and 1857. In Palmerston’s penal dissolution in the latter year, Bright was rejected by Manchester, but in August, while ill and absent, Birmingham elected him without a contest. He returned to parliament in 1858, and in February seconded the motion which threw out Lord Palmerston’s government. Lord Derby thereupon came into office for the second time, and Bright had the satisfaction of assisting in the passing of two measures which he had long advocated—the admission of Jews to parliament and the transfer of the government of India from the East India Company to the crown. He was now restored to full political activity, and in October addressed his new constituents, and started a movement for parliamentary reform. He spoke at great gatherings at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bradford and Manchester, and his speeches filled the papers. For the next nine years he was the protagonist of Reform. Towards the close of the struggle he told the House of Commons that a thousand meetings had been held, that at every one the doors were open for any man to enter, yet that an almost unanimous vote for reform had been taken. In the debates on the Reform Bills submitted to the House of Commons from 1859. to 1867, Bright’s was the most influential voice. He rebuked Lowe’s “Botany Bay view,” and described Horsman as retiring to his “cave of Adullam,” and hooking in Lowe. “The party of two,” he said, “reminds me of the Scotch terrier, which was so covered with hair that you could not tell which was the head and which was the tail.” These and similar phrases, such as the excuse for withdrawing the Reform Bill in the year of the great budget of 1860—"you cannot get twenty wagons at once through Temple Bar"—were in all men’s mouths. It was one of the triumphs of Bright’s oratory that it constantly produced these popular cries. The phrase “a free breakfast table” was his; and on the rejection of Forster’s Compensation for Disturbance Bill he used the phrase as to Irish discontent, “Force is not a remedy." During his great reform agitation Bright had vigorously supported Cobden in the negotiations for the treaty of commerce with France, and had taken, with his usual vehemence, the side of the North in the discussions in England on the American Civil War. In March 1865 Cobden died, and Bright told the House of Commons he dared not even attempt to express the feelings which oppressed him, and sat down overwhelmed with grief. Their friendship was one of the most characteristic features of the public life of their time. “After twenty years of intimate and almost brotherly friendship with him,” said Bright, “I little knew how much I loved him till I had lost him.” In June 1865 parliament was dissolved, and Bright was returned for Birmingham without opposition. Palmerston’s death in the early autumn brought Lord John Russell into power, and for the first time Bright gave his support to the government. Russell’s fourth Reform Bill was introduced, was defeated by the Adullamites, and the Derby-Disraeli ministry was installed. Bright declared Lord Derby’s accession to be a declaration of war against the working classes, and roused the great towns in the demand for reform. Bright was the popular hero of the time. As a political leader the winter of 1866–1867 was the culminating point in his career. The Reform Bill was carried with a clause for minority representation, and in the autumn of 1868 Bright, with two Liberal colleagues, was again returned for Birmingham. Mr Gladstone came into power with a programme of Irish reform in church and land such as Bright had long urged, and he accepted the post of president of the Board of Trade. He thus became a member of the privy council, with the title of Right Honourable, and from this time forth was a recognized leader of the Liberal party in parliament and in the country. He made a great speech on the second reading of the Irish Church Bill, and wrote a letter on the House of Lords, in which he said, “In harmony with the nation they may go on for a long time, but throwing themselves athwart its course they may meet with accidents not pleasant for them to think of.” He also spoke strongly in the same session in favour of the bill permitting marriage with a deceased wife’s sister. The next session found him disqualified by a severe illness, which caused his retirement from office at the end of the year, and kept him out of public life for four years. In August 1873 Mr Gladstone reconstructed his cabinet, and Bright returned to it as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. But his hair had become white, and though he spoke again with much of his former vigour, he was now an old man. In the election in January 1874 Bright and his colleagues were returned for Birmingham without opposition. When Mr Gladstone resigned the leadership of his party in 1875, Bright was chairman of the party meeting which chose Lord Hartington as his successor. He took a less prominent part in political discussion till the Eastern Question brought Great Britain to the verge of war with Russia, and his old energy flamed up afresh. In the debate on the vote of credit in February 1878, he made one of his impressive speeches, urging the government not to increase the difficulties manufacturers had in finding employment for their workpeople by any single word or act which could shake confidence in business. The debate lasted five days. On the fifth day a telegram from Mr Layard was published announcing that the Russians were nearing Constantinople. The day, said The Times, “was crowded with rumours, alarms, contradictions, fears, hopes, resolves, uncertainties.” In both Houses Mr Layard’s despatch was read, and in the excited Commons Mr Forster’s resolution opposing the vote of credit was withdrawn. Bright, however, distrusted the ambassador at the Porte, and gave reasons for doubting the alarming telegram. While he was speaking a note was put into the hands of Sir Stafford Northcote, and when Bright sat down he read it to the House. It was a confirmation from the Russian prime minister of Bright’s doubts: “There is not a word of truth in the rumours which have reached you.” At the general election in 1880 he was re-elected at Birmingham, and joined Mr Gladstone’s new government as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. For two sessions he spoke and voted with his colleagues, but after the bombardment of the Alexandria forts he left the ministry and never held office again. He felt most painfully the severance from his old and trusted leader, but it was forced on him by his conviction of the danger and impolicy of foreign entanglements. He, however, gave a general support to Mr Gladstone’s government. In 1883 he took the chair at a meeting of the Liberation Society in Mr Spurgeon's chapel; and in June of that year was the object of an unparalleled demonstration at Birmingham to celebrate his twenty-five years of service as its representative. At this celebration he spoke strongly of “the Irish rebel party,” and accused the Conservatives of “alliance” with them, but withdrew the imputation when Sir Stafford Northcote moved that such language was a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. At a banquet to Lord Spencer he accused the Irish members of having “exhibited a boundless sympathy for criminals and murderers.” He refused in the House of Commons to apologise for these words, and was supported in his refusal by both sides of the House. At the Birmingham election in 1885 he stood for the central division of the redistributed constituency; he was opposed by Lord Randolph Churchill, but was elected by a large majority. In the new parliament he voted against the Home Rule Bill, and it was generally felt that in the election of 1886 which followed its defeat, when he was re-elected without opposition, his letters told with fatal effect against the Home Rule Liberals. His contribution to the discussion was a suggestion that the Irish members should form a grand committee to which every Irish bill should go after first reading. The break-up of the Liberal party filled him with gloom. His last speech at Birmingham was on 29th March 1888, at a banquet to celebrate Mr Chamberlain’s return from his peace mission to the United States. He spoke of imperial federation as a “dream and an absurdity.” In May his illness returned, he took to his bed in October, and died on the 27th of March 1889. He was buried in the graveyard of the meeting-house of the Society of Friends in Rochdale. Bright had much literary and social recognition in his later years. In 1882 he was elected lord rector of the university of Glasgow, and Dr Dale wrote of his rectorial address: “It was not the old Bright.” “I am weary of public speaking,” he had told Dr Dale; “my mind is almost a blank.” He was given an honorary degree of the university of Oxford in 1886, and in 1888 a statue of him was erected at Birmingham. The 3rd marquess of Salisbury said of him, and it sums up his character as a public man: “He was the greatest master of English oratory that this generation—I may say several generations—has seen.... At a time when much speaking has depressed, has almost exterminated eloquence, he maintained that robust, powerful and vigorous style in which he gave fitting expression to the burning and noble thoughts he desired to utter.” See The Life and Speeches of the Right Hon. John Bright, M.P., by George Barnett Smith, 2 vols. 8vo (1881); The Life of John Bright, M.P., by John McGilchrist, in Cassell’s Representative Biographies (1868); John Bright, by C. A. Vince (1898); Speeches on Parliamentary Reform by John Bright, M.P., revised by Himself (1866); Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, by John Bright, M.P., edited by J. E. Thorold Rogers, 2 vols. 8vo (1868); Public Addresses, edited by J. E. Thorold Rogers, 8vo (1879); Public Letters of the Right Hon. John Bright, M.P., collected by H. J. Leech (1885). (P. W. C.)	5,709	ENGLISH	1
Daniel Boone became a legend on the American frontier. With his leather clothes and his coonskin cap, he was thought of as a tough, rugged hero who disliked civilization and preferred living alone in the woods. - Daniel Boone was born in Pennsylvania in 1734. His parents were Quakers, a religious group that promoted peace. They had followed William Penn, founder of the Quaker movement, to Pennsylvania to escape persecution in Wales. - Daniel had 10 brothers and sisters. The family was asked to leave the Quaker faith later when two of his siblings married worlders, people not of the Quaker faith. Daniel’s mother continued to attend church meetings. - Daniel was given his first gun when he was 12. One story says that as a boy, he was with some friends when a panther came upon them. The other boys scattered in fear, but Daniel stood his ground, shooting the panther dead. - Whether that story is true or not, Daniel did grow up to be a skilled hunter and trapper. Most of his livelihood came from the furs he sold. - He married Rebecca Bryan and they had 10 children. - Indian skirmishes were a constant problem on the American frontier. Although Daniel respected the Indians, he was involved in several battles with them, including the French and Indian War. At one point, Indians captured two of his daughters. He tracked them down and saved the girls. - Daniel was the first white person to settle in Kentucky. He eventually built a road into Kentucky, paving the way for other settlers. He founded Boonesborough, the first town in Kentucky. - Daniel fought in the Revolutionary War and later became involved in politics. A book published about his life made him a popular hero in America and Europe. Questions and Answers Question: What did Daniel Boone think about some of the stories told about him? Answer: He was probably amused by some of them, but he was annoyed by the idea that he hated civilization. He actually spent most of his life trying to help other settlers and referred to the idea as nonsense. Watch a video about how Daniel Boone escaped Shawnee Indians and saved a settlement from an Indian attack. Cite This Page You may cut-and-paste the below MLA and APA citation examples: MLA Style Citation Declan, Tobin. " Amazing Facts for Kids about Daniel Boone ." Easy Science for Kids, Jan 2020. Web. 24 Jan 2020. < https://easyscienceforkids.com/daniel-boone-2/ >. APA Style Citation Tobin, Declan. (2020). Amazing Facts for Kids about Daniel Boone. Easy Science for Kids. Retrieved from https://easyscienceforkids.com/daniel-boone-2/ Sponsored Links :	<urn:uuid:85f11c90-f67d-40d5-9560-f66833221562>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://easyscienceforkids.com/daniel-boone-2/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00119.warc.gz	en	0.981204	580	3.3125	3	[ -0.25358447432518005, 0.9471455812454224, 0.3006595969200134, 0.17950840294361115, -0.4211673140525818, -0.27910691499710083, 0.5079746842384338, -0.047999195754528046, -0.39128249883651733, -0.10347434133291245, 0.5890048742294312, 0.0968080461025238, 0.2913146913051605, 0.138560086488723...	1	Daniel Boone became a legend on the American frontier. With his leather clothes and his coonskin cap, he was thought of as a tough, rugged hero who disliked civilization and preferred living alone in the woods. - Daniel Boone was born in Pennsylvania in 1734. His parents were Quakers, a religious group that promoted peace. They had followed William Penn, founder of the Quaker movement, to Pennsylvania to escape persecution in Wales. - Daniel had 10 brothers and sisters. The family was asked to leave the Quaker faith later when two of his siblings married worlders, people not of the Quaker faith. Daniel’s mother continued to attend church meetings. - Daniel was given his first gun when he was 12. One story says that as a boy, he was with some friends when a panther came upon them. The other boys scattered in fear, but Daniel stood his ground, shooting the panther dead. - Whether that story is true or not, Daniel did grow up to be a skilled hunter and trapper. Most of his livelihood came from the furs he sold. - He married Rebecca Bryan and they had 10 children. - Indian skirmishes were a constant problem on the American frontier. Although Daniel respected the Indians, he was involved in several battles with them, including the French and Indian War. At one point, Indians captured two of his daughters. He tracked them down and saved the girls. - Daniel was the first white person to settle in Kentucky. He eventually built a road into Kentucky, paving the way for other settlers. He founded Boonesborough, the first town in Kentucky. - Daniel fought in the Revolutionary War and later became involved in politics. A book published about his life made him a popular hero in America and Europe. Questions and Answers Question: What did Daniel Boone think about some of the stories told about him? Answer: He was probably amused by some of them, but he was annoyed by the idea that he hated civilization. He actually spent most of his life trying to help other settlers and referred to the idea as nonsense. Watch a video about how Daniel Boone escaped Shawnee Indians and saved a settlement from an Indian attack. Cite This Page You may cut-and-paste the below MLA and APA citation examples: MLA Style Citation Declan, Tobin. " Amazing Facts for Kids about Daniel Boone ." Easy Science for Kids, Jan 2020. Web. 24 Jan 2020. < https://easyscienceforkids.com/daniel-boone-2/ >. APA Style Citation Tobin, Declan. (2020). Amazing Facts for Kids about Daniel Boone. Easy Science for Kids. Retrieved from https://easyscienceforkids.com/daniel-boone-2/ Sponsored Links :	581	ENGLISH	1
Phonics is a method of teaching children to read. Phonics works by breaking words down into it's individual sounds. There are 44 different sounds in the English language. Learning to read with phonics is therefore a bit like learning a code, after learning just a few sounds, you will be able to use this code to read 100's of words. The more sounds you know, the more words you will be able to work out how to read. Not all words are phonetically decode-able however, a select few words you need to learn through the 'sight words' method of learning to read. Sight words is when you learn to read by memorising 1,000's of words individually. Although, it could be argued that this is not the most efficient way to learn to read. An example of this is that someone who has learnt to read through the sight words method might have memorised and be able to read the word 'boat', but may struggle if asked to read the word 'oat'. This would be an easy task for someone who had learnt to read with phonics who was able to use their decoding skills to break each word down into it's individual letter sounds. At Walton on the Hill Primary School we base our phonics teaching on the 'Letters and Sounds' guidance is a phonics resource published by the Department for Education and Skills in 2007. It aims to build children's speaking and listening skills in their own right as well as to prepare children for learning to read by developing their phonic knowledge and skills. We add other resources and strategies to enhance this to ensure all children get the best possible start to their reading which we recognise as the building blocks to their wider education.	<urn:uuid:7283be3d-6cf0-4cb9-b1b2-c4848b54f865>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.walton-on-the-hill.surrey.sch.uk/phonics/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250625097.75/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124191133-20200124220133-00336.warc.gz	en	0.980463	345	4.5625	5	[ 0.019405744969844818, -0.05731748044490814, -0.105076365172863, -0.24658013880252838, -0.4264293313026428, 0.1017371118068695, 0.2604817748069763, -0.15595228970050812, -0.13439100980758667, 0.06367498636245728, 0.26046791672706604, -0.4019857943058014, 0.04534494876861572, 0.7256861925125...	14	Phonics is a method of teaching children to read. Phonics works by breaking words down into it's individual sounds. There are 44 different sounds in the English language. Learning to read with phonics is therefore a bit like learning a code, after learning just a few sounds, you will be able to use this code to read 100's of words. The more sounds you know, the more words you will be able to work out how to read. Not all words are phonetically decode-able however, a select few words you need to learn through the 'sight words' method of learning to read. Sight words is when you learn to read by memorising 1,000's of words individually. Although, it could be argued that this is not the most efficient way to learn to read. An example of this is that someone who has learnt to read through the sight words method might have memorised and be able to read the word 'boat', but may struggle if asked to read the word 'oat'. This would be an easy task for someone who had learnt to read with phonics who was able to use their decoding skills to break each word down into it's individual letter sounds. At Walton on the Hill Primary School we base our phonics teaching on the 'Letters and Sounds' guidance is a phonics resource published by the Department for Education and Skills in 2007. It aims to build children's speaking and listening skills in their own right as well as to prepare children for learning to read by developing their phonic knowledge and skills. We add other resources and strategies to enhance this to ensure all children get the best possible start to their reading which we recognise as the building blocks to their wider education.	357	ENGLISH	1
Ludwig van Beethoven occupies a larger-than-life place in our imaginations, all the more so because late in his life he accomplished the seemingly impossible: He continued to compose beautiful and enduring music even as he went deaf. This achievement is often seen as an example of super-heroic determination, a triumph of the human spirit that tests the boundaries of our species’ ingenuity. But Beethoven the man was not the Beethoven of our imaginations. His story, for all its wonder, is no myth; it offers unfussy but lasting lessons about music, hearing, and disability. To begin with, accounts of Beethoven’s triumph are often overdone. He did not completely lose his hearing until the last decade of his life, if even then. For most of his adulthood he experienced progressive hearing loss, as many of us do as we age. When he wrote the Fifth Symphony, his most recognizable work, he could hear well enough to correct mistakes in the performance. And Beethoven wasn’t a “supercrip,” the term for a person who responds to a disability in ways that inspire others but also set unreasonable expectations. He never claimed to be overcoming his hearing loss. Indeed, he accepted it and adapted to it, and this left recognizable marks on his music. Where can those marks be found? The most obvious answers to that question are probably wrong, or at least misleading. Beethoven wrote a lot of loud music, but for someone with hearing loss, loud music is not necessarily better. Indeed, loud music can be painful to failing ears. Listening to a quiet piano sonata in an environment without distractions would likely be more pleasant than hearing a dramatic symphony. Instead, look for his use of repeating phrases. Repetition is particularly important to someone who is unable to absorb everything on first hearing. Beethoven’s music abounds in repetition, especially repetition of short, highly recognizable units. Musicians call them motives. Beethoven established motives as the building blocks of his longer pieces, a process imitated by many later composers. This is why the four-note motive at the beginning of the Fifth Symphony is repeated throughout the work. When he wrote this music, Beethoven needed to augment his perception of aural cues, much as a person with progressive hearing loss might augment their understanding of speech by beginning to read lips even if they’re not conscious they’re doing so. Another sign can be found in his pianos, which changed over Beethoven’s lifetime. The early Viennese pianos he played as a young man had a clear, bell-like sound that was evidently easy for him to hear even as his hearing faded. As he grew older, he became more, not less, attached to his pianos, but what he needed from them was different. The English Broadwood piano he owned during the last decade of his life was both louder and muddier sounding than the ones with which he grew up—again, the exact opposite of what someone with hearing loss would seem to require. But Beethoven fell in love with the Broadwood for another reason entirely. It was vibrationally alive. The soundboard, which amplifies the vibrations produced by the strings, was connected directly to the body of the instrument, conveying those vibrations back to the keys and even to the floor beneath the instrument. Thus, though he was increasingly deaf, Beethoven began to feel sound in an entirely new way. Late in his life, Beethoven commissioned the creation of a specially designed resonator that would be placed over his piano to magnify both sound and vibration. Recently researchers recreated the resonator; the results can be heard on a new recording of his last three sonatas made by fortepianist Tom Beghin. The preparations for Beghin’s recording made it clear just how important touch had become in Beethoven’s experience of music in his last years. The piano music he wrote at this time incorporated powerful repeated chords, new ways of resolving harmonies, and carefully synchronized passages in which the two hands combine to set the frame of the instrument vibrating from top to bottom. Beethoven also used his eyes to create music. It has been said that both Mozart and Beethoven would compose an entire piece of music in their heads before writing it down. Scholars have known for decades that neither composer ever claimed to have done anything of the sort, but the story persists—perhaps because it provides an idea that is easy to grasp. If this story were true, it would demystify how Beethoven composed in his late years after his ears had failed him. But Beethoven’s creative process was actually less daunting than the myth would have us believe. When you look at virtually any Beethoven manuscript or sketch, you can see that he was creating music on paper, frequently crossing out and replacing things that didn’t look right, or getting carried away with rhythmic, repetitive writing patterns that mirror the emphatic rhythms of much of his music. He heard what he saw and felt as his pen crossed the paper again and again in arcs and arabesques of musical creativity. His final string quartets—actual products of his deafness—have a reputation for a kind of profundity that few nonmusicians could describe in words. There is no easy triumph or memorable musical tidbit to be found in them, but they contain a novel sonic universe that seems all the more remarkable when we know that they were written by a man who could not hear. Beethoven created these new textures and sonorities because he was being led by his eyes as much as by his memories of sound. Rather than detracting from his creative process, his deafness added dimensions to these late works that would not have been there otherwise. Today, Beethoven says less to us about genius and more about how to come to terms with a disability. His experience resonates in an era where forms of human difference have been given unprecedented respect, and words like neurodiversity have entered our vocabulary. Neurodiversity—the idea that all humans occupy a spectrum that includes conditions once considered to be tragic illnesses—has helped bring autism, bipolarity, and depression out of the shadows. In this context it is easier to understand Beethoven’s hearing problems as a normal part of human experience. Music is a multifaceted medium that inspires people to move, to feel, to watch, to think, and to share experiences with others. If composition were a magical superpower, the music of the great composers would not speak to the rest of us. The story Beethoven tells us is not one of triumphing over adversity, but one of acceptance of what cannot be changed, and of creative adaptation employing the tools at hand. It’s time we welcomed Beethoven on his own terms.	<urn:uuid:df0e1624-1f35-4c09-b548-572a79603011>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2019/07/28/why-beethovens-loss-of-hearing-added-new-dimensions-to-his-music/ideas/essay/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607407.48/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122191620-20200122220620-00210.warc.gz	en	0.985193	1,440	3.921875	4	[ -0.06411590427160263, -0.11107887327671051, 0.20118440687656403, 0.20153498649597168, -0.7804226875305176, 0.2098718136548996, 0.24894729256629944, 0.1740589588880539, 0.4518364369869232, -0.46971189975738525, 0.28781408071517944, -0.10129915922880173, -0.2012506127357483, -0.0723271742463...	5	Ludwig van Beethoven occupies a larger-than-life place in our imaginations, all the more so because late in his life he accomplished the seemingly impossible: He continued to compose beautiful and enduring music even as he went deaf. This achievement is often seen as an example of super-heroic determination, a triumph of the human spirit that tests the boundaries of our species’ ingenuity. But Beethoven the man was not the Beethoven of our imaginations. His story, for all its wonder, is no myth; it offers unfussy but lasting lessons about music, hearing, and disability. To begin with, accounts of Beethoven’s triumph are often overdone. He did not completely lose his hearing until the last decade of his life, if even then. For most of his adulthood he experienced progressive hearing loss, as many of us do as we age. When he wrote the Fifth Symphony, his most recognizable work, he could hear well enough to correct mistakes in the performance. And Beethoven wasn’t a “supercrip,” the term for a person who responds to a disability in ways that inspire others but also set unreasonable expectations. He never claimed to be overcoming his hearing loss. Indeed, he accepted it and adapted to it, and this left recognizable marks on his music. Where can those marks be found? The most obvious answers to that question are probably wrong, or at least misleading. Beethoven wrote a lot of loud music, but for someone with hearing loss, loud music is not necessarily better. Indeed, loud music can be painful to failing ears. Listening to a quiet piano sonata in an environment without distractions would likely be more pleasant than hearing a dramatic symphony. Instead, look for his use of repeating phrases. Repetition is particularly important to someone who is unable to absorb everything on first hearing. Beethoven’s music abounds in repetition, especially repetition of short, highly recognizable units. Musicians call them motives. Beethoven established motives as the building blocks of his longer pieces, a process imitated by many later composers. This is why the four-note motive at the beginning of the Fifth Symphony is repeated throughout the work. When he wrote this music, Beethoven needed to augment his perception of aural cues, much as a person with progressive hearing loss might augment their understanding of speech by beginning to read lips even if they’re not conscious they’re doing so. Another sign can be found in his pianos, which changed over Beethoven’s lifetime. The early Viennese pianos he played as a young man had a clear, bell-like sound that was evidently easy for him to hear even as his hearing faded. As he grew older, he became more, not less, attached to his pianos, but what he needed from them was different. The English Broadwood piano he owned during the last decade of his life was both louder and muddier sounding than the ones with which he grew up—again, the exact opposite of what someone with hearing loss would seem to require. But Beethoven fell in love with the Broadwood for another reason entirely. It was vibrationally alive. The soundboard, which amplifies the vibrations produced by the strings, was connected directly to the body of the instrument, conveying those vibrations back to the keys and even to the floor beneath the instrument. Thus, though he was increasingly deaf, Beethoven began to feel sound in an entirely new way. Late in his life, Beethoven commissioned the creation of a specially designed resonator that would be placed over his piano to magnify both sound and vibration. Recently researchers recreated the resonator; the results can be heard on a new recording of his last three sonatas made by fortepianist Tom Beghin. The preparations for Beghin’s recording made it clear just how important touch had become in Beethoven’s experience of music in his last years. The piano music he wrote at this time incorporated powerful repeated chords, new ways of resolving harmonies, and carefully synchronized passages in which the two hands combine to set the frame of the instrument vibrating from top to bottom. Beethoven also used his eyes to create music. It has been said that both Mozart and Beethoven would compose an entire piece of music in their heads before writing it down. Scholars have known for decades that neither composer ever claimed to have done anything of the sort, but the story persists—perhaps because it provides an idea that is easy to grasp. If this story were true, it would demystify how Beethoven composed in his late years after his ears had failed him. But Beethoven’s creative process was actually less daunting than the myth would have us believe. When you look at virtually any Beethoven manuscript or sketch, you can see that he was creating music on paper, frequently crossing out and replacing things that didn’t look right, or getting carried away with rhythmic, repetitive writing patterns that mirror the emphatic rhythms of much of his music. He heard what he saw and felt as his pen crossed the paper again and again in arcs and arabesques of musical creativity. His final string quartets—actual products of his deafness—have a reputation for a kind of profundity that few nonmusicians could describe in words. There is no easy triumph or memorable musical tidbit to be found in them, but they contain a novel sonic universe that seems all the more remarkable when we know that they were written by a man who could not hear. Beethoven created these new textures and sonorities because he was being led by his eyes as much as by his memories of sound. Rather than detracting from his creative process, his deafness added dimensions to these late works that would not have been there otherwise. Today, Beethoven says less to us about genius and more about how to come to terms with a disability. His experience resonates in an era where forms of human difference have been given unprecedented respect, and words like neurodiversity have entered our vocabulary. Neurodiversity—the idea that all humans occupy a spectrum that includes conditions once considered to be tragic illnesses—has helped bring autism, bipolarity, and depression out of the shadows. In this context it is easier to understand Beethoven’s hearing problems as a normal part of human experience. Music is a multifaceted medium that inspires people to move, to feel, to watch, to think, and to share experiences with others. If composition were a magical superpower, the music of the great composers would not speak to the rest of us. The story Beethoven tells us is not one of triumphing over adversity, but one of acceptance of what cannot be changed, and of creative adaptation employing the tools at hand. It’s time we welcomed Beethoven on his own terms.	1,358	ENGLISH	1
From the beginnings of the Old Kingdom until the end of the New Kingdom, the most powerful person in Egypt was the king and occasionally the queen. The king was known as the Pharaoh. This is an Egyptian word meaning ‘great house’. Facts about pharaohs: - Was the political leader. - He held the title ‘Lord of Two Lands’ because he ruled both Upper and Lower Egypt. - He owned all the land in Egypt. - He made the laws. - He collected the taxes. - The pharaoh could lead his people into war if Egypt was attacked or if he wanted to expand his power. - He was also the religious leader. - He was the ‘High Priest of Every Temple’. - He represented the Gods on earth. - He performed rituals and built temples. Ancient Egyptian People Most Egyptians worked in the fields along the banks of the Nile, growing crops for themselves and to pay in taxes. They did not own their land or their house. Everything belonged to the pharaoh. The Egyptians accepted this, for 3000 years, because it was part of their religion. The pharaoh was a god and it was important not to upset the gods. The wall paintings show Egypt as a peaceful place with men and women working in the fields, people catching wild birds in snares, bakers baking bread, carpenters and shipwrights building ships, goods being transported on the Nile. The pharaoh, however, maintained this peace by making sure that rulers in other lands did not attack Egypt. We have a whole series of wall paintings which shows the Pharaoh Ramses II invading Nubia and conquering the people there. Here is Ramses attacking the Nubians from his chariot. You can see that several of them have already been killed or wounded. Since the Nubians were defeated, they had to bring Ramses gold, food, wild animals, and many other objects. Here Ramses is sitting on his golden throne in front of a procession of defeated Nubians bringing him tribute (the goods a defeated people paid to the conqueror). The Egyptian pharaoh was expected to be able to lead his people In order to govern the whole country, the pharaoh had many officials. There were royal officers and sheriffs in every Egyptian town who made sure that everyone paid their taxes and obeyed the Pharaoh. Egyptian Government Officials The most important official was the pharaoh’s vizier. There was also a network of mayors, scribes and priests. Some of the tasks of thy had were: - Maintaining a police force to keep the country peaceful; - Maintaining the courts to give people justice and to punish criminals; - Maintaining an army; - Building the royal monuments such as temples; - Controlling the supply of food; distributing the food. - Holding a census to count the population in order to collect taxes; - Collecting the taxes; - Keeping the state records; everything of importance was written down; - Maintaining important industries such as ship-building, brick-making and stone quarrying; - Keeping the annual records of the Nile’s water level. What happened when the Pharaoh died? When a pharaoh died, he was usually succeeded by a son or other relative. If the new pharaoh was a child, the high court officials guided and advised him, but he still had to attend rituals and play the part of a king. Usually a young prince was well-trained in the skills he needed to become a pharaoh. He was expected to be expert at sports such as hunting and using a bow and arrow. He needed to be expert in driving a war chariot and understand how to command an army. These skills were necessary to defend the rich land of Egypt against its neighbors. It was then possible for the government to maintain peace at home. One of the strangest things about ancient Egypt is that there are hardly any cases known of a pharaoh being assassinated (murdered by one of his own people). The few cases where a pharaoh was murdered seem to be when there was a plot at court to replace him with another prince (perhaps because the other prince was a better leader in war). Unlike almost all other early (and later) civilizations, however, most of the rulers of ancient Egypt died peacefully of old age.	<urn:uuid:a652c3c7-6c89-4ddc-b25d-7a0e476f89d1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.historyforkids.net/egyptian-government.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00205.warc.gz	en	0.983958	931	3.671875	4	[ -0.05222266539931297, 0.992969810962677, 0.4413473606109619, -0.17480294406414032, -0.4730103015899658, -0.16960307955741882, 0.7304221391677856, -0.43771445751190186, -0.07515831291675568, 0.2919396162033081, 0.007869238033890724, -0.4339798390865326, -0.16848896443843842, -0.007333586923...	11	From the beginnings of the Old Kingdom until the end of the New Kingdom, the most powerful person in Egypt was the king and occasionally the queen. The king was known as the Pharaoh. This is an Egyptian word meaning ‘great house’. Facts about pharaohs: - Was the political leader. - He held the title ‘Lord of Two Lands’ because he ruled both Upper and Lower Egypt. - He owned all the land in Egypt. - He made the laws. - He collected the taxes. - The pharaoh could lead his people into war if Egypt was attacked or if he wanted to expand his power. - He was also the religious leader. - He was the ‘High Priest of Every Temple’. - He represented the Gods on earth. - He performed rituals and built temples. Ancient Egyptian People Most Egyptians worked in the fields along the banks of the Nile, growing crops for themselves and to pay in taxes. They did not own their land or their house. Everything belonged to the pharaoh. The Egyptians accepted this, for 3000 years, because it was part of their religion. The pharaoh was a god and it was important not to upset the gods. The wall paintings show Egypt as a peaceful place with men and women working in the fields, people catching wild birds in snares, bakers baking bread, carpenters and shipwrights building ships, goods being transported on the Nile. The pharaoh, however, maintained this peace by making sure that rulers in other lands did not attack Egypt. We have a whole series of wall paintings which shows the Pharaoh Ramses II invading Nubia and conquering the people there. Here is Ramses attacking the Nubians from his chariot. You can see that several of them have already been killed or wounded. Since the Nubians were defeated, they had to bring Ramses gold, food, wild animals, and many other objects. Here Ramses is sitting on his golden throne in front of a procession of defeated Nubians bringing him tribute (the goods a defeated people paid to the conqueror). The Egyptian pharaoh was expected to be able to lead his people In order to govern the whole country, the pharaoh had many officials. There were royal officers and sheriffs in every Egyptian town who made sure that everyone paid their taxes and obeyed the Pharaoh. Egyptian Government Officials The most important official was the pharaoh’s vizier. There was also a network of mayors, scribes and priests. Some of the tasks of thy had were: - Maintaining a police force to keep the country peaceful; - Maintaining the courts to give people justice and to punish criminals; - Maintaining an army; - Building the royal monuments such as temples; - Controlling the supply of food; distributing the food. - Holding a census to count the population in order to collect taxes; - Collecting the taxes; - Keeping the state records; everything of importance was written down; - Maintaining important industries such as ship-building, brick-making and stone quarrying; - Keeping the annual records of the Nile’s water level. What happened when the Pharaoh died? When a pharaoh died, he was usually succeeded by a son or other relative. If the new pharaoh was a child, the high court officials guided and advised him, but he still had to attend rituals and play the part of a king. Usually a young prince was well-trained in the skills he needed to become a pharaoh. He was expected to be expert at sports such as hunting and using a bow and arrow. He needed to be expert in driving a war chariot and understand how to command an army. These skills were necessary to defend the rich land of Egypt against its neighbors. It was then possible for the government to maintain peace at home. One of the strangest things about ancient Egypt is that there are hardly any cases known of a pharaoh being assassinated (murdered by one of his own people). The few cases where a pharaoh was murdered seem to be when there was a plot at court to replace him with another prince (perhaps because the other prince was a better leader in war). Unlike almost all other early (and later) civilizations, however, most of the rulers of ancient Egypt died peacefully of old age.	880	ENGLISH	1
Fidel Castro, leader of Cuba since 1959, was born in 1926 in Biran, Cuba. Castro’s father was a sugar-planter. Fidel Castro got deeply into politics during his student days when he studied Law at Havana University. After qualifying as a lawyer in 1950, Castro spent his time giving legal representation to the poor in Havana. The capital of Cuba had become something of an American playboy’s playground and while some did very well out of the situation, very many Cubans were poor. In 1952, Fulgencio Batista took over control of the island and, supported by the army, ruled as a dictator. Castro was jailed in 1953 after forming an armed resistance unit with his brother Raul. That attacked the Moncada barracks near to where he was born in Santiago del Cuba. Castro lost 60 supporters in this attack. In 1955, Batista released Castro under an amnesty and he went to live primarily in Mexico. He met Che Guevara here in the same year and together they plotted for a violent revolution to overthrow Batista. In December 1956, Castro attacked the Cuban Army in the east of the island. They were unsuccessful and the survivors fled inland to the relative safety of the Sierra Maestra. Here, Castro’s followers worked to help the peasants who lived in rural eastern Cuba. By taking this stance, Castro won over these people and his views began to spread out from the eastern enclave where he had his followers were. By 1958, Castro felt strong enough to launch a full-scale attack on Batista. It was so successful that on January 8th, 1959, Castro entered Havana in triumph and the dictator was forced to flee the island and Castro was proclaimed the leader of the revolution one month later. Many in Cuba were very poor – health and educational facilities for the poor were either extremely basic if they existed at all in some areas. To pay for the development of such things, in 1960, Castro nationalised American-owned businesses on the island. Money from these businesses was ploughed into schools and hospitals. America responded by putting Cuba under a trade embargo. Prior to this America had been the primary purchaser of Cuba’s sugar – a major money-earner for the island. Cuba turned to the USSR for support and Khrushchev, head of the USSR, saw this as an opportunity to developed a close relationship with a nation just 90 miles from the coast of Florida. The Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 showed Castro just how vulnerable Cuba could be. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a fiasco but the American president, J F Kennedy, told the world that he had been forced into supporting the venture because of what Castro had done – i.e. that it was the fault of the Cuban leader. Castro knew that the island could not hold out against a sustained attack by America and turned to the USSR for help. The end result of this was that the USSR based intermediate range nuclear missiles on the island. Castro argued that they were for defensive purposes and that Cuba was entitled to place on its soil whatever it chose to. Kennedy saw the missiles as being nothing more than a gesture of aggression to America. After a period when many thought that the world was being pushed into a nuclear war, Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles. However, even after this had happened, as far as the American government was concerned, Castro had shown where his true loyalty lay – Moscow. The trade embargo, which encompassed travel restrictions, remained. To the American government Castro was a major thorn in their side. Figures vary as to how many times America has tried to assassinate Castro but the Cuban Secret Police, charged with protecting Castro, claim that there have been 638 attempts on the Cuban leader’s life since he took office in 1959 ranging, so it is claimed, from CIA developed exploding cigars to a wet suit lined with poison – to take advantage of Castro’s love of diving. According to one of Castro’s personal assistants the plot must have had an impact as Castro ordered that his underwear be burned after each wear in case they were impregnated with poison while being laundered. ‘Operation Good Times’ was a plot to discredit Castro internationally by producing fake photos of the leader in compromising positions surrounded by luxury goods. The idea was that the Cubans would turn against their leader after he would be seen with luxury goods despite what he preached whilst they remained in poverty. The plot failed. In ‘Operation Freedom Ride’ thousands of free one-way air tickets to Mexico were dropped on the island. Castro had declared himself to be a ‘Marxist–Leninist’. However, his definition of this varied as time moved on and he involved himself in Africa and wherever a movement of the people seemed to be occurring. All the time, Cuba had to face up to the fact that her economy was being withered by America’s trade embargo. However, by 2000, both the health and education systems had been massively reformed so that all in Cuba have a right to free education and health care. Literacy has increased many times and Cuban hospitals, though basic, provide a good service for the people. In August 2006, Castro temporarily stood down following an operation for intestinal bleeding. His brother, Raul, was appointed to lead the country while Fidel Castro recuperated. Raul was with his brother from the start of the movement against Batista. It was Raul who befriended Che Guevara before Fidel met him and brought him into the revolutionary’s armed camp. Raul proved loyal to his brother and no one has ever doubted his loyalty to communism: “Only the Communist Party, as the institution that brings together the revolutionary vanguard and will always guarantee the unity of Cubans, can be the worthy heir of the trust deposited by the people in their leader.” “We have in Raul a colossus in the defence of revolutionary principles. Raul is Fidel multiplied by two in energy, in inflexibility, in fibre. Raul is tempered steel.” Alberto Bayo - The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the few times that the 'rules' of the Cold War were nearly forgotten. Berlin, Korea, Hungary and Suez…	<urn:uuid:010184a0-3209-4812-943e-a4e8c955e5c7>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/the-cold-war/fidel-castro/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597458.22/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120052454-20200120080454-00550.warc.gz	en	0.987708	1,286	3.71875	4	[ -0.49351364374160767, 0.2636786103248596, -0.14834743738174438, -0.09586764872074127, 0.19326138496398926, 0.05836606025695801, -0.054300855845212936, -0.30850547552108765, -0.5107244849205017, -0.2029937207698822, 0.23819810152053833, -0.08587455004453659, -0.25327324867248535, 0.34546294...	9	Fidel Castro, leader of Cuba since 1959, was born in 1926 in Biran, Cuba. Castro’s father was a sugar-planter. Fidel Castro got deeply into politics during his student days when he studied Law at Havana University. After qualifying as a lawyer in 1950, Castro spent his time giving legal representation to the poor in Havana. The capital of Cuba had become something of an American playboy’s playground and while some did very well out of the situation, very many Cubans were poor. In 1952, Fulgencio Batista took over control of the island and, supported by the army, ruled as a dictator. Castro was jailed in 1953 after forming an armed resistance unit with his brother Raul. That attacked the Moncada barracks near to where he was born in Santiago del Cuba. Castro lost 60 supporters in this attack. In 1955, Batista released Castro under an amnesty and he went to live primarily in Mexico. He met Che Guevara here in the same year and together they plotted for a violent revolution to overthrow Batista. In December 1956, Castro attacked the Cuban Army in the east of the island. They were unsuccessful and the survivors fled inland to the relative safety of the Sierra Maestra. Here, Castro’s followers worked to help the peasants who lived in rural eastern Cuba. By taking this stance, Castro won over these people and his views began to spread out from the eastern enclave where he had his followers were. By 1958, Castro felt strong enough to launch a full-scale attack on Batista. It was so successful that on January 8th, 1959, Castro entered Havana in triumph and the dictator was forced to flee the island and Castro was proclaimed the leader of the revolution one month later. Many in Cuba were very poor – health and educational facilities for the poor were either extremely basic if they existed at all in some areas. To pay for the development of such things, in 1960, Castro nationalised American-owned businesses on the island. Money from these businesses was ploughed into schools and hospitals. America responded by putting Cuba under a trade embargo. Prior to this America had been the primary purchaser of Cuba’s sugar – a major money-earner for the island. Cuba turned to the USSR for support and Khrushchev, head of the USSR, saw this as an opportunity to developed a close relationship with a nation just 90 miles from the coast of Florida. The Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 showed Castro just how vulnerable Cuba could be. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a fiasco but the American president, J F Kennedy, told the world that he had been forced into supporting the venture because of what Castro had done – i.e. that it was the fault of the Cuban leader. Castro knew that the island could not hold out against a sustained attack by America and turned to the USSR for help. The end result of this was that the USSR based intermediate range nuclear missiles on the island. Castro argued that they were for defensive purposes and that Cuba was entitled to place on its soil whatever it chose to. Kennedy saw the missiles as being nothing more than a gesture of aggression to America. After a period when many thought that the world was being pushed into a nuclear war, Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles. However, even after this had happened, as far as the American government was concerned, Castro had shown where his true loyalty lay – Moscow. The trade embargo, which encompassed travel restrictions, remained. To the American government Castro was a major thorn in their side. Figures vary as to how many times America has tried to assassinate Castro but the Cuban Secret Police, charged with protecting Castro, claim that there have been 638 attempts on the Cuban leader’s life since he took office in 1959 ranging, so it is claimed, from CIA developed exploding cigars to a wet suit lined with poison – to take advantage of Castro’s love of diving. According to one of Castro’s personal assistants the plot must have had an impact as Castro ordered that his underwear be burned after each wear in case they were impregnated with poison while being laundered. ‘Operation Good Times’ was a plot to discredit Castro internationally by producing fake photos of the leader in compromising positions surrounded by luxury goods. The idea was that the Cubans would turn against their leader after he would be seen with luxury goods despite what he preached whilst they remained in poverty. The plot failed. In ‘Operation Freedom Ride’ thousands of free one-way air tickets to Mexico were dropped on the island. Castro had declared himself to be a ‘Marxist–Leninist’. However, his definition of this varied as time moved on and he involved himself in Africa and wherever a movement of the people seemed to be occurring. All the time, Cuba had to face up to the fact that her economy was being withered by America’s trade embargo. However, by 2000, both the health and education systems had been massively reformed so that all in Cuba have a right to free education and health care. Literacy has increased many times and Cuban hospitals, though basic, provide a good service for the people. In August 2006, Castro temporarily stood down following an operation for intestinal bleeding. His brother, Raul, was appointed to lead the country while Fidel Castro recuperated. Raul was with his brother from the start of the movement against Batista. It was Raul who befriended Che Guevara before Fidel met him and brought him into the revolutionary’s armed camp. Raul proved loyal to his brother and no one has ever doubted his loyalty to communism: “Only the Communist Party, as the institution that brings together the revolutionary vanguard and will always guarantee the unity of Cubans, can be the worthy heir of the trust deposited by the people in their leader.” “We have in Raul a colossus in the defence of revolutionary principles. Raul is Fidel multiplied by two in energy, in inflexibility, in fibre. Raul is tempered steel.” Alberto Bayo - The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the few times that the 'rules' of the Cold War were nearly forgotten. Berlin, Korea, Hungary and Suez…	1,315	ENGLISH	1
Stephen Hawking, who died March 14 at age 76, was a renowned British theoretical physicist and author. He was also an astronomer, mathematician, cosmologist and was considered by many to be the world's greatest living scientist. Hawking also happened to have ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), a neurodegenerative disorder known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The disease is merely a postscript on Hawking's life story. Although it eventually robbed him of his ability to move or speak without technological assistance, ALS never defined the man. However, it did bring attention to the disorder and Hawking's determination to overcome any obstacles it threw in his path. "I am quite often asked: how do you feel about having ALS?" he once wrote. "The answer is, not a lot. I try to lead as normal a life as possible, and not think about my condition, or regret the things it prevents me from doing, which are not that many." What is ALS? ALS is actually a group of rare neurological diseases that involve the nerve cells that control voluntary muscle movements like talking, walking and chewing, according to the National Institutes of Health. ALS is part of a larger group of disorders known as motor neuron diseases, which are caused by gradual deterioration and death of motor neurons. Those are the nerve cells that go from the brain to the spinal cord and to the body's muscles. These motor neurons are key for communication between the brain and voluntary muscles. With ALS, the nerve cells lose their ability to send messages from the brain to the muscles. The muscles gradually weaken and lose their ability to work, so ALS patients first lose their strength, then their ability to speak, eat, move and breathe. Men are slightly more likely to develop ALS than women. Although it can start at any age, it most commonly develops between the ages of 55 and 75. The disease is progressive and there's no cure or treatment to keep symptoms from getting worse. Most people die from respiratory failure, usually within three to five years after symptoms first appear. Only about 10 percent of people who have ALS survive a decade or more. No one knows for certain what causes the disease, however evidence suggests that genetics and environment play a role. Hawking's ALS journey Hawking was diagnosed with ALS in 1963, shortly after his 21st birthday. By the end of the '60s, he had lost mobility to the point that he was using a wheelchair. By the late '70s, his speech had begun to deteriorate. After an attack of pneumonia and a tracheotomy when he was 44, he lost the remainder of his ability to speak. From then on, he communicated with the help of a computer synthesizer attached to his wheelchair. Hawking lived with ALS for more than 50 years, an incredible lifespan for someone with the condition. Hawking is thought to be one of the disease's longest survivors, according to the Rare Disease Report. Many believe that his longevity could be linked to his genetic makeup or his early diagnosis, both of which have been linked with increased survival. Triumph over adversity Like so many who face serious illness, when Hawking was first diagnosed, he felt sorry for himself. "I felt it was very unfair — why should this happen to me?" he wrote in his 2013 memoir, "My Brief History." "At the time, I thought my life was over and that I would never realise the potential I felt I had." He said he didn't want to ask doctors for details, because he knew the diagnosis was grim. So he kept learning and advancing to the forefront of his field, taking any necessary steps that would help him move, eat or be understood, but never letting the disease stop him. In 2014, when the Ice Bucket Challenge swept social media, raising more than $220 million for ALS research, Hawking couldn't take part because the risk of pneumonia would be too great, but he offered a video of his children — Robert, Lucy and Tim — "gallantly" participating on his behalf. Professor James Hartle, who worked with Hawking to create the Hartle-Hawking wavefunction to explain the Big Bang, told BBC Radio Four, "My memory of him would be … first our work together as scientists and, second, as a human being whose whole story is a triumph over adversity [and] who inspired a lot of people, including me." Stephen Hawking inspired me before ALS - to keep asking questions, seeking answers, and understanding the cosmic perspective. But since ALS, he saved my life with his example - people diagnosed with ALS can continue to live productive & purposeful lives for decades.— Steve Gleason - Noun (@SteveGleason) March 14, 2018	<urn:uuid:29c0f329-ca51-4983-a61d-5cce122b0d8e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/stories/how-stephen-hawking-brought-attention-als	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00115.warc.gz	en	0.983354	965	3.265625	3	[ 0.006466323044151068, 0.3383750319480896, 0.10311762243509293, -0.24528655409812927, -0.1432628184556961, 0.48169928789138794, 0.6395496726036072, 0.2648196220397949, -0.06516820937395096, -0.2909848690032959, 0.21572858095169067, 0.06737346947193146, -0.05218486860394478, 0.37044337391853...	1	Stephen Hawking, who died March 14 at age 76, was a renowned British theoretical physicist and author. He was also an astronomer, mathematician, cosmologist and was considered by many to be the world's greatest living scientist. Hawking also happened to have ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), a neurodegenerative disorder known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The disease is merely a postscript on Hawking's life story. Although it eventually robbed him of his ability to move or speak without technological assistance, ALS never defined the man. However, it did bring attention to the disorder and Hawking's determination to overcome any obstacles it threw in his path. "I am quite often asked: how do you feel about having ALS?" he once wrote. "The answer is, not a lot. I try to lead as normal a life as possible, and not think about my condition, or regret the things it prevents me from doing, which are not that many." What is ALS? ALS is actually a group of rare neurological diseases that involve the nerve cells that control voluntary muscle movements like talking, walking and chewing, according to the National Institutes of Health. ALS is part of a larger group of disorders known as motor neuron diseases, which are caused by gradual deterioration and death of motor neurons. Those are the nerve cells that go from the brain to the spinal cord and to the body's muscles. These motor neurons are key for communication between the brain and voluntary muscles. With ALS, the nerve cells lose their ability to send messages from the brain to the muscles. The muscles gradually weaken and lose their ability to work, so ALS patients first lose their strength, then their ability to speak, eat, move and breathe. Men are slightly more likely to develop ALS than women. Although it can start at any age, it most commonly develops between the ages of 55 and 75. The disease is progressive and there's no cure or treatment to keep symptoms from getting worse. Most people die from respiratory failure, usually within three to five years after symptoms first appear. Only about 10 percent of people who have ALS survive a decade or more. No one knows for certain what causes the disease, however evidence suggests that genetics and environment play a role. Hawking's ALS journey Hawking was diagnosed with ALS in 1963, shortly after his 21st birthday. By the end of the '60s, he had lost mobility to the point that he was using a wheelchair. By the late '70s, his speech had begun to deteriorate. After an attack of pneumonia and a tracheotomy when he was 44, he lost the remainder of his ability to speak. From then on, he communicated with the help of a computer synthesizer attached to his wheelchair. Hawking lived with ALS for more than 50 years, an incredible lifespan for someone with the condition. Hawking is thought to be one of the disease's longest survivors, according to the Rare Disease Report. Many believe that his longevity could be linked to his genetic makeup or his early diagnosis, both of which have been linked with increased survival. Triumph over adversity Like so many who face serious illness, when Hawking was first diagnosed, he felt sorry for himself. "I felt it was very unfair — why should this happen to me?" he wrote in his 2013 memoir, "My Brief History." "At the time, I thought my life was over and that I would never realise the potential I felt I had." He said he didn't want to ask doctors for details, because he knew the diagnosis was grim. So he kept learning and advancing to the forefront of his field, taking any necessary steps that would help him move, eat or be understood, but never letting the disease stop him. In 2014, when the Ice Bucket Challenge swept social media, raising more than $220 million for ALS research, Hawking couldn't take part because the risk of pneumonia would be too great, but he offered a video of his children — Robert, Lucy and Tim — "gallantly" participating on his behalf. Professor James Hartle, who worked with Hawking to create the Hartle-Hawking wavefunction to explain the Big Bang, told BBC Radio Four, "My memory of him would be … first our work together as scientists and, second, as a human being whose whole story is a triumph over adversity [and] who inspired a lot of people, including me." Stephen Hawking inspired me before ALS - to keep asking questions, seeking answers, and understanding the cosmic perspective. But since ALS, he saved my life with his example - people diagnosed with ALS can continue to live productive & purposeful lives for decades.— Steve Gleason - Noun (@SteveGleason) March 14, 2018	996	ENGLISH	1
General William Alexander, Lord Stirling, dies On this day in history, January 15, 1783, General William Alexander, Lord Stirling, dies at Albany, New York. William Alexander was born in New York in 1726 to a wealthy family involved in provisioning the British army. Due to his experience in provisioning, Alexander joined the army’s commissariat during the French and Indian War and eventually became chief aide to Commander-in-Chief William Shirley. During this time, Alexander first met and became friends with Colonel George Washington. In 1756, while on a trip to London, Alexander learned that he may be the oldest male heir to a vacant title, the "Earl of Stirling," a position that carried with it a vast land claim, including parts of Nova Scotia and the entire St. Lawrence River Valley. He made an appeal to Parliament which granted his claim. However, in 1762, the House of Lords decided he had not adequately proven his pedigree and removed the title. Alexander had already returned to America by this time though and adopted the title Lord Stirling, which he would carry for the rest of his life. When the America Revolution began, Stirling became a colonel of the New Jersey militia and was celebrated for capturing a British transport at Sandy Hook. He was promoted to Brigadier General and given control of the defenses of New York, where he built Forts Washington, Lee and Stirling. He also recommended to General Washington that a redoubt be built at West Point, the foundation for the fort and later military academy there. When the British invaded Long Island, Alexander led a battalion of 300 men that held off the entire British army for several hours. Alexander’s men were finally overwhelmed and he was captured, but the rest of the army was able to escape and Alexander was celebrated as a hero. After a few months in prison, he was traded in a prisoner exchange for Governor Montfort Browne, the Governor of the Bahamas. Alexander returned in time to fight at the Battle of Trenton where a Hessian brigade surrendered to him. Alexander was promoted to Major General and became one of George Washington’s most trusted subordinates. He was third or fourth in command of the entire army for the rest of the war. He participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown and Monmouth. He presided over the court-martial of General Charles Lee and was a member of the military court that sentenced British spy John Andre to death for helping Benedict Arnold. Alexander played a key role in exposing the "Conway Cabal," a group of officers that plotted to have Washington replaced by General Horatio Gates. When the war moved to the south, General Alexander was given command of the army’s Northern Department in case of a new British invasion from Canada, making his headquarters at Albany. Alexander had many health problems and was a heavy drinker. In January, 1783, while at Albany, he had a severe attack of gout (severe arthritis) and passed away on January 15 at the age of 56, only three months before the preliminary peace treaty with Britain was signed by Congress. National Society Sons of the American Revolution "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." George Washington (1795)	<urn:uuid:6e9c0e8e-c483-4742-a5f7-c8fc8833e0c8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://blog.alssar.org/uncategorized/general-william-alexander-lord-stirling-dies-5/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00058.warc.gz	en	0.981348	675	3.53125	4	[ -0.15483172237873077, 0.28152817487716675, 0.6678056120872498, -0.27795305848121643, -0.31559497117996216, -0.2593298554420471, 0.06989172101020813, 0.04820066690444946, -0.2861349284648895, -0.09379784762859344, -0.04331899434328079, -0.19671982526779175, -0.063417449593544, 0.41385549306...	3	General William Alexander, Lord Stirling, dies On this day in history, January 15, 1783, General William Alexander, Lord Stirling, dies at Albany, New York. William Alexander was born in New York in 1726 to a wealthy family involved in provisioning the British army. Due to his experience in provisioning, Alexander joined the army’s commissariat during the French and Indian War and eventually became chief aide to Commander-in-Chief William Shirley. During this time, Alexander first met and became friends with Colonel George Washington. In 1756, while on a trip to London, Alexander learned that he may be the oldest male heir to a vacant title, the "Earl of Stirling," a position that carried with it a vast land claim, including parts of Nova Scotia and the entire St. Lawrence River Valley. He made an appeal to Parliament which granted his claim. However, in 1762, the House of Lords decided he had not adequately proven his pedigree and removed the title. Alexander had already returned to America by this time though and adopted the title Lord Stirling, which he would carry for the rest of his life. When the America Revolution began, Stirling became a colonel of the New Jersey militia and was celebrated for capturing a British transport at Sandy Hook. He was promoted to Brigadier General and given control of the defenses of New York, where he built Forts Washington, Lee and Stirling. He also recommended to General Washington that a redoubt be built at West Point, the foundation for the fort and later military academy there. When the British invaded Long Island, Alexander led a battalion of 300 men that held off the entire British army for several hours. Alexander’s men were finally overwhelmed and he was captured, but the rest of the army was able to escape and Alexander was celebrated as a hero. After a few months in prison, he was traded in a prisoner exchange for Governor Montfort Browne, the Governor of the Bahamas. Alexander returned in time to fight at the Battle of Trenton where a Hessian brigade surrendered to him. Alexander was promoted to Major General and became one of George Washington’s most trusted subordinates. He was third or fourth in command of the entire army for the rest of the war. He participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown and Monmouth. He presided over the court-martial of General Charles Lee and was a member of the military court that sentenced British spy John Andre to death for helping Benedict Arnold. Alexander played a key role in exposing the "Conway Cabal," a group of officers that plotted to have Washington replaced by General Horatio Gates. When the war moved to the south, General Alexander was given command of the army’s Northern Department in case of a new British invasion from Canada, making his headquarters at Albany. Alexander had many health problems and was a heavy drinker. In January, 1783, while at Albany, he had a severe attack of gout (severe arthritis) and passed away on January 15 at the age of 56, only three months before the preliminary peace treaty with Britain was signed by Congress. National Society Sons of the American Revolution "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." George Washington (1795)	688	ENGLISH	1
What happened to the Roanoke colony? The Roanoke Colony was the first English settlement in America. It vanished. The mystery of the lost colony of Roanoke Island has baffled society for hundreds of years. A group of settlers disappeared into North America with hardly a trace and no one has seen concrete evidence of their existence in centuries. Many theories have arisen over the years as to the fate of these settlers, but nothing is certain. Today, there is only speculation about the Roanoke Colony mystery. Establishment of a Colony After hearing news of a lush, beautiful area in the Americas Queen Elizabeth I, of England, decides to name this new place Virginia. Subsequently, she gives Sir Walter Raleigh permission to establish a colony in the area. He was to finance and plan the expedition to what is now North Carolina. Raleigh has 10 years to complete this mission. In 1585, an expedition comprised only of around 77 men were sent to start the colony. They were led by Sir Richard Grenville. Shortly after the arrival, the men begin to suspect that local Indians have stolen a silver cup from them. In retaliation, they destroy their village and burn the chief alive. Despite the obvious discourse with the natives, Grenville decides to leave the men there to build the proposed colony. He vows to return in April of 1586. When April passes and there is no sign of Grenville the men decide to hitch a ride home with Sir Francis Drake. Drake had stopped at the colony on his way back from a successful voyage to the Caribbean. Ironically Grenville arrived shortly thereafter. After finding the settlement empty, he decides to leave 15 men there to protect England’s claim. John White and the Roanoke Settlement The second group of settlers arrived at Roanoke Island on July 22, 1587. This group contains 117 people, both men and women. They are led by John White. John White’s daughter would give birth to the first English child born in America on August 18, 1587. The child’s name was Virginia Dare. These people would later become known as the Lost Colony of Roanoke Island. The settlers built their colony and tried to make peace with the natives. They were successful in befriending the Croatoan tribe, but other tribes were openly hostile toward the colonists. A settler by the name of George Howe was murdered by natives while hunting crab on the beach. After this incident, the settlers became nervous about their new home and convinced John White to return to England and ask for help. John White reluctantly left. He would never see any of these people again. When John White arrived in England, he was unable to secure passage back to the colony. He was unable to find a Captain that would sail the Atlantic in the dead of winter, so he was forced to wait. Then the opposing threat of the Spanish Armada forced all available ships to be called to war. Eventually, John was able to secure passage on two small boats. Unfortunately, the owners of these boats were greedy men and they tried to capture other ships during their voyage. They were then captured, in turn, and relieved of their cargo. John White was unable to attempt another crossing for three years. Nothing Left To Return To John White finally returned to Roanoke Island on August 18, 1590. His granddaughter’s third birthday. To his dismay, there was no sign of his friends and family. The Roanoke colony had been dismantled and deserted. The only clues to the whereabouts of the colonists were carvings in a remaining post and a tree. The carving on the post read “Croatoan” and the carving in the tree was even more cryptic, it simply said “Cro.” John took these clues to mean that the Roanoke colony had moved to nearby “Croatoan Island.” Before White’s departure, they had agreed that if the settlers were forced to leave they would carve a Maltese cross into a tree. In the absence of such a carving, John could only assume that they left of their own volition. John was compelled to search for the colonists but was forced to return to England due to inclement weather. He would never set foot on Roanoke Island again. There are many theories concerning the Roanoke colony mystery. They could have left due to weather, food shortage or threat of attack by local tribes. One thing is for sure, nothing is certain. Future settlers and explorers would claim to have spotted natives with light hair and eyes or natives that spoke perfect English. These claims may explain where the settlers went. It is highly likely that they integrated into the Croatoan tribe, but there is no concrete evidence of this. Hause, Eric, “The Lost Colony, Roanoke Island N.C.”, retrieved 5/9/09	<urn:uuid:1e54cfb5-2de6-439c-8755-f8c0932fc697>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.historicmysteries.com/roanoke-colony/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601615.66/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121044233-20200121073233-00226.warc.gz	en	0.984434	1,004	3.625	4	[ -0.013660785742104053, 0.36419767141342163, 0.3126518726348877, -0.048269640654325485, 0.0954170972108841, -0.10545845329761505, 0.32052481174468994, 0.005057359579950571, -0.05587990581989288, 0.34150928258895874, 0.6318433284759521, -0.20545744895935059, -0.09436026215553284, 0.013010988...	3	What happened to the Roanoke colony? The Roanoke Colony was the first English settlement in America. It vanished. The mystery of the lost colony of Roanoke Island has baffled society for hundreds of years. A group of settlers disappeared into North America with hardly a trace and no one has seen concrete evidence of their existence in centuries. Many theories have arisen over the years as to the fate of these settlers, but nothing is certain. Today, there is only speculation about the Roanoke Colony mystery. Establishment of a Colony After hearing news of a lush, beautiful area in the Americas Queen Elizabeth I, of England, decides to name this new place Virginia. Subsequently, she gives Sir Walter Raleigh permission to establish a colony in the area. He was to finance and plan the expedition to what is now North Carolina. Raleigh has 10 years to complete this mission. In 1585, an expedition comprised only of around 77 men were sent to start the colony. They were led by Sir Richard Grenville. Shortly after the arrival, the men begin to suspect that local Indians have stolen a silver cup from them. In retaliation, they destroy their village and burn the chief alive. Despite the obvious discourse with the natives, Grenville decides to leave the men there to build the proposed colony. He vows to return in April of 1586. When April passes and there is no sign of Grenville the men decide to hitch a ride home with Sir Francis Drake. Drake had stopped at the colony on his way back from a successful voyage to the Caribbean. Ironically Grenville arrived shortly thereafter. After finding the settlement empty, he decides to leave 15 men there to protect England’s claim. John White and the Roanoke Settlement The second group of settlers arrived at Roanoke Island on July 22, 1587. This group contains 117 people, both men and women. They are led by John White. John White’s daughter would give birth to the first English child born in America on August 18, 1587. The child’s name was Virginia Dare. These people would later become known as the Lost Colony of Roanoke Island. The settlers built their colony and tried to make peace with the natives. They were successful in befriending the Croatoan tribe, but other tribes were openly hostile toward the colonists. A settler by the name of George Howe was murdered by natives while hunting crab on the beach. After this incident, the settlers became nervous about their new home and convinced John White to return to England and ask for help. John White reluctantly left. He would never see any of these people again. When John White arrived in England, he was unable to secure passage back to the colony. He was unable to find a Captain that would sail the Atlantic in the dead of winter, so he was forced to wait. Then the opposing threat of the Spanish Armada forced all available ships to be called to war. Eventually, John was able to secure passage on two small boats. Unfortunately, the owners of these boats were greedy men and they tried to capture other ships during their voyage. They were then captured, in turn, and relieved of their cargo. John White was unable to attempt another crossing for three years. Nothing Left To Return To John White finally returned to Roanoke Island on August 18, 1590. His granddaughter’s third birthday. To his dismay, there was no sign of his friends and family. The Roanoke colony had been dismantled and deserted. The only clues to the whereabouts of the colonists were carvings in a remaining post and a tree. The carving on the post read “Croatoan” and the carving in the tree was even more cryptic, it simply said “Cro.” John took these clues to mean that the Roanoke colony had moved to nearby “Croatoan Island.” Before White’s departure, they had agreed that if the settlers were forced to leave they would carve a Maltese cross into a tree. In the absence of such a carving, John could only assume that they left of their own volition. John was compelled to search for the colonists but was forced to return to England due to inclement weather. He would never set foot on Roanoke Island again. There are many theories concerning the Roanoke colony mystery. They could have left due to weather, food shortage or threat of attack by local tribes. One thing is for sure, nothing is certain. Future settlers and explorers would claim to have spotted natives with light hair and eyes or natives that spoke perfect English. These claims may explain where the settlers went. It is highly likely that they integrated into the Croatoan tribe, but there is no concrete evidence of this. Hause, Eric, “The Lost Colony, Roanoke Island N.C.”, retrieved 5/9/09	1,012	ENGLISH	1
Steven Schwamenfeld, American Renaissance, April 1997 What accounts for the extraordinary expansion of British power in the 18th and 19th centuries? Most “respectable” academics offer economic reasons for British success against European powers, and take the view that Western technological superiority accounts for colonial expansion. My study of the British army of the Napoleonic era suggests a different explanation: the moral power of the British soldier, as manifested in his devotion to his regiment, to his nation and — when he was fighting colonial wars — to his race. Patriotic conviction together with contempt for foreigners made the average British soldier the best in the world. The Invincible Duke The British army under the command of the Duke of Wellington won 15 general engagements between 1808 and 1815 without suffering a single defeat. Its victories shattered the myth of French invincibility and inspired the resistance of the other European nations. The most sincere assessment of British arms came from the enemy. The French marshal Nicolas Soult described the victors after his defeat at Albuera in 1811 with rueful sarcasm: “[T]here is no beating these troops in spite of their generals. I always thought they were bad soldiers; now I am sure of it. I had turned their right, pierced their center and everywhere victory was mine, but they did not know how to run.” Another French observers, General Chambray, praised the British infantry for its “orderliness, impetus and resolution to fight with the bayonet.” A Prussian observer left this description of Wellington’s army: For a battle, there is not perhaps in Europe an army equal to the British, that is to say none whose tuition, discipline, and whole military tendency, is so purely and exclusively calculated to giving battle. The British soldier is vigorous, well-fed, by nature highly brave and intrepid, trained to the most rigorous discipline and admirably well-armed. The infantry resist the attack of cavalry with great confidence, and when taken in the flank or rear, British troops are less disconcerted than any other European Army. Although it is the Duke of Wellington’s forces that are of particular interest to us here, the British infantry had long been redoubtable, and maintained its prowess well after the Iron Duke’s day. A Spanish chronicler, writing in 1486, left us this description of a force of English bowmen: This cavalier was from the island of England and brought with him a train of his vassals, men who had been hardened in certain civil wars which had raged in their country . . . They were withal of great pride, but it was not like our own inflammable Spanish pride . . . [T]heir pride was silent and contumelious. Though from a remote and somewhat barbarous island, they yet believed themselves the most perfect men on earth . . . With all this, it must be said of them that they were marvelous good men in the field, dexterous archers and powerful with the battleaxe. In their great pride and self-will, they always sought to press in their advantage and take the post of danger . . . They did not rush forward fiercely, or make a brilliant onset, like the Moorish and Spanish troops, but went into the fight deliberately and persisted obstinately and were slow to find out when they were beaten. Likewise, in 1854, two years after Wellington’s death, the armies he had commanded were still an astonishing force. The battle of Alma, during the Crimean War, gave rise to this first-hand account: . . . the Grenadiers and Coldstreamers [and Scots Guards], though under a deadly fire, formed into line with as much precision and lack of hurry as if they had been on the parade ground, and began deliberately to advance up the glacis toward the Great Redoubt. It was an unforgettable sight. The men marched as if they were taking part in a review. Storm after storm of bullets, grape, shrapnel, and round shot tore through them, man after man fell, but the pace never altered, the line closed in and continued, ‘ceremoniously and with dignity,’ as an eyewitness wrote, on its way . . . The Guards marched into the Great Redoubt, and there was a shout of triumph so loud that William Howard Russell [correspondent for The Times] heard it on the opposite bank — the battle of the Alma had been won. A French officer turned to [British Colonel] Evelyn Wood . . . ‘Our men could not have done it,’ he said. How were the British capable of such feats of arms? It was partially the result of intense training. The great French military theorist Baron de Jomini believed only British troops were adequately trained to fight in a thin, two-deep battle line. It required a maximum of discipline to maneuver in this unwieldy formation; less trained troops required a deeper formation to maintain cohesion. In addition, British troops displayed a tremendous corporate loyalty, not only to their regiments but to their nation. Almost alone among the armies of the 17th and 18th centuries, the British army possessed no permanent mercenary units. It was always a national force. As the historian of 18th century warfare, Christopher Duffy, writes: “the most pronounced moral traits of the English were violence and patriotism . . . All classes were united in their contempt for foreigners.” It was this ferocious patriotism that helped breed, in Samuel Johnson’s words, “a peasantry of heroes.” The uniquely nationalist sentiment of the English soldier dates back long into the past. To quote historian Linda Colley: “a popular sense of Englishness . . . considerably predates the French Revolution.” An Italian visitor to England in 1548 described his hosts thus: “the English are commonly destitute of good breeding, and are despisers of foreigners, since they esteem him a wretched being and but half a man who may be born elsewhere than in Britain.” This was true not only of the aristocracy but of the common people as well. It was especially true of bowmen. They were of peasant stock but, in the words of the 15th century jurist, Sir John Fortescue, who fought at their side, they were the men whom “the might of the realm of England standyth upon.” The English archers of the Middle Ages left no memoirs about their contempt for foreigners, but their successors in Wellington’s time did. Here is Private William Wheeler of the 51st Light Infantry on Britain’s allies during the Peninsular War (1808-1814): What an ignorant, superstitious, priest-ridden, dirty, lousy set of poor devils are the Portuguese. Without seeing them it is impossible to conceive there exists a people in Europe so debased. The filthiest pigsty is a palace to the filthy houses in this dirty stinking city [Lisbon], all the dirt made in the houses is thrown into the streets, where it remains baking until a storm of rain washes it away. The streets are crowded with half-starved dogs, fat Priests and lousy people. The dogs should all be destroyed, the able-bodied Priests drafted into the Army, half the remainder should be made to keep the city clean, and the remainder if they did not inculcate the necessity of personal cleanliness should be hanged. Sgt. John Cooper of the 7th Fusiliers was no more complimentary about Spaniards: “The lower orders of this nation are dirty in their persons, filthy in their habits, obscene in their language, and vindictive in their tempers. Their houses are intolerably smoky and vermin abound.” Observations such as these are to be found throughout soldiers’ memoirs. About the military prowess of their Iberian allies, Sgt. William Lawrence of the 40th wrote: “the smell of powder often seemed to cause them to be missing when wanted.” Sgt. William Surtees of the 95th Rifles recalled the Duke of Wellington’s jest about a Spanish division fleeing the field from the Battle of Toulouse in 1814; Wellington “wondered whether the Pyrenees would bring them up again, they seemed to have got such a fright.” Surtees asserted that the Duke “did not indeed depend on their valour, or he would have made a bad winding up of his Peninsular campaign.” On first viewing a Spanish army, Sgt. Andrew Pearson of the 61st recalled: “Falstaff’s ragged regiment would have done honour to any force compared to the men before us.” Surtees described the Spanish officer corps thus: In short, they had all the pride, arrogance, and self-sufficiency of the best officers in the world, with the very least of all pretensions to have an high opinion of themselves; it is true they were not all alike, but the majority of them were the most haughty, and at the same time most contemptible creatures in the shape of officers, that I ever beheld. The British had an entirely different view of their own superiors. Rifleman John Harris of the 95th wrote this of his Brigadier, William Beresford: He was equal to his business, too, I would say; and he amongst others of our generals, often made me think that the French army had nothing to show in the shape of officers who could at all compare to ours. There was a noble bearing in our leaders, which they, on the French side (as far as I was capable of observing) had not; . . . They are a strange set, the English! and so determined and unconquerable, that they will have their way if they can. Indeed, it requires one who has authority in his face, as well as at his back, to make them respect and obey him. Harris frankly believed that the British aristocracy produced the finest leaders of men in the world. Britain was very much a class society, but in battle the shared characteristics of courage, stoicism and perseverance united all. Thomas Howell, of the 71st Highlanders, was a man of some gentility, who joined the army as a private as a result of financial disaster. He had a difficult time adjusting to life among men of a lower class. However, he left this moving account of his rough-hewn comrades during his first battle with the French: In our first charge I felt my mind waver, a breathless sensation came over me. The silence was appalling. I looked alongst the line. It was enough to assure me. The steady, determined scowl of my companions assured my heart and gave me determination. How unlike the noisy advance of the French! During the Peninsular War, the British had a far higher regard for their enemy than for their allies. They regarded the French as brave, if erratic, soldiers and generally chivalrous. One of the few really negative descriptions comes from Sgt. Edward Costello of the 95th Rifles, and it is a condemnation of only a specific group of men rather than of the French nation. It casts light on those qualities that either impressed or revolted British soldiers. After the capture of Ciudad Rodrigo in 1812, some French prisoners were present at the interment of British dead: One more careless than the rest viewed the occurrence with a kind of malicious sneer, which so enraged our men that one of them, taking the little tawny-looking Italian by the nape of his neck, kicked his hind-quarters soundly for it. I could not, at the time, help remarking the very under-sized appearance of the Frenchmen. They were the ugliest set I ever saw, and seemed to be the refuse of their army, and looked more like Italians than Frenchmen. Wellington’s men had a stoic pride that, in their minds, set them apart from men of any other nationality. A remarkable incident was recorded by Sgt. Edward Costello when he was recovering from a wound received at the Battle of Salamanca in July 1812. His hospital ward was under the charge of a fellow Irishman, Sgt. Michael Connelly: Mike was exceedingly attentive to the sick, and particularly anxious that the British soldier, when dying, should hold out a pattern of firmness to the Frenchmen who lay intermixed with us in the same wards. ‘Hould your tongue, ye blathering devil,’ he would say in a low tone, ‘and don’t be after disgracing your country in the teeth of these ere furriners, by dying hard. Ye’ll have company at your burial, won’t you? Ye’ll have the drums beating and the guns firing over ye, won’t ye? . . . For God’s sake, die like a man before these ‘ere Frenchers.’ After Waterloo, Costello again found himself in hospital, this time in Brussels, and recorded something even more remarkable: I remained in Brussels three days, and had ample means here, as in several other places, such as Salamanca, &c., for witnessing the cutting off of legs and arms. The French I have ever found to be brave, yet I cannot say they will undergo a surgical operation with the cool, unflinching spirit of a British soldier. An incident which came under my notice may in some measure show the differences of the two nations. An English soldier belonging to, if I recollect rightly, the 1st Royal Dragoons, evidently an old weather-beaten warfarer, while undergoing the amputation of an arm below the elbow, held the injured limb in his other hand without betraying the slightest emotion, save occasionally helping out his pain by spirting forth the proceeds of a large plug of tobacco, which he chewed most unmercifully while under the operation. Near to him was a Frenchman, bellowing lustily, while a surgeon was probing for a ball near the shoulder. This seemed to annoy the Englishman more than anything else, and so much so, that as soon as his arm was amputated, he struck the Frenchman a smart blow across the breech with the severed limb, holding it at the wrist, saying, ‘Here, take that, and stuff it down your throat, and stop your damn bellowing!’ The Colonial Campaigns Warfare against non-Europeans inspired a far greater sense of distance and alienness. John Shipp of the 87th, the only man of his era to win two commissions from the ranks, wrote of battle against the “Caffres” of South Africa: At every farmhouse in our line of march we found appalling scenes of murder and desolation. Whole families had been massacred by these wild people, whose devastations it was now our duty to check. So ignorant were they, that I am convinced they were unaware that murder is a crime . . . The savage Caffre exults in these appalling sights. To his bestial mind the groans of the wounded, and the dying, are the greatest of pleasures. When the frenzy of the attack is on him he is wrought up to ecstasy, dancing and jumping about, and hauling spears at man or beast with reckless abandon . . . I have seen them with [murdered] women’s gowns, petticoats, shawls and things tied round their legs and between their toes, capering about the woods in a frenzy of delight. Sgt. George Calladine of the 19th recalled his first encounter with Africans: “I certainly saw little naked children running about which, if I had seen nothing of them but their faces, I should have taken them for monkeys.” Sgt. Pearson wrote of the “Caffres” with more sympathy, marveling at their physiques: “six feet six inches to seven feet, with most symmetrical figures.” William Richardson was a common seamen who served in the Royal Navy between 1793 and 1819. Before being impressed into the Navy he served on several merchant vessels, including a slaver. He recorded his impressions of the trade: Some people in England think that we hunt and catch the slaves ourselves, but this is a mistaken idea, for we get them by barter as follows: their petty kings and traders get them not so much by wars (as is imagined) as by trade and treachery, and when they get a number for sale bring them to the coast and sell them . . . There was one of their petty kings who, when he came on board, would strut along the deck as if he had been one of the greatest men in the world: he was a little fat fellow dressed in a suit of coarse blue cloth edged with something like yellow worsted, but what spoiled all was that he had no shirt, shoes or stockings on, and his naked black feet and legs being dabbed over with mud and salt water, made him a laughingstock to the sailors; but did not put him out of conceit of himself. Colonial wars were not confined to Africa. Thomas Howell of the 71st Highlanders recorded his none too flattering impressions of the Indians of Montevideo: The native women were the most uncomely I ever beheld. They have broad noses, thick lips, and are of very small stature. Their hair, which is long, black and hard to the feel, they wear frizzled up in front in the most hideous manner, while it hangs down their backs below the waist. When they dress they stick in it feathers and flowers, and walk about in all the pride of ugliness. The men . . . are brave, but indolent to excess . . . As for their idleness, I have seen them lie stretched, for a whole day, gazing upon the river, and their wives bring them their victuals; and if they were not pleased with the quantity, they would beat them furiously. This is the only exertion they make willingly — venting their fury upon their wives. These remarks concerning the physical characteristics of Africans and Indians (not to mention Latins) point to the British soldier’s racial consciousness as part of his patriotism. This is not to say that the British soldier loathed non-European foes because of race; it was because of the latter’s savagery. Sgt. James Thompson served with the 78th Highlanders at Quebec in 1759, during one of the North American campaigns of the Seven Years War. He witnessed the repulse of a British attack on the Ile d’Orleans: “When the French saw us far enough on the retreat, they sent their savages to scalp and tomahawk our poor fellows that lay wounded on the beach.” During the War of 1812, British troops this time found themselves allied to Indians. Historian Donald Graves describes an event that took place after the Battle of Lundy’s Lane in 1814: “Sergeant Commins of the 8th and Private Byfield of the 41st watched with horror as an Indian ‘busy in plundering came to an American that had been severely wounded and not being able to get the man’s boots off threw him into the fire.’ A nearby British regular ‘filled with indignation for such barbarity shot the Indian and threw him onto the fire to suffer for his unprincipled villainy.’” Sgt. William Lawrence of the 40th described a grisly encounter with Indians near Buenos Aires in 1807. A corporal and a private were killed while destroying native huts: “This was a great glory to the natives; they stuck the corporal’s head on a pole and carried it in front of their little band on the march.” Later: “As we marched along on our next day’s journey, about two hundred Indians kept following us, the foremost of them wearing our dead corporal’s jacket, and carrying his head — I do not know for what reason, but perhaps they thought a good deal more of a dead man’s head than we should feel disposed to do.” Later the 200 Indians attacked Lawrence’s party of 20 infantrymen and were easily repulsed, they “not liking the smell and much less the taste of our gunpowder.” The Indian chief who carried the corporal’s head was wounded and captured by the British. He was not killed out of hand but was treated according to civilized custom and left with friendly Indians to be nursed back to health. It did not take long for non-Europeans to discover and profit from the differences between British and native warfare. Sir Evelyn Wood writes of interrogating Zulu prisoners in 1879 after the battle of Kambula: When I had obtained all the information I required I said, ‘Before Isandwhlana [an 1879 battle in which a Zulu army of 20,000 routed and massacred 800 encamped British infantry] we treated all your wounded men in our hospital. But when you attacked our camp your brethren, our black patients, rose and helped to kill those who had been attending on them. Can any of you advance any reason why I should not kill you?’ One of the younger men, with an intelligent face, asked, ‘May I speak?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘There is a very good reason why you should not kill us. We kill you because it is the custom of the black men [to kill prisoners]. But it isn’t the white man’s custom.’ The Englishman reportedly had no answer to this, and the blacks were later freed. When it came to actual warfare against non-white armies, the popular conception is of an unfair contest with European colonial troops discharging advanced weaponry on natives armed with sticks and clubs. The truth was often quite different. In discussing Wellington’s great victory over a Mahratta (Indian) army six times the size of his own at Assaye in 1803, historian Jeremy Black points out that “success owed much to a bayonet charge, scarcely conforming to the standard image of Western armies gunning down masses of non-European troops relying on cold steel.” This contemporary historian refrains from analyzing how that small red-coated force achieved its moral triumph, and certainly does not discuss any patriotic or racialist motivations it may have possessed. The British commander knew better. The Duke of Wellington is notorious for describing his infantry as the “scum of the earth.” Yet this was most of all a description of their social class and their vices (drink above all). In battle, the British soldier was “the item upon which victory depends.” On his return from India in 1804, Wellington wrote a memorandum in which he offered an explanation for the incredible achievements of the British, especially in India. It should be studied by all military “experts” who would deride the importance of national (and racial) feeling among soldiers: The English soldiers are the main foundation of the British power in Asia. They are a body with habits, manners and qualities peculiar to them in the East Indies. Bravery is the characteristic of the British army in all quarters of the world; but no other quarter has afforded such striking examples of the existence of this quality in the soldiers as the East Indies. An instance of their misbehavior in the field has never been known; and particularly those who have been for some time in that country cannot be ordered upon any service, however dangerous or arduous, that they will not effect, not only with bravery, but a degree of skill not often witnessed in persons of their description in other parts of the world. I attribute these qualities, which are peculiar to them in the East Indies, to the distinctness of their class in that country from all others existing in it. They feel they are a distinct and superior class to the rest of the world which surrounds them; and their actions correspond with their high notions of their own superiority . . . Their weaknesses and vices, however repugnant to the feelings and prejudices of the Natives, are passed over in the contemplation of their excellent qualities as soldiers, of which no nation has hitherto given such extraordinary instances. These qualities are the foundation of the British strength in Asia, and of that opinion by which it is generally supposed that the British empire has been gained and upheld. These qualities show in what manner nations, consisting of millions, are governed by 30,000 strangers . . . Thus it was through a sense of national superiority, of the white Briton as a being apart, that the British Empire was won and held. Years later, Wellington would state plainly (in a parliamentary debate on Asian Indian participation in the higher levels of the Civil Service): “That the white man has an influence [of a moral kind] which the black man has not.” Wellington would scarcely have been able to credit the notion that one day British governments would discourage racial feelings among their soldiers. He praised the racial arrangements in the Southern United States, and considered them essential if America’s liberal system of government was to survive. An understanding of the role of race has not entirely died among the British. A ranker (a soldier holding a rank other than that of officer) of the Second World War has left us with an analysis of the motivations of his comrades in Burma. George MacDonald Fraser’s bluntly honest account (put to paper in 1992) should ring as a battle cry for anyone interested in his own nation’s defense: There is much talk today of guilt as an aftermath of wars — guilt over killing the enemy, and even guilt for surviving. Much depends on the circumstances, but I doubt if many of the Fourteenth Army lose much sleep over dead Japanese. For one thing they were a no-surrender enemy and if we hadn’t killed them they would surely have killed us. But there was more to it than that. It may appall a generation who have been dragooned into considering racism the ultimate crime, but I believe there was a feeling (there was in me) that the Jap was farther down the human scale than the European. It is a feeling that I see reflected today in institutions and people who would deny hotly that they are subconscious racists — the presence of TV cameras ensured a superficial concern for the Kurdish refugees and Bangladeshi flood victims, but we all know that the Western reaction would have been immeasurably greater if a similar disaster had occurred in Australia or Canada or Europe; some people seem to count more than others, with liberals as well as reactionaries, and it is folly to feel that racial kinship and likeness are not at the bottom of it. A measured statement such as this would not be tolerated in America, and this bodes ill for the future, especially the future of our armed forces. As long as the basic principle of racial kinship is denied by our leaders, America’s very existence will be in peril. There can be no stability in a society which will not allow its members to favor their own brethren. An army that will deny its soldiers this right is an army on the road to defeat. [Editor’s Note: This essay is in A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century, a collection of some of the finest essays and reviews published by American Renaissance. It is available for purchase here.]	<urn:uuid:61d09d08-52ec-4c4b-a1b2-9ea02148c2db>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.amren.com/news/2010/08/race_nation_and/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00335.warc.gz	en	0.980092	5,765	3.296875	3	[ -0.45765215158462524, 0.45314836502075195, 0.4284476041793823, -0.25311869382858276, -0.1429920494556427, -0.27785491943359375, 0.05000009760260582, 0.45922502875328064, -0.1035321056842804, -0.21887165307998657, 0.07005509734153748, -0.6020675301551819, 0.23580150306224823, 0.066918149590...	2	Steven Schwamenfeld, American Renaissance, April 1997 What accounts for the extraordinary expansion of British power in the 18th and 19th centuries? Most “respectable” academics offer economic reasons for British success against European powers, and take the view that Western technological superiority accounts for colonial expansion. My study of the British army of the Napoleonic era suggests a different explanation: the moral power of the British soldier, as manifested in his devotion to his regiment, to his nation and — when he was fighting colonial wars — to his race. Patriotic conviction together with contempt for foreigners made the average British soldier the best in the world. The Invincible Duke The British army under the command of the Duke of Wellington won 15 general engagements between 1808 and 1815 without suffering a single defeat. Its victories shattered the myth of French invincibility and inspired the resistance of the other European nations. The most sincere assessment of British arms came from the enemy. The French marshal Nicolas Soult described the victors after his defeat at Albuera in 1811 with rueful sarcasm: “[T]here is no beating these troops in spite of their generals. I always thought they were bad soldiers; now I am sure of it. I had turned their right, pierced their center and everywhere victory was mine, but they did not know how to run.” Another French observers, General Chambray, praised the British infantry for its “orderliness, impetus and resolution to fight with the bayonet.” A Prussian observer left this description of Wellington’s army: For a battle, there is not perhaps in Europe an army equal to the British, that is to say none whose tuition, discipline, and whole military tendency, is so purely and exclusively calculated to giving battle. The British soldier is vigorous, well-fed, by nature highly brave and intrepid, trained to the most rigorous discipline and admirably well-armed. The infantry resist the attack of cavalry with great confidence, and when taken in the flank or rear, British troops are less disconcerted than any other European Army. Although it is the Duke of Wellington’s forces that are of particular interest to us here, the British infantry had long been redoubtable, and maintained its prowess well after the Iron Duke’s day. A Spanish chronicler, writing in 1486, left us this description of a force of English bowmen: This cavalier was from the island of England and brought with him a train of his vassals, men who had been hardened in certain civil wars which had raged in their country . . . They were withal of great pride, but it was not like our own inflammable Spanish pride . . . [T]heir pride was silent and contumelious. Though from a remote and somewhat barbarous island, they yet believed themselves the most perfect men on earth . . . With all this, it must be said of them that they were marvelous good men in the field, dexterous archers and powerful with the battleaxe. In their great pride and self-will, they always sought to press in their advantage and take the post of danger . . . They did not rush forward fiercely, or make a brilliant onset, like the Moorish and Spanish troops, but went into the fight deliberately and persisted obstinately and were slow to find out when they were beaten. Likewise, in 1854, two years after Wellington’s death, the armies he had commanded were still an astonishing force. The battle of Alma, during the Crimean War, gave rise to this first-hand account: . . . the Grenadiers and Coldstreamers [and Scots Guards], though under a deadly fire, formed into line with as much precision and lack of hurry as if they had been on the parade ground, and began deliberately to advance up the glacis toward the Great Redoubt. It was an unforgettable sight. The men marched as if they were taking part in a review. Storm after storm of bullets, grape, shrapnel, and round shot tore through them, man after man fell, but the pace never altered, the line closed in and continued, ‘ceremoniously and with dignity,’ as an eyewitness wrote, on its way . . . The Guards marched into the Great Redoubt, and there was a shout of triumph so loud that William Howard Russell [correspondent for The Times] heard it on the opposite bank — the battle of the Alma had been won. A French officer turned to [British Colonel] Evelyn Wood . . . ‘Our men could not have done it,’ he said. How were the British capable of such feats of arms? It was partially the result of intense training. The great French military theorist Baron de Jomini believed only British troops were adequately trained to fight in a thin, two-deep battle line. It required a maximum of discipline to maneuver in this unwieldy formation; less trained troops required a deeper formation to maintain cohesion. In addition, British troops displayed a tremendous corporate loyalty, not only to their regiments but to their nation. Almost alone among the armies of the 17th and 18th centuries, the British army possessed no permanent mercenary units. It was always a national force. As the historian of 18th century warfare, Christopher Duffy, writes: “the most pronounced moral traits of the English were violence and patriotism . . . All classes were united in their contempt for foreigners.” It was this ferocious patriotism that helped breed, in Samuel Johnson’s words, “a peasantry of heroes.” The uniquely nationalist sentiment of the English soldier dates back long into the past. To quote historian Linda Colley: “a popular sense of Englishness . . . considerably predates the French Revolution.” An Italian visitor to England in 1548 described his hosts thus: “the English are commonly destitute of good breeding, and are despisers of foreigners, since they esteem him a wretched being and but half a man who may be born elsewhere than in Britain.” This was true not only of the aristocracy but of the common people as well. It was especially true of bowmen. They were of peasant stock but, in the words of the 15th century jurist, Sir John Fortescue, who fought at their side, they were the men whom “the might of the realm of England standyth upon.” The English archers of the Middle Ages left no memoirs about their contempt for foreigners, but their successors in Wellington’s time did. Here is Private William Wheeler of the 51st Light Infantry on Britain’s allies during the Peninsular War (1808-1814): What an ignorant, superstitious, priest-ridden, dirty, lousy set of poor devils are the Portuguese. Without seeing them it is impossible to conceive there exists a people in Europe so debased. The filthiest pigsty is a palace to the filthy houses in this dirty stinking city [Lisbon], all the dirt made in the houses is thrown into the streets, where it remains baking until a storm of rain washes it away. The streets are crowded with half-starved dogs, fat Priests and lousy people. The dogs should all be destroyed, the able-bodied Priests drafted into the Army, half the remainder should be made to keep the city clean, and the remainder if they did not inculcate the necessity of personal cleanliness should be hanged. Sgt. John Cooper of the 7th Fusiliers was no more complimentary about Spaniards: “The lower orders of this nation are dirty in their persons, filthy in their habits, obscene in their language, and vindictive in their tempers. Their houses are intolerably smoky and vermin abound.” Observations such as these are to be found throughout soldiers’ memoirs. About the military prowess of their Iberian allies, Sgt. William Lawrence of the 40th wrote: “the smell of powder often seemed to cause them to be missing when wanted.” Sgt. William Surtees of the 95th Rifles recalled the Duke of Wellington’s jest about a Spanish division fleeing the field from the Battle of Toulouse in 1814; Wellington “wondered whether the Pyrenees would bring them up again, they seemed to have got such a fright.” Surtees asserted that the Duke “did not indeed depend on their valour, or he would have made a bad winding up of his Peninsular campaign.” On first viewing a Spanish army, Sgt. Andrew Pearson of the 61st recalled: “Falstaff’s ragged regiment would have done honour to any force compared to the men before us.” Surtees described the Spanish officer corps thus: In short, they had all the pride, arrogance, and self-sufficiency of the best officers in the world, with the very least of all pretensions to have an high opinion of themselves; it is true they were not all alike, but the majority of them were the most haughty, and at the same time most contemptible creatures in the shape of officers, that I ever beheld. The British had an entirely different view of their own superiors. Rifleman John Harris of the 95th wrote this of his Brigadier, William Beresford: He was equal to his business, too, I would say; and he amongst others of our generals, often made me think that the French army had nothing to show in the shape of officers who could at all compare to ours. There was a noble bearing in our leaders, which they, on the French side (as far as I was capable of observing) had not; . . . They are a strange set, the English! and so determined and unconquerable, that they will have their way if they can. Indeed, it requires one who has authority in his face, as well as at his back, to make them respect and obey him. Harris frankly believed that the British aristocracy produced the finest leaders of men in the world. Britain was very much a class society, but in battle the shared characteristics of courage, stoicism and perseverance united all. Thomas Howell, of the 71st Highlanders, was a man of some gentility, who joined the army as a private as a result of financial disaster. He had a difficult time adjusting to life among men of a lower class. However, he left this moving account of his rough-hewn comrades during his first battle with the French: In our first charge I felt my mind waver, a breathless sensation came over me. The silence was appalling. I looked alongst the line. It was enough to assure me. The steady, determined scowl of my companions assured my heart and gave me determination. How unlike the noisy advance of the French! During the Peninsular War, the British had a far higher regard for their enemy than for their allies. They regarded the French as brave, if erratic, soldiers and generally chivalrous. One of the few really negative descriptions comes from Sgt. Edward Costello of the 95th Rifles, and it is a condemnation of only a specific group of men rather than of the French nation. It casts light on those qualities that either impressed or revolted British soldiers. After the capture of Ciudad Rodrigo in 1812, some French prisoners were present at the interment of British dead: One more careless than the rest viewed the occurrence with a kind of malicious sneer, which so enraged our men that one of them, taking the little tawny-looking Italian by the nape of his neck, kicked his hind-quarters soundly for it. I could not, at the time, help remarking the very under-sized appearance of the Frenchmen. They were the ugliest set I ever saw, and seemed to be the refuse of their army, and looked more like Italians than Frenchmen. Wellington’s men had a stoic pride that, in their minds, set them apart from men of any other nationality. A remarkable incident was recorded by Sgt. Edward Costello when he was recovering from a wound received at the Battle of Salamanca in July 1812. His hospital ward was under the charge of a fellow Irishman, Sgt. Michael Connelly: Mike was exceedingly attentive to the sick, and particularly anxious that the British soldier, when dying, should hold out a pattern of firmness to the Frenchmen who lay intermixed with us in the same wards. ‘Hould your tongue, ye blathering devil,’ he would say in a low tone, ‘and don’t be after disgracing your country in the teeth of these ere furriners, by dying hard. Ye’ll have company at your burial, won’t you? Ye’ll have the drums beating and the guns firing over ye, won’t ye? . . . For God’s sake, die like a man before these ‘ere Frenchers.’ After Waterloo, Costello again found himself in hospital, this time in Brussels, and recorded something even more remarkable: I remained in Brussels three days, and had ample means here, as in several other places, such as Salamanca, &c., for witnessing the cutting off of legs and arms. The French I have ever found to be brave, yet I cannot say they will undergo a surgical operation with the cool, unflinching spirit of a British soldier. An incident which came under my notice may in some measure show the differences of the two nations. An English soldier belonging to, if I recollect rightly, the 1st Royal Dragoons, evidently an old weather-beaten warfarer, while undergoing the amputation of an arm below the elbow, held the injured limb in his other hand without betraying the slightest emotion, save occasionally helping out his pain by spirting forth the proceeds of a large plug of tobacco, which he chewed most unmercifully while under the operation. Near to him was a Frenchman, bellowing lustily, while a surgeon was probing for a ball near the shoulder. This seemed to annoy the Englishman more than anything else, and so much so, that as soon as his arm was amputated, he struck the Frenchman a smart blow across the breech with the severed limb, holding it at the wrist, saying, ‘Here, take that, and stuff it down your throat, and stop your damn bellowing!’ The Colonial Campaigns Warfare against non-Europeans inspired a far greater sense of distance and alienness. John Shipp of the 87th, the only man of his era to win two commissions from the ranks, wrote of battle against the “Caffres” of South Africa: At every farmhouse in our line of march we found appalling scenes of murder and desolation. Whole families had been massacred by these wild people, whose devastations it was now our duty to check. So ignorant were they, that I am convinced they were unaware that murder is a crime . . . The savage Caffre exults in these appalling sights. To his bestial mind the groans of the wounded, and the dying, are the greatest of pleasures. When the frenzy of the attack is on him he is wrought up to ecstasy, dancing and jumping about, and hauling spears at man or beast with reckless abandon . . . I have seen them with [murdered] women’s gowns, petticoats, shawls and things tied round their legs and between their toes, capering about the woods in a frenzy of delight. Sgt. George Calladine of the 19th recalled his first encounter with Africans: “I certainly saw little naked children running about which, if I had seen nothing of them but their faces, I should have taken them for monkeys.” Sgt. Pearson wrote of the “Caffres” with more sympathy, marveling at their physiques: “six feet six inches to seven feet, with most symmetrical figures.” William Richardson was a common seamen who served in the Royal Navy between 1793 and 1819. Before being impressed into the Navy he served on several merchant vessels, including a slaver. He recorded his impressions of the trade: Some people in England think that we hunt and catch the slaves ourselves, but this is a mistaken idea, for we get them by barter as follows: their petty kings and traders get them not so much by wars (as is imagined) as by trade and treachery, and when they get a number for sale bring them to the coast and sell them . . . There was one of their petty kings who, when he came on board, would strut along the deck as if he had been one of the greatest men in the world: he was a little fat fellow dressed in a suit of coarse blue cloth edged with something like yellow worsted, but what spoiled all was that he had no shirt, shoes or stockings on, and his naked black feet and legs being dabbed over with mud and salt water, made him a laughingstock to the sailors; but did not put him out of conceit of himself. Colonial wars were not confined to Africa. Thomas Howell of the 71st Highlanders recorded his none too flattering impressions of the Indians of Montevideo: The native women were the most uncomely I ever beheld. They have broad noses, thick lips, and are of very small stature. Their hair, which is long, black and hard to the feel, they wear frizzled up in front in the most hideous manner, while it hangs down their backs below the waist. When they dress they stick in it feathers and flowers, and walk about in all the pride of ugliness. The men . . . are brave, but indolent to excess . . . As for their idleness, I have seen them lie stretched, for a whole day, gazing upon the river, and their wives bring them their victuals; and if they were not pleased with the quantity, they would beat them furiously. This is the only exertion they make willingly — venting their fury upon their wives. These remarks concerning the physical characteristics of Africans and Indians (not to mention Latins) point to the British soldier’s racial consciousness as part of his patriotism. This is not to say that the British soldier loathed non-European foes because of race; it was because of the latter’s savagery. Sgt. James Thompson served with the 78th Highlanders at Quebec in 1759, during one of the North American campaigns of the Seven Years War. He witnessed the repulse of a British attack on the Ile d’Orleans: “When the French saw us far enough on the retreat, they sent their savages to scalp and tomahawk our poor fellows that lay wounded on the beach.” During the War of 1812, British troops this time found themselves allied to Indians. Historian Donald Graves describes an event that took place after the Battle of Lundy’s Lane in 1814: “Sergeant Commins of the 8th and Private Byfield of the 41st watched with horror as an Indian ‘busy in plundering came to an American that had been severely wounded and not being able to get the man’s boots off threw him into the fire.’ A nearby British regular ‘filled with indignation for such barbarity shot the Indian and threw him onto the fire to suffer for his unprincipled villainy.’” Sgt. William Lawrence of the 40th described a grisly encounter with Indians near Buenos Aires in 1807. A corporal and a private were killed while destroying native huts: “This was a great glory to the natives; they stuck the corporal’s head on a pole and carried it in front of their little band on the march.” Later: “As we marched along on our next day’s journey, about two hundred Indians kept following us, the foremost of them wearing our dead corporal’s jacket, and carrying his head — I do not know for what reason, but perhaps they thought a good deal more of a dead man’s head than we should feel disposed to do.” Later the 200 Indians attacked Lawrence’s party of 20 infantrymen and were easily repulsed, they “not liking the smell and much less the taste of our gunpowder.” The Indian chief who carried the corporal’s head was wounded and captured by the British. He was not killed out of hand but was treated according to civilized custom and left with friendly Indians to be nursed back to health. It did not take long for non-Europeans to discover and profit from the differences between British and native warfare. Sir Evelyn Wood writes of interrogating Zulu prisoners in 1879 after the battle of Kambula: When I had obtained all the information I required I said, ‘Before Isandwhlana [an 1879 battle in which a Zulu army of 20,000 routed and massacred 800 encamped British infantry] we treated all your wounded men in our hospital. But when you attacked our camp your brethren, our black patients, rose and helped to kill those who had been attending on them. Can any of you advance any reason why I should not kill you?’ One of the younger men, with an intelligent face, asked, ‘May I speak?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘There is a very good reason why you should not kill us. We kill you because it is the custom of the black men [to kill prisoners]. But it isn’t the white man’s custom.’ The Englishman reportedly had no answer to this, and the blacks were later freed. When it came to actual warfare against non-white armies, the popular conception is of an unfair contest with European colonial troops discharging advanced weaponry on natives armed with sticks and clubs. The truth was often quite different. In discussing Wellington’s great victory over a Mahratta (Indian) army six times the size of his own at Assaye in 1803, historian Jeremy Black points out that “success owed much to a bayonet charge, scarcely conforming to the standard image of Western armies gunning down masses of non-European troops relying on cold steel.” This contemporary historian refrains from analyzing how that small red-coated force achieved its moral triumph, and certainly does not discuss any patriotic or racialist motivations it may have possessed. The British commander knew better. The Duke of Wellington is notorious for describing his infantry as the “scum of the earth.” Yet this was most of all a description of their social class and their vices (drink above all). In battle, the British soldier was “the item upon which victory depends.” On his return from India in 1804, Wellington wrote a memorandum in which he offered an explanation for the incredible achievements of the British, especially in India. It should be studied by all military “experts” who would deride the importance of national (and racial) feeling among soldiers: The English soldiers are the main foundation of the British power in Asia. They are a body with habits, manners and qualities peculiar to them in the East Indies. Bravery is the characteristic of the British army in all quarters of the world; but no other quarter has afforded such striking examples of the existence of this quality in the soldiers as the East Indies. An instance of their misbehavior in the field has never been known; and particularly those who have been for some time in that country cannot be ordered upon any service, however dangerous or arduous, that they will not effect, not only with bravery, but a degree of skill not often witnessed in persons of their description in other parts of the world. I attribute these qualities, which are peculiar to them in the East Indies, to the distinctness of their class in that country from all others existing in it. They feel they are a distinct and superior class to the rest of the world which surrounds them; and their actions correspond with their high notions of their own superiority . . . Their weaknesses and vices, however repugnant to the feelings and prejudices of the Natives, are passed over in the contemplation of their excellent qualities as soldiers, of which no nation has hitherto given such extraordinary instances. These qualities are the foundation of the British strength in Asia, and of that opinion by which it is generally supposed that the British empire has been gained and upheld. These qualities show in what manner nations, consisting of millions, are governed by 30,000 strangers . . . Thus it was through a sense of national superiority, of the white Briton as a being apart, that the British Empire was won and held. Years later, Wellington would state plainly (in a parliamentary debate on Asian Indian participation in the higher levels of the Civil Service): “That the white man has an influence [of a moral kind] which the black man has not.” Wellington would scarcely have been able to credit the notion that one day British governments would discourage racial feelings among their soldiers. He praised the racial arrangements in the Southern United States, and considered them essential if America’s liberal system of government was to survive. An understanding of the role of race has not entirely died among the British. A ranker (a soldier holding a rank other than that of officer) of the Second World War has left us with an analysis of the motivations of his comrades in Burma. George MacDonald Fraser’s bluntly honest account (put to paper in 1992) should ring as a battle cry for anyone interested in his own nation’s defense: There is much talk today of guilt as an aftermath of wars — guilt over killing the enemy, and even guilt for surviving. Much depends on the circumstances, but I doubt if many of the Fourteenth Army lose much sleep over dead Japanese. For one thing they were a no-surrender enemy and if we hadn’t killed them they would surely have killed us. But there was more to it than that. It may appall a generation who have been dragooned into considering racism the ultimate crime, but I believe there was a feeling (there was in me) that the Jap was farther down the human scale than the European. It is a feeling that I see reflected today in institutions and people who would deny hotly that they are subconscious racists — the presence of TV cameras ensured a superficial concern for the Kurdish refugees and Bangladeshi flood victims, but we all know that the Western reaction would have been immeasurably greater if a similar disaster had occurred in Australia or Canada or Europe; some people seem to count more than others, with liberals as well as reactionaries, and it is folly to feel that racial kinship and likeness are not at the bottom of it. A measured statement such as this would not be tolerated in America, and this bodes ill for the future, especially the future of our armed forces. As long as the basic principle of racial kinship is denied by our leaders, America’s very existence will be in peril. There can be no stability in a society which will not allow its members to favor their own brethren. An army that will deny its soldiers this right is an army on the road to defeat. [Editor’s Note: This essay is in A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century, a collection of some of the finest essays and reviews published by American Renaissance. It is available for purchase here.]	5,666	ENGLISH	1
Horus was the Son of Osiris, and became the protector of the Nile and the Pharaoh. It is still used in many kinds of jewelry today. So he was never completely resurrected and became the Judge of the Underworld. There are three main methods of mummification, each depending of the wealth of the deceased. This lead to many findings of Egyptian tombs, and the two pieces of text provided historians on how to find out what dynasty the body was in. As an example, the Egyptian god Anubis was half man and half jackal. A special element of the rite was a sculpted mask, put on the face of the deceased. The idea was that when these beings came back to life, they would be preserved and well prepared for their next lives. Brown Mortuary Inc. Before they buried their dead in proper graves, the Egyptians laid their loved ones to rest in shallow pits in the desert.	<urn:uuid:7f1da269-3039-4dbd-b7b3-5ffdfcc3cee6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://gokyhekazobi.oberonlife.com/egyptian-mummification-essay10248371oq.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601615.66/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121044233-20200121073233-00405.warc.gz	en	0.986706	186	3.53125	4	[ -0.40998968482017517, 0.7505894303321838, 0.12302602082490921, -0.31729787588119507, -0.4148460328578949, -0.2238752245903015, 0.45833009481430054, -0.0720902606844902, -0.2751302421092987, 0.0909227579832077, -0.31078577041625977, -0.5879913568496704, -0.14872737228870392, 0.2955499589443...	2	Horus was the Son of Osiris, and became the protector of the Nile and the Pharaoh. It is still used in many kinds of jewelry today. So he was never completely resurrected and became the Judge of the Underworld. There are three main methods of mummification, each depending of the wealth of the deceased. This lead to many findings of Egyptian tombs, and the two pieces of text provided historians on how to find out what dynasty the body was in. As an example, the Egyptian god Anubis was half man and half jackal. A special element of the rite was a sculpted mask, put on the face of the deceased. The idea was that when these beings came back to life, they would be preserved and well prepared for their next lives. Brown Mortuary Inc. Before they buried their dead in proper graves, the Egyptians laid their loved ones to rest in shallow pits in the desert.	189	ENGLISH	1
Paine, Albert Bigelow. Twain is remembered as a great chronicler of American life in the 19th and early 20th centuries. As time passed his business ventures were not successful and his publishing house went bankrupt. One measure of his character is a proneness to deceit, which seems instinctive, a trait shared by other wild things and relating him to nature—in opposition to Tom's tradition-grounded, book-learned, imaginative deceptions. Clemens was eleven years old when his lawyer father died. Twain's next work drew on his experiences on the Mississippi River. During the next decade, Clemens would suffer the loss of his wife, Livy, in and his second daughter, Jean, in His brother Pleasant Hannibal died at three weeks of age. Then, inthe Society purchased the fine Mark Twain library of books, over 1, cartoons, and clippings collected by Purd B. Twain studied the Mississippi, learning its landmarks, how to navigate its currents effectively, and how to read the river and its constantly shifting channels, reefs, submerged snags, and rocks that would "tear the life out of the strongest vessel that ever floated". He gave his first public lecture in October and embarked on a lecture tour in the western states to make money and promote his career. Jane Lampton Clemens June 18, — October 27, He went into bouts of depression that he tried to overcome by smoking cigars, reading in bed and by playing billiards and cards.	<urn:uuid:b577551b-cdbb-4e98-8740-ef252b0f70b8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://katedyxezyzal.dellrichards.com/account-of-the-life-of-samuel-langhorne-clemens210118654gx.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607407.48/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122191620-20200122220620-00467.warc.gz	en	0.990419	310	3.328125	3	[ -0.13493314385414124, -0.0884476751089096, 0.03753363713622093, 0.15122608840465546, -0.13245275616645813, 0.03961096704006195, 0.1234382912516594, -0.15494292974472046, -0.42104431986808777, -0.3065049946308136, -0.014544794335961342, 0.16993345320224762, 0.1313464343547821, 0.50155580043...	1	Paine, Albert Bigelow. Twain is remembered as a great chronicler of American life in the 19th and early 20th centuries. As time passed his business ventures were not successful and his publishing house went bankrupt. One measure of his character is a proneness to deceit, which seems instinctive, a trait shared by other wild things and relating him to nature—in opposition to Tom's tradition-grounded, book-learned, imaginative deceptions. Clemens was eleven years old when his lawyer father died. Twain's next work drew on his experiences on the Mississippi River. During the next decade, Clemens would suffer the loss of his wife, Livy, in and his second daughter, Jean, in His brother Pleasant Hannibal died at three weeks of age. Then, inthe Society purchased the fine Mark Twain library of books, over 1, cartoons, and clippings collected by Purd B. Twain studied the Mississippi, learning its landmarks, how to navigate its currents effectively, and how to read the river and its constantly shifting channels, reefs, submerged snags, and rocks that would "tear the life out of the strongest vessel that ever floated". He gave his first public lecture in October and embarked on a lecture tour in the western states to make money and promote his career. Jane Lampton Clemens June 18, — October 27, He went into bouts of depression that he tried to overcome by smoking cigars, reading in bed and by playing billiards and cards.	314	ENGLISH	1
\|On the Baltic coast there were three small countries, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. They were taken over before the beginning of World War II by Russia, but then, they were overrun by Germany when the war started in that part of Europe, in June 30, 1941. The city of Vilna was known as the Jerusalem of Lithuania because of the many Rabbinical and Talmudic schools there. The same was true of the city of Telz. It had many Jewish centers of learning that fed the Jewish congregations of northern, eastern, and western Europe. \| The Soviet Union annexed Lithuania in the summer of 1940, but by the spring of 1941, Lithuania's Jewish population reached 250,000 including 15,000 who had fled German occupation of Poland. Some 6,000 of these succeeded in emigrating to the Holy Land, the Far East, and elsewhere several thousand more were deported by Soviet officials to remote parts of Russia. When the Germans arrived they actually began their killings in Lithuania, starting with 500 Jews in three border towns—Gargsdai, Kretinge, and Palanga—at the end of June 1941. Both the citizens of Lithuania and those sympathetic with the Germans were killing Jews right and left! The SS German commander observed how enthusiastic and willing the Lithuanians and the Romanians (who came with the Germans) were willing to kill Jews. The sadists, the German Einsatzgruppe (the killing teams of Germans) moved around the country killing every Jew they could find. The job was so difficult, some of these men went mad because of the slaughter they were involved in. From the city of Kovno, and other towns, in three days several thousands of Jews had died. In a few more months, 7,800 Jews had been liquidated. The Germans had killed 80 percent of Lithuanian Jewry by the end of 1941, and over 95 percent by the end of the war. Those not killed were herded into ghettos and destroyed by starvation, forced labor, diseases, and murder. One Jewish leader urged his people to resist. "Let us not go like sheep to the slaughter," he said. When the Red army reached Lithuania in the summer of 1944, they found very few Jews alive. Possibly there were only 2,500 survivors in and around Vilna, with 5,500 elsewhere in the republic. Because the Germans wanted to kill every Jew in Lithuania, with the help of the population, only the Holy Land was the place of safety for the people. Only a small group made it to the Promise Land! Most of Europe was judged because of the slaughter of six million European Jews! With Russia, and Europe, some 40 million or more Gentiles died because of their diabolical hatred of God's earthly people! –Dr. Mal Couch (Apr., 10) Wednesday, April 7, 2010 “THE JERUSALEM OF LITHUANIA” Posted by Scofield Prophecy Studies at 8:00 AM	<urn:uuid:4c18990a-6c26-4633-b87e-b7373ad607a3>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://scofieldarticles.blogspot.com/2010/04/the-jerusalem-of-lithuania.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00105.warc.gz	en	0.986745	614	3.640625	4	[ -0.11314760893583298, -0.0293746255338192, 0.11556168645620346, -0.04843650758266449, 0.35487985610961914, 0.14411422610282898, -0.32010847330093384, 0.34120479226112366, -0.15308983623981476, 0.1206970363855362, 0.07361701875925064, -0.1027417853474617, -0.3148471713066101, 0.406376779079...	2	\|On the Baltic coast there were three small countries, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. They were taken over before the beginning of World War II by Russia, but then, they were overrun by Germany when the war started in that part of Europe, in June 30, 1941. The city of Vilna was known as the Jerusalem of Lithuania because of the many Rabbinical and Talmudic schools there. The same was true of the city of Telz. It had many Jewish centers of learning that fed the Jewish congregations of northern, eastern, and western Europe. \| The Soviet Union annexed Lithuania in the summer of 1940, but by the spring of 1941, Lithuania's Jewish population reached 250,000 including 15,000 who had fled German occupation of Poland. Some 6,000 of these succeeded in emigrating to the Holy Land, the Far East, and elsewhere several thousand more were deported by Soviet officials to remote parts of Russia. When the Germans arrived they actually began their killings in Lithuania, starting with 500 Jews in three border towns—Gargsdai, Kretinge, and Palanga—at the end of June 1941. Both the citizens of Lithuania and those sympathetic with the Germans were killing Jews right and left! The SS German commander observed how enthusiastic and willing the Lithuanians and the Romanians (who came with the Germans) were willing to kill Jews. The sadists, the German Einsatzgruppe (the killing teams of Germans) moved around the country killing every Jew they could find. The job was so difficult, some of these men went mad because of the slaughter they were involved in. From the city of Kovno, and other towns, in three days several thousands of Jews had died. In a few more months, 7,800 Jews had been liquidated. The Germans had killed 80 percent of Lithuanian Jewry by the end of 1941, and over 95 percent by the end of the war. Those not killed were herded into ghettos and destroyed by starvation, forced labor, diseases, and murder. One Jewish leader urged his people to resist. "Let us not go like sheep to the slaughter," he said. When the Red army reached Lithuania in the summer of 1944, they found very few Jews alive. Possibly there were only 2,500 survivors in and around Vilna, with 5,500 elsewhere in the republic. Because the Germans wanted to kill every Jew in Lithuania, with the help of the population, only the Holy Land was the place of safety for the people. Only a small group made it to the Promise Land! Most of Europe was judged because of the slaughter of six million European Jews! With Russia, and Europe, some 40 million or more Gentiles died because of their diabolical hatred of God's earthly people! –Dr. Mal Couch (Apr., 10) Wednesday, April 7, 2010 “THE JERUSALEM OF LITHUANIA” Posted by Scofield Prophecy Studies at 8:00 AM	672	ENGLISH	1
IN 1982 Dorothy Gilliam was walking down an overgrown path close to Mount Vernon, George Washington’s lovely house on the Potomac River in Virginia, when she glimpsed a flash of white stone. Drawing nearer, Ms Gilliam, then a columnist for the Washington Post, made out an inscription on the moss-grown slab: “In memory of the many faithful coloured servants of the Washington family buried at Mount Vernon from 1760 to 1860. Their unidentified graves surround this spot”. The memorial had been laid in 1929 by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association (MVLA), a heritage group that owns the estate, and since forgotten. An “eerie sense of isolation surrounds the place where an unknown number of Washington’s 317 slaves were buried”, Ms Gilliam wrote in a subsequent column, “and the long walk from the stately tomb of George Washington to this abandoned memorial seemed drenched with the tears of the slaves”. Her words jolted the MVLA into action. Within weeks it had constructed a decent footpath and signposts to guide visitors to the slab. The following year, a new memorial was unveiled: a grey, truncated column of granite, surrounded by a circular brick path, on the bluff high above the Potomac River where slaves were buried; archaeologists, still gently investigating the site, think up to 150 bodies may lie there. These events helped begin a more diligent effort to recognise the central role slavery had played at America’s most visited stately home. When Washington was 11, he inherited 10 slaves from his father; when he died five decades later, he owned 123 of the 317 slaves who lived and worked at Mount Vernon. In that time the estate grew from a fairly modest farmhouse with 2,000 acres to a 21-room mansion and nearly 8,000 acres. It was in this way that the first president became rich: by buying, owning and sometimes selling people and by forcing them to work for him, under pain of flogging, beating or being sold away from their relatives and friends. There had hitherto been little acknowledgement at Mount Vernon of this dreadful blot on Washington’s reputation, or of the hundreds of black slaves who lived and worked there. Insofar as slavery was mentioned at all in the plantation house’s literature and by its guides, it was to talk up the second thoughts on owning people Washington claimed to have had in the second half of his life. He thought it better, he wrote in 1778, to “get quit of Negroes”. His decision, revealed in his will, to free the slaves he owned on his wife’s death, was presented as a fulfilment of that rethink. This apologetic view of Washington’s slave-owning is still espoused by many school text-books and historians of the right. That helps explain why many Americans were surprised when, at the Democratic National Convention in July, Michelle Obama alluded to the fact that slaves helped built the White House. Many conservatives denounced her for peddling a “liberal narrative” (most did not claim she was factually wrong, though some did). The greater care custodians at Mount Vernon now take with the truth was signalled at the beginning of your blogger’s tour. One tour guide announced that she would not speak of slaves, but “enslaved people”, to emphasise that slavery was a catastrophe visited on people, not a natural state of being. At renovated slave quarters in the grounds, a pair of brick-lined outbuildings, where the first president’s slaves slept two-to-a-bunk, the arduous family-lives of slaves with spouses and children living on outlying farms are described. At the site’s visitor centre, an exhibition on slavery, “Lives Bound Together: Slavery at George Washington’s Mount Vernon”, describes the lives of 19 of the slaves who lived on the estate. Sambo Anderson, for example, a carpenter, born in West Africa, whom Washington appears to have purchased in the 1750s and freed in his will. His wife and children were owned by the estate of Martha Washington and handed on to her inheritors after her death. Anderson spent the rest of his life saving money, from his work as a beekeeper and hunter, in order to buy the liberty of a handful of his children and grandchildren. So Mount Vernon’s slaves are no longer invisible, especially on the house’s website. Even so, the horror of their existence is not prominent in the visitor’s experience of the stately home. Even in the slavery exhibition, there is little sense of the violence Washington visited on his slaves—the whippings and beatings, the slaughter of his slaves’ dogs he ordered to prevent them alerting their masters to the approach of his overseers. Much is made of his growing misgivings about slavery. But there is too little recognition that this appears to have been at least in part motivated by economics; by growing less tobacco Washington reduced his demand for slave-labour. For Washington’s slave-owning was not, as the experience of Mount Vernon might suggest, a painful footnote to a great life, but as central to it as anything he did. Washington’s zeal for efficiency, order and money-making are all part of his mythology; these qualities help explain his success. They were also the spirit in which he traded in and worked his slaves. He approached the business of buying slaves as he might livestock, insisting, “all of them to be strait limbed, & in every respect strong and healthy with good teeth”. He worked them into the ground, expecting that “every labourer (male and female) does as much in 24 hours as their strength, without endangering their health or constitution, will allow.” One of the first displays visitors see at the new slavery exhibition are some enlarged pages from Washington’s will, written in 1799, outlining his manumission. Less prominent attention is paid to Washington’s lifelong efforts to protect the system that made him rich. In 1783 he signed the first fugitive slave law, which authorised the recapture of escaped slaves in any state and the punishment of anyone found harbouring fugitive slaves. He also sought to circumvent anti-slavery law for his own purposes. Pennsylvania’s Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery of 1780 ruled that any slave who entered the state with an owner and stayed longer than six months must be freed. Because Philadelphia was America’s seat of government at the time, this gave Washington a headache. His solution was to surreptitiously arrange for his slaves to be cycled in and out of the state every few months (“I request that these Sentiments and this advise may be known to none but yourself & Mrs. Washington” he wrote to his personal secretary in 1791). Only twelve weeks before he died, Washington was still trying to track down a slave who had escaped three years earlier, having learned that Martha Washington planned to give her away as a wedding present. Most of this information is available at Mount Vernon, but it takes a little digging to find it. You are unlikely to hear it from the site’s guides, whose panegyrics to Washington’s generosity and humanity leave little room for the horrors he oversaw. For an alternative view, your blogger asked a young black security guard at the slavery exhibition what he made of the first president's much vaunted second thoughts on slavery. “You know, I’ve been studying this quite a bit since I started working here”, he said. “People say George Washington was against slavery. I say actions speak louder than words”.	<urn:uuid:60ed205e-6677-4d4a-afcc-7c9909f885ec>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2017/01/05/the-spectre-of-slavery-haunts-george-washingtons-house	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00038.warc.gz	en	0.982228	1,622	3.75	4	[ -0.3524979054927826, 0.39827898144721985, 0.3942001760005951, 0.05717407912015915, -0.28555864095687866, 0.4799293875694275, 0.1025451272726059, 0.023891789838671684, -0.23108094930648804, -0.007107225246727467, 0.45098045468330383, 0.07570287585258484, 0.013801579363644123, 0.339354187250...	6	IN 1982 Dorothy Gilliam was walking down an overgrown path close to Mount Vernon, George Washington’s lovely house on the Potomac River in Virginia, when she glimpsed a flash of white stone. Drawing nearer, Ms Gilliam, then a columnist for the Washington Post, made out an inscription on the moss-grown slab: “In memory of the many faithful coloured servants of the Washington family buried at Mount Vernon from 1760 to 1860. Their unidentified graves surround this spot”. The memorial had been laid in 1929 by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association (MVLA), a heritage group that owns the estate, and since forgotten. An “eerie sense of isolation surrounds the place where an unknown number of Washington’s 317 slaves were buried”, Ms Gilliam wrote in a subsequent column, “and the long walk from the stately tomb of George Washington to this abandoned memorial seemed drenched with the tears of the slaves”. Her words jolted the MVLA into action. Within weeks it had constructed a decent footpath and signposts to guide visitors to the slab. The following year, a new memorial was unveiled: a grey, truncated column of granite, surrounded by a circular brick path, on the bluff high above the Potomac River where slaves were buried; archaeologists, still gently investigating the site, think up to 150 bodies may lie there. These events helped begin a more diligent effort to recognise the central role slavery had played at America’s most visited stately home. When Washington was 11, he inherited 10 slaves from his father; when he died five decades later, he owned 123 of the 317 slaves who lived and worked at Mount Vernon. In that time the estate grew from a fairly modest farmhouse with 2,000 acres to a 21-room mansion and nearly 8,000 acres. It was in this way that the first president became rich: by buying, owning and sometimes selling people and by forcing them to work for him, under pain of flogging, beating or being sold away from their relatives and friends. There had hitherto been little acknowledgement at Mount Vernon of this dreadful blot on Washington’s reputation, or of the hundreds of black slaves who lived and worked there. Insofar as slavery was mentioned at all in the plantation house’s literature and by its guides, it was to talk up the second thoughts on owning people Washington claimed to have had in the second half of his life. He thought it better, he wrote in 1778, to “get quit of Negroes”. His decision, revealed in his will, to free the slaves he owned on his wife’s death, was presented as a fulfilment of that rethink. This apologetic view of Washington’s slave-owning is still espoused by many school text-books and historians of the right. That helps explain why many Americans were surprised when, at the Democratic National Convention in July, Michelle Obama alluded to the fact that slaves helped built the White House. Many conservatives denounced her for peddling a “liberal narrative” (most did not claim she was factually wrong, though some did). The greater care custodians at Mount Vernon now take with the truth was signalled at the beginning of your blogger’s tour. One tour guide announced that she would not speak of slaves, but “enslaved people”, to emphasise that slavery was a catastrophe visited on people, not a natural state of being. At renovated slave quarters in the grounds, a pair of brick-lined outbuildings, where the first president’s slaves slept two-to-a-bunk, the arduous family-lives of slaves with spouses and children living on outlying farms are described. At the site’s visitor centre, an exhibition on slavery, “Lives Bound Together: Slavery at George Washington’s Mount Vernon”, describes the lives of 19 of the slaves who lived on the estate. Sambo Anderson, for example, a carpenter, born in West Africa, whom Washington appears to have purchased in the 1750s and freed in his will. His wife and children were owned by the estate of Martha Washington and handed on to her inheritors after her death. Anderson spent the rest of his life saving money, from his work as a beekeeper and hunter, in order to buy the liberty of a handful of his children and grandchildren. So Mount Vernon’s slaves are no longer invisible, especially on the house’s website. Even so, the horror of their existence is not prominent in the visitor’s experience of the stately home. Even in the slavery exhibition, there is little sense of the violence Washington visited on his slaves—the whippings and beatings, the slaughter of his slaves’ dogs he ordered to prevent them alerting their masters to the approach of his overseers. Much is made of his growing misgivings about slavery. But there is too little recognition that this appears to have been at least in part motivated by economics; by growing less tobacco Washington reduced his demand for slave-labour. For Washington’s slave-owning was not, as the experience of Mount Vernon might suggest, a painful footnote to a great life, but as central to it as anything he did. Washington’s zeal for efficiency, order and money-making are all part of his mythology; these qualities help explain his success. They were also the spirit in which he traded in and worked his slaves. He approached the business of buying slaves as he might livestock, insisting, “all of them to be strait limbed, & in every respect strong and healthy with good teeth”. He worked them into the ground, expecting that “every labourer (male and female) does as much in 24 hours as their strength, without endangering their health or constitution, will allow.” One of the first displays visitors see at the new slavery exhibition are some enlarged pages from Washington’s will, written in 1799, outlining his manumission. Less prominent attention is paid to Washington’s lifelong efforts to protect the system that made him rich. In 1783 he signed the first fugitive slave law, which authorised the recapture of escaped slaves in any state and the punishment of anyone found harbouring fugitive slaves. He also sought to circumvent anti-slavery law for his own purposes. Pennsylvania’s Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery of 1780 ruled that any slave who entered the state with an owner and stayed longer than six months must be freed. Because Philadelphia was America’s seat of government at the time, this gave Washington a headache. His solution was to surreptitiously arrange for his slaves to be cycled in and out of the state every few months (“I request that these Sentiments and this advise may be known to none but yourself & Mrs. Washington” he wrote to his personal secretary in 1791). Only twelve weeks before he died, Washington was still trying to track down a slave who had escaped three years earlier, having learned that Martha Washington planned to give her away as a wedding present. Most of this information is available at Mount Vernon, but it takes a little digging to find it. You are unlikely to hear it from the site’s guides, whose panegyrics to Washington’s generosity and humanity leave little room for the horrors he oversaw. For an alternative view, your blogger asked a young black security guard at the slavery exhibition what he made of the first president's much vaunted second thoughts on slavery. “You know, I’ve been studying this quite a bit since I started working here”, he said. “People say George Washington was against slavery. I say actions speak louder than words”.	1,591	ENGLISH	1
Julius Caesar got kidnapped by pirates and complained that his ransom was too low Sicilian pirates ruled the Mediterranean in the 1st and 2nd century BC. In 75 BC, they kidnapped Julius Caesar and held him for ransom. Insulted by the amount of money they demanded, Caesar ordered them to double it. The payment, he declared, should be fit for an emperor. I see your 20 and raise you 30! Julius Caesar wasn’t any geek off the street. His high status should fetch the exorbitant price it deserved. Julius scoffed at the 20 talents of silver the pirates demanded. 20 talents of silver are equal to roughly $600,000 in today’s money. A man such as himself was worth at least 50. Caesar sent off some of his sailors to retrieve the ransom money. The task took 38 days. Caesar made the most of it. Quiet up there! A Caesar as Caesar-y as Julius didn’t have an off switch. Only two servants stayed behind with Caesar, but that wasn’t nearly enough to tend to his royal-sized ego. The man refused to bow down. He acted more like a captain than a prisoner. When Caesar wanted to sleep, he’d yell at the deckhands to be quiet. Caesar wrote poems and speeches and would recite them to the crew. He’d yell at them if they didn’t applaud. The pirates grew to respect him, and treated him more like a comrade than a prisoner. Revenge is sweet! It wasn’t all fun and games in captivity. Caesar didn’t appreciate being held against his will. He promised to hunt the pirates down and have them crucified. When the ransom was paid, and Caesar was set free, he promptly raised a small fleet and tracked down the pirates. The Cilicians were caught off guard. They hadn’t taken the threats seriously. Caesar’s men captured them, took back the money, and kille d them. Even Caesar has a heart. He passed on the torture and went straight for the kill.	<urn:uuid:887b7255-1bfa-40be-bb05-8db8aa466c2e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.history101.com/julius-caesar-kidnapped-pirates/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00122.warc.gz	en	0.980817	442	3.53125	4	[ -0.5291796922683716, 0.4192972779273987, -0.06998886913061142, -0.09914837777614594, -0.23836027085781097, -0.4674370586872101, 0.516094446182251, 0.20103898644447327, 0.3348117172718048, -0.06617339700460434, 0.5378443598747253, -0.1737440675497055, -0.04099549353122711, 0.245868355035781...	4	Julius Caesar got kidnapped by pirates and complained that his ransom was too low Sicilian pirates ruled the Mediterranean in the 1st and 2nd century BC. In 75 BC, they kidnapped Julius Caesar and held him for ransom. Insulted by the amount of money they demanded, Caesar ordered them to double it. The payment, he declared, should be fit for an emperor. I see your 20 and raise you 30! Julius Caesar wasn’t any geek off the street. His high status should fetch the exorbitant price it deserved. Julius scoffed at the 20 talents of silver the pirates demanded. 20 talents of silver are equal to roughly $600,000 in today’s money. A man such as himself was worth at least 50. Caesar sent off some of his sailors to retrieve the ransom money. The task took 38 days. Caesar made the most of it. Quiet up there! A Caesar as Caesar-y as Julius didn’t have an off switch. Only two servants stayed behind with Caesar, but that wasn’t nearly enough to tend to his royal-sized ego. The man refused to bow down. He acted more like a captain than a prisoner. When Caesar wanted to sleep, he’d yell at the deckhands to be quiet. Caesar wrote poems and speeches and would recite them to the crew. He’d yell at them if they didn’t applaud. The pirates grew to respect him, and treated him more like a comrade than a prisoner. Revenge is sweet! It wasn’t all fun and games in captivity. Caesar didn’t appreciate being held against his will. He promised to hunt the pirates down and have them crucified. When the ransom was paid, and Caesar was set free, he promptly raised a small fleet and tracked down the pirates. The Cilicians were caught off guard. They hadn’t taken the threats seriously. Caesar’s men captured them, took back the money, and kille d them. Even Caesar has a heart. He passed on the torture and went straight for the kill.	429	ENGLISH	1
(Last Updated on : 12/07/2013) Religious influences on ancient South Indian culture witnessed the propagation of various spiritual philosophies by various saints. Hinduism was a major practiced religion as compared to other religions in ancient South India. Among other religions Buddhism died out in many parts of India by the end of the 6th century. Jainism, however, had comparatively a greater hold than Buddhism among the masses. Between the seventh and ninth centuries Hinduism was the most popular religion during that time as it was propagated by several saints. They enchanted people by their devotional songs in praise of Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu. The Bhakti form of Hindu religion was greatly in vogue in South India. The Vaishnava saints or Alvars were twelve in number and a collection of their hymns "the Prabandha" were recited there in the temples. The greatest saint was Nammalvar. There was also a woman saint Goda who worshipped Lord Krishna and is considered as a southern counterpart of Mirabai . While Tamil saints were appealing to the heart of the people in their own language, Sanskrit scholars were attracting the minds of the elite in colleges and courts. Indian epics like the Ramayana were being translated into languages which people could understand. was one of the major saints of South India. He was born in the eighth century probably in the year 738 A.D. He began ascetic life at the age of eight and wrote works at the age of twelve. He travelled throughout India and made Vedantic philosophy popular among the masses. He established Hindu centres for Sanyasis in all the four corners of India. His most prominent works were the commentaries he wrote on the Upanishads and the Brahma-Sutras by Badarayana. The Shaivites also accepted him as he paid homage to Lord Shiva . However the Vaishnavas did not take him willingly. For them Ramanuja was the most important saint. Ramanuja accepted God both with and without form. He emphasized that salvation could come from the grace of God. He did not believe that the world was an illusory. He organised seventy four districts in different parts of India with a pious householder as the head of each. Srirangam was established as the head-quarters in the South. There were around sixty three Shaivite saints. The most eminent saints were Sambandha, Appar, Manikka Vachaka and Sundaramurti. Toleration was one of the grand attribute of the Andhran rule. Both Jainism and Buddhism flourished there. Religious influences were also visible in the architecture of that time. The rock-cut caves of the Western Ghats namely the Bhaja, Kordane, Ajanta, Bedsa, Nasik and Karli and the monasteries of Ellora in Hyderabad	<urn:uuid:5028f9db-a875-4116-bada-1aa9ce5655f6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.indianetzone.com/51/religious_influences_on_ancient_south_indian_culture.htm	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00133.warc.gz	en	0.981504	602	3.890625	4	[ 0.4747619032859802, 0.21986380219459534, -0.3670530319213867, -0.6707851886749268, -0.17267164587974548, 0.08803316205739975, 0.23503336310386658, -0.08471234142780304, 0.41382062435150146, -0.11279413104057312, -0.0651167780160904, -0.021017685532569885, 0.2962537705898285, 0.195345312356...	1	(Last Updated on : 12/07/2013) Religious influences on ancient South Indian culture witnessed the propagation of various spiritual philosophies by various saints. Hinduism was a major practiced religion as compared to other religions in ancient South India. Among other religions Buddhism died out in many parts of India by the end of the 6th century. Jainism, however, had comparatively a greater hold than Buddhism among the masses. Between the seventh and ninth centuries Hinduism was the most popular religion during that time as it was propagated by several saints. They enchanted people by their devotional songs in praise of Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu. The Bhakti form of Hindu religion was greatly in vogue in South India. The Vaishnava saints or Alvars were twelve in number and a collection of their hymns "the Prabandha" were recited there in the temples. The greatest saint was Nammalvar. There was also a woman saint Goda who worshipped Lord Krishna and is considered as a southern counterpart of Mirabai . While Tamil saints were appealing to the heart of the people in their own language, Sanskrit scholars were attracting the minds of the elite in colleges and courts. Indian epics like the Ramayana were being translated into languages which people could understand. was one of the major saints of South India. He was born in the eighth century probably in the year 738 A.D. He began ascetic life at the age of eight and wrote works at the age of twelve. He travelled throughout India and made Vedantic philosophy popular among the masses. He established Hindu centres for Sanyasis in all the four corners of India. His most prominent works were the commentaries he wrote on the Upanishads and the Brahma-Sutras by Badarayana. The Shaivites also accepted him as he paid homage to Lord Shiva . However the Vaishnavas did not take him willingly. For them Ramanuja was the most important saint. Ramanuja accepted God both with and without form. He emphasized that salvation could come from the grace of God. He did not believe that the world was an illusory. He organised seventy four districts in different parts of India with a pious householder as the head of each. Srirangam was established as the head-quarters in the South. There were around sixty three Shaivite saints. The most eminent saints were Sambandha, Appar, Manikka Vachaka and Sundaramurti. Toleration was one of the grand attribute of the Andhran rule. Both Jainism and Buddhism flourished there. Religious influences were also visible in the architecture of that time. The rock-cut caves of the Western Ghats namely the Bhaja, Kordane, Ajanta, Bedsa, Nasik and Karli and the monasteries of Ellora in Hyderabad	607	ENGLISH	1
Long forgotten is the dark past that overshadowed this sunny paradise 200 years ago. The archipelago, which today is a semi-autonomous part of Tanzania, was then regarded as the center of the East African slave trade. In addition to valuable raw materials such as ivory and the coveted cloves, one thing stood out above all others in the colorful markets: hundreds of slaves. From Eastern Europe to North AfricaThe sale of African slaves can be traced back to antiquity. It became popular in the seventh century when Islam was gaining strength in North Africa. This was seven centuries before Europeans explored the continent and ten centuries before West Africans were sold across the Atlantic to America. Back then, Arab Muslims in North and East Africa sold captured Africans to the Middle East. There, they worked as field workers, teachers or harem guards, which is why the castration of male slaves was common practice. Muslims, on the other hand, including African Muslims, were not allowed to be enslaved, according to Islamic legal views. "Initially, the Arab Muslims in Eastern and Central Europe took white slaves to sell them to Arabia," Senegalese author Tidiane N'Diaye told DW in an interview. "But the growing military power of Europe put an end to Islamic expansion and now that there was a shortage of slaves, Arab Muslims were looking massively to black Africa." Roots of slavery in AfricaAccording to N'Diaye, slavery has existed in practically all civilizations. This was also the case in Africa before settlers came. In central East Africa, ethnic groups such as the Yao, Makua and Marava were fighting against each other and entire peoples within the continent traded with people they had captured through wars. "Thus Arab Muslims encountered already existing structures, which facilitated the purchase of slaves for their purposes." For Abdulazizi Lodhi, Emeritus Professor of Swahili and African Linguistics at the University of Uppsala in Sweden, slavery was part of different African cultures "When it came to exports, tribal Africans themselves were the main actors. In many African societies there were no prisons, so people who were captured were sold." Zanzibar as East Africa's slave hubThe slave trade in East Africa really took off from the 17th century. More and more merchants from Oman settled in Zanzibar. The island took on an even more important role in the international trade of goods due to the large trade at the Swahili coast and consequently also in the slave trade. This is how the largest slave market in East Africa was created. Only estimates, some of which vary widely, exist as to how many Africans were sold from East to North Africa. This is also due to the fact that many of the slaves perished. Scientific research concludes that about three out of four slaves died before they reached the market where they were to be sold. The causes were hunger, illness or exhaustion after long journeys. Author N'Diaye estimates that 17 million East Africans were sold into slavery: "Most people still have the so-called Transatlantic [slave] trade by Europeans into the New World in mind. But in reality the Arab-Muslim slavery was much greater," N'diaye said. "Eight million Africans were brought from East Africa via the Trans-Saharan route to Morocco or Egypt. A further nine million were deported to regions on the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean." 'The spice of slavery'Historian Lodhi disagrees with N'Diaye's figure. "17 million? How is that possible if the total population of Africa at that time might not even have been 40 million? These statistics did not exist back then." Old reports were also methodically doubtful. For example, David Livingston, a Scottish missionary and explorer, estimated that 50,000 slaves were being sold annually in the markets of Zanzibar. "Even today, the number of people living in Zanzibar is not close to 50,000. The numbers have neither hand nor foot," Lodhi said. Not all slaves were taken to Egypt or Saudi Arabia. From 1820, Omani settlers began cultivating cloves in Zanzibar to meet the growing demand on the world market. Large plantations quickly developed and slaves could be bought cheaply at the nearby slave market. From 1839 to 1860, the quantity of exported cloves increased from 565 (1,246 pounds) to 12,600 kilograms, according to American historian Frederick Cooper. Zanzibar's reputation changed from being the center of the slave trade to a center of slave keeping which produced notorious figures such as the legendary slave trader Tippu-Tip. The end of slavery?At the end of August 1791, a slave revolt began in today's Haiti and the Dominican Republic. These two uprisings significantly promoted the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, slavery and colonialism in Africa. However, it was not until 1873 that Sultan Seyyid Barghash of Zanzibar, under pressure from Great Britain, signed a treaty that made the slave trade in his territories illegal. That decree was not enforced effectively either. It was not until 1909 that slavery was finally abolished in East Africa. According to author N'Diaye, slavery still exists, albeit in a different form. It is estimated that nearly 40 million people worldwide still live in slavery. In Africa there are hundreds of thousands. "In Mauritania they say they have abolished slavery, but in reality the situation in North Africa has not changed much. Young people are enslaved against their will, forced to work and sexually exploited." There have been reports from Libya about organized slave markets and a few years ago, a case of slavery was uncovered in Tanzania, according to Lodhi. "A mine was found in a remote area where 50 to 60 boys were forced to work. They were not paid and lived in a camp guarded by armed men." The effects of slavery in East Africa are not as severe as the economic consequences of Western colonization of Africa, says N'Diaye. "The economy of many of these countries is still dominated by the West; it's a topic being discussed by many intellectuals. But N'Diaye says that what happened in East Africa over the centuries should also be openly discussed. "Most of the African authors have not yet published a book on the Arab-Muslim slave trade out of religious solidarity. There are 500 million Muslims in Africa, and it is better to blame the West than talk about the past crimes of Arab Muslims."	<urn:uuid:25ea5583-aec9-49aa-9539-0f4c188f3238>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://en.sindonews.com/dw/world/east-africa-s-forgotten-slave-trade	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00400.warc.gz	en	0.982065	1,326	3.890625	4	[ -0.28045153617858887, 0.7217000126838684, -0.12009924650192261, 0.09767265617847443, 0.3910733461380005, -0.01561230979859829, -0.05651506409049034, -0.3240698575973511, -0.06173095479607582, 0.25201019644737244, 0.34679341316223145, -0.3341386914253235, -0.08779802173376083, 0.31441408395...	1	Long forgotten is the dark past that overshadowed this sunny paradise 200 years ago. The archipelago, which today is a semi-autonomous part of Tanzania, was then regarded as the center of the East African slave trade. In addition to valuable raw materials such as ivory and the coveted cloves, one thing stood out above all others in the colorful markets: hundreds of slaves. From Eastern Europe to North AfricaThe sale of African slaves can be traced back to antiquity. It became popular in the seventh century when Islam was gaining strength in North Africa. This was seven centuries before Europeans explored the continent and ten centuries before West Africans were sold across the Atlantic to America. Back then, Arab Muslims in North and East Africa sold captured Africans to the Middle East. There, they worked as field workers, teachers or harem guards, which is why the castration of male slaves was common practice. Muslims, on the other hand, including African Muslims, were not allowed to be enslaved, according to Islamic legal views. "Initially, the Arab Muslims in Eastern and Central Europe took white slaves to sell them to Arabia," Senegalese author Tidiane N'Diaye told DW in an interview. "But the growing military power of Europe put an end to Islamic expansion and now that there was a shortage of slaves, Arab Muslims were looking massively to black Africa." Roots of slavery in AfricaAccording to N'Diaye, slavery has existed in practically all civilizations. This was also the case in Africa before settlers came. In central East Africa, ethnic groups such as the Yao, Makua and Marava were fighting against each other and entire peoples within the continent traded with people they had captured through wars. "Thus Arab Muslims encountered already existing structures, which facilitated the purchase of slaves for their purposes." For Abdulazizi Lodhi, Emeritus Professor of Swahili and African Linguistics at the University of Uppsala in Sweden, slavery was part of different African cultures "When it came to exports, tribal Africans themselves were the main actors. In many African societies there were no prisons, so people who were captured were sold." Zanzibar as East Africa's slave hubThe slave trade in East Africa really took off from the 17th century. More and more merchants from Oman settled in Zanzibar. The island took on an even more important role in the international trade of goods due to the large trade at the Swahili coast and consequently also in the slave trade. This is how the largest slave market in East Africa was created. Only estimates, some of which vary widely, exist as to how many Africans were sold from East to North Africa. This is also due to the fact that many of the slaves perished. Scientific research concludes that about three out of four slaves died before they reached the market where they were to be sold. The causes were hunger, illness or exhaustion after long journeys. Author N'Diaye estimates that 17 million East Africans were sold into slavery: "Most people still have the so-called Transatlantic [slave] trade by Europeans into the New World in mind. But in reality the Arab-Muslim slavery was much greater," N'diaye said. "Eight million Africans were brought from East Africa via the Trans-Saharan route to Morocco or Egypt. A further nine million were deported to regions on the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean." 'The spice of slavery'Historian Lodhi disagrees with N'Diaye's figure. "17 million? How is that possible if the total population of Africa at that time might not even have been 40 million? These statistics did not exist back then." Old reports were also methodically doubtful. For example, David Livingston, a Scottish missionary and explorer, estimated that 50,000 slaves were being sold annually in the markets of Zanzibar. "Even today, the number of people living in Zanzibar is not close to 50,000. The numbers have neither hand nor foot," Lodhi said. Not all slaves were taken to Egypt or Saudi Arabia. From 1820, Omani settlers began cultivating cloves in Zanzibar to meet the growing demand on the world market. Large plantations quickly developed and slaves could be bought cheaply at the nearby slave market. From 1839 to 1860, the quantity of exported cloves increased from 565 (1,246 pounds) to 12,600 kilograms, according to American historian Frederick Cooper. Zanzibar's reputation changed from being the center of the slave trade to a center of slave keeping which produced notorious figures such as the legendary slave trader Tippu-Tip. The end of slavery?At the end of August 1791, a slave revolt began in today's Haiti and the Dominican Republic. These two uprisings significantly promoted the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, slavery and colonialism in Africa. However, it was not until 1873 that Sultan Seyyid Barghash of Zanzibar, under pressure from Great Britain, signed a treaty that made the slave trade in his territories illegal. That decree was not enforced effectively either. It was not until 1909 that slavery was finally abolished in East Africa. According to author N'Diaye, slavery still exists, albeit in a different form. It is estimated that nearly 40 million people worldwide still live in slavery. In Africa there are hundreds of thousands. "In Mauritania they say they have abolished slavery, but in reality the situation in North Africa has not changed much. Young people are enslaved against their will, forced to work and sexually exploited." There have been reports from Libya about organized slave markets and a few years ago, a case of slavery was uncovered in Tanzania, according to Lodhi. "A mine was found in a remote area where 50 to 60 boys were forced to work. They were not paid and lived in a camp guarded by armed men." The effects of slavery in East Africa are not as severe as the economic consequences of Western colonization of Africa, says N'Diaye. "The economy of many of these countries is still dominated by the West; it's a topic being discussed by many intellectuals. But N'Diaye says that what happened in East Africa over the centuries should also be openly discussed. "Most of the African authors have not yet published a book on the Arab-Muslim slave trade out of religious solidarity. There are 500 million Muslims in Africa, and it is better to blame the West than talk about the past crimes of Arab Muslims."	1,360	ENGLISH	1
Archaeologists Make A Strange Discovery On Easter Island The Chilean territory of Easter Island is one of the most remote places on Earth with its nearest neighbor being the Pitcairn Islands which are still over 1289 miles away! Despite this isolation, it is thought that the Rapa Nui people settled on the island between 300 and 1200 CE and some remnants of a society have remained in place there ever since. However, one of the most enduring images of the island are the iconic Moai heads, 887 giant stone effigies of ancestors as well as being ancient embodiments of spirits that the community worshipped. Their sheer size and weight have meant that how they came to be transported and dotted all over the island from the quarry they were carved from remains a mystery to this day and their history is shrouded in speculation, but archaeologists recently made a discovery that only adds to the intrigue of the statues. The first settlers on Easter Island would have been Austronesian Polynesians and are likely to have arrived from the Marquesas Islands from the West, and it was they who carved and erected these statues in the shape of distorted human bodies. Carved between the years 1250 and 1500 CE, there are over 900 documented statues with around 13 being taken off the island for research and educational purposes with many ending up in museums across the world including the British Museum. However, as to why the production of the statues ceased is another yet unlearned story. Signs of Discord European accounts in 1722 (Dutch) and 1770 (Spanish) reported seeing only standing statues, but by James Cook's visit in 1774 many were reported toppled and it is thought that this was a sign of internal struggles with the civilization and this was a sign of rebellion or overthrown power. However, no completely valid reasons have been found with the nearest idea being that the society used up all of its natural resources. A Common Misconception Often referred to as 'the stone heads of Easter Island' it is a common misconception that has been popularized by modern literature that the statues are just heads, but they also have arms and torsos. The idea that they were just heads comes from the fact that the most popular images of the statues are of those buried on the slopes of the Rano Raruku volcano, probably because the relative shelter there has meant that they have suffered from less erosion than other Moai on the island. Excavating The Moai The other Moai were all carved with torsos and arms and excavation of some of the heads on the slopes of Rano Raruku also proved that they had been carved with such features as well. For whatever reason, they were buried up to their shoulders and so the lasting image of just stone heads popping out of the ground is the one that has entered pop-culture. Page 1 out of 5	<urn:uuid:f7d6d720-6978-49e7-a752-1ab9ae9f5289>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://thetravellane.com/3412/archaeologists-make-a-strange-discovery-on-easter-island/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687958.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126074227-20200126104227-00457.warc.gz	en	0.984025	586	3.609375	4	[ 0.3038349747657776, -0.03725700080394745, 0.42998749017715454, -0.012671303935348988, 0.2280900925397873, -0.12716776132583618, 0.32826900482177734, -0.16216689348220825, -0.1912236213684082, 0.4335792660713196, 0.1303604543209076, -0.5262391567230225, -0.09393425285816193, 0.9605022072792...	1	Archaeologists Make A Strange Discovery On Easter Island The Chilean territory of Easter Island is one of the most remote places on Earth with its nearest neighbor being the Pitcairn Islands which are still over 1289 miles away! Despite this isolation, it is thought that the Rapa Nui people settled on the island between 300 and 1200 CE and some remnants of a society have remained in place there ever since. However, one of the most enduring images of the island are the iconic Moai heads, 887 giant stone effigies of ancestors as well as being ancient embodiments of spirits that the community worshipped. Their sheer size and weight have meant that how they came to be transported and dotted all over the island from the quarry they were carved from remains a mystery to this day and their history is shrouded in speculation, but archaeologists recently made a discovery that only adds to the intrigue of the statues. The first settlers on Easter Island would have been Austronesian Polynesians and are likely to have arrived from the Marquesas Islands from the West, and it was they who carved and erected these statues in the shape of distorted human bodies. Carved between the years 1250 and 1500 CE, there are over 900 documented statues with around 13 being taken off the island for research and educational purposes with many ending up in museums across the world including the British Museum. However, as to why the production of the statues ceased is another yet unlearned story. Signs of Discord European accounts in 1722 (Dutch) and 1770 (Spanish) reported seeing only standing statues, but by James Cook's visit in 1774 many were reported toppled and it is thought that this was a sign of internal struggles with the civilization and this was a sign of rebellion or overthrown power. However, no completely valid reasons have been found with the nearest idea being that the society used up all of its natural resources. A Common Misconception Often referred to as 'the stone heads of Easter Island' it is a common misconception that has been popularized by modern literature that the statues are just heads, but they also have arms and torsos. The idea that they were just heads comes from the fact that the most popular images of the statues are of those buried on the slopes of the Rano Raruku volcano, probably because the relative shelter there has meant that they have suffered from less erosion than other Moai on the island. Excavating The Moai The other Moai were all carved with torsos and arms and excavation of some of the heads on the slopes of Rano Raruku also proved that they had been carved with such features as well. For whatever reason, they were buried up to their shoulders and so the lasting image of just stone heads popping out of the ground is the one that has entered pop-culture. Page 1 out of 5	618	ENGLISH	1
Christmas is a time of joy, giving, and a reflection of the year that has passed. The holiday is filled of gift giving, storytelling, and family togetherness. At least, that’s how most of us recall this during our lifetime. For those of us who celebrate the “traditions” of Christmas, it brings back memories of hanging stockings, setting up and decorating Christmas trees, leaving out milk and cookies for Santa, kissing under the mistletoe, sending/receiving cards, drinking eggnog, perhaps caroling, and red and green colors draped over everything throughout the season. But where did all these odds and ends handed down traditions come from? There are so many tales of the season that it’s truly difficult to see how we got to where we are now. Our Christmas falls on December 25 of every year. This is the day that Jesus was said to be born. However, the tradition of celebrating in the middle of winter predates Christianity itself. Throughout Europe, people would celebrate the winter solstice, signifying that the worst parts of the winter season were past them and that they could enjoy longer hours of daylight and less darkness. During these celebrations, they would kill their cattle so they would not have to feed them during the grueling months of winter. Most of the time, this was the only opportunity for these Europeans to feast on fresh meat. Wine and beer would also complete them fermentation cycles at this time of year and be ready to drink. The Norse used December 21 as a date to celebrate the Yule, their form of the winter solstice. Their celebration represented similar traits as in the return of the sun. The men of the families would haul large logs home that evening. They would light them on fire and the family would partake in a feast until the fire burnt out. Sometimes this would take up to two weeks. These Norsemen had a belief that each ember from the fire would tell of how many new cows and pigs would be born in the next year. Romans would celebrate their God of Agriculture, Saturn, during their festival of Saturnalia. This celebration would begin a week before the winter solstice and last an entire calendar month. During this raucous occasion, the Roman social ladder was flipped upside down. Masters would bow to their slaves, common peasants would rule the city, and schools would be closed as the children would run the streets to celebrate. During this time, they would also celebrate Juvenilia which was a large feast to respect their youth. Many upper-class citizens would celebrate the birth of the Sun God Mithra on December 25. Mithra was the infant god and her birthday was seen as the most sacred celebration of the entire year. During early Christianity, Christmas and the birth of Christ wasn’t even recognized or celebrated. They still celebrated their version of winter solstice, but the most important day for these early Christians was Easter. During that time, Jesus’s birthday was actually listed as three separate days as no one truly knew the date. March 29, January 6, and some point during the month of June were all speculated. Historians believe that June is the most likely time frame. After Julius Caesar’s successors, quite a few eras removed anyway, Pope Gregory assigned saint Augustine to ensure the British would convert to Christianity. This would open the door to allow the transition of a more formal Christian celebration. In 340 AD, Pope Julius I altered Jesus’s birth to December 25, giving the Christians a new winter solstice to celebrate. Originally, Christmas was actually named the Feast of the Nativity and was transformed, by Greek and Russian Orthodox into a 13-day celebration called Epiphany of the Three Kings. By the Middle Ages, Christianity’s version of the Winter Solstice pretty much replaced the former Pagan festivals and even the religion. During the early years of Christmas, following their church attendance, Christians would celebrate in a Mardi Gras-like atmosphere drinking and carrying on at Christmas carnivals. During these carnivals, a poor peasant would be dubbed the “Lord of Misrule” and lead his new “subjects” to the upper-class homes to demand high class food and drinks. If those wealthy homeowners refused, they would typically be belittled and threatened. This was the time of year that those high-class citizens could help out the poor by entertaining and feeding the less fortunate – whether they wanted to or not. Upon the settler’s arrival in America, the separatists did not celebrate Christmas in the new colony. In fact, from 1659-1681 Christmas was illegal in Boston. Anyone caught practicing the celebration was fined 5 shillings. On the flip side, the famous John Smith, passed a law in Virginia that Christmas was legal and shall be celebrated by all. Following the American Revolution, many English-based traditions and customs were glanced over and deemed in bad taste. This included the celebration of Christmas. It took until the mid-1800’s that Americans revitalized the holiday of Christmas. However, the celebration was altered from the debauchery of the former carnival-like party into a family friendly celebration of peace. This occurred during a period of upheaval and economic class separation. The unemployment numbers were skyrocketing, and the lower-class number was growing by the day. During Christmas of 1828, New York had to send their police force out to put arrest to a large-scale public riot. This event was the first of many that led the wealthy upper-class citizens to change the way Christmas was viewed. The national holiday of Christmas was finally recognized on June 26, 1870. Through time and different cultures, the traditions we now know and love have been altered and warped from their original meanings and folklore. For example, something as simple as the colors of Christmas – green and red. There’s no definitive reasoning behind them but it has been theorized that the color green stemmed from the evergreen tradition, which in itself dates back to before Christianity, whereas the red is said to be something as simple as the holly berry color or as deep as a religious affiliation of the blood of Christ. Many of our traditions have varying tales, most come with a disturbing moral meaning. The hanging of stockings, for example, has numerous tales of early beginnings. The most commonly accepted reason comes from the tale of children leaving out shoes on December 5, the night before St. Nicholas’s Feast Day. These children would leave out hay with the shoes so St. Nicholas’s donkey could munch on some kind of treat. If they were lucky, the children would find coins left in their shoes as a thank you from St. Nicholas. A differing tale is that of a poor father’s inability to provide dowries for his three daughters. Another spin of this tale is that the three daughters were actually prostitutes, turning tricks to earn money for their family. St. Nicholas found out about this and sent chunks of gold down the family’s chimney. That evening, wet stockings were hung by the fire to dry and it just so happened that the gold fell into the stockings. Varying once more, St. Nicholas tossed the gold chunks through an open window at the fathers’ feet, next to his empty stockings. St. Nicholas, Kris Kringle, Father Christmas, better known as Santa Claus, has his own legendary origin stories. St. Nicholas was in fact a real man, a monk who was born in 280 A.D. in Turkey. Before dubbed a saint, Nicholas came from a wealthy family who inherited his family’s money and property upon their death. He donated all his belongings and money to the poor families in the area and traveled the country. During his travels, he helped the poor and sick. He was known as a protector of children. Upon Dutch families arriving in America, they brought with them the stories of Saint Nicholas and gathered in mourning during the anniversary of his death. In Dutch, Saint Nicholas was called “Sint Nikolaas.” A short-term derivative was “Sinter Klaas.” Unknown to the non-Dutch speaking American people, they would take this as a direct translation – Santa Claus was born. The current icon of Santa Claus is an old man with a long white beard and rosy red cheeks, dawning a red jump suit driving a sled led by reindeer pulling a sack full of toys. The main culprit of this depiction is from the 1822 poem called “An Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas” by Clement Clarke Moore. Today, this poem is more popularly known as “Twas the Night Before Christmas.” The cartoonist, Thomas Nast, drew out this poem in 1881 and really allowed the public to picture this jolly old man. Before these pop culture ideals of Santa Claus, St. Nicholas was more combined with folklores of Kris Kringle and other German traditions to be described as an older man with a cane, long bear, and green robe. This was taken from Pagan beliefs which incorporated Santa’s helper, not elves, but the opposing figure to Santa Claus called Krampus. Krampus was the exact opposite of Santa Claus and followed St. Nicholas around, punishing bad children instead of rewarding the good ones. Krampus was said to whip children with bundles of sticks and fill their stockings with coal instead of coins and treats. Yet again diving into Norse mythology, our participation of leaving cookies and milk for Santa Claus the night before Christmas actually comes from kids leaving treats for Odin’s horse, Sleipnir. Sleipner was no ordinary horse, he had eight-legs and two stomachs, one for the treat, one for the drink (typically alcoholic back then). This became popular again during the Great Depression in America as parents tried to show their children to be gracious and happy with whatever they received for Christmas and to say thank you to Santa Clause and his reindeer. Decorations have their own variety of myths. Evergreen trees, more well known as Christmas trees at this time of year, stem back before the advent of Santa Claus, Christmas, and even Christianity itself. Branches of evergreens would be placed around homes during the winter months as a reminder that the plants would return and make the earth green again. Spreading across Europe and Germany, Christianity took this to the next step and had houses decorated with evergreen trees filled with apples symbolizing the Garden of Eden. These were called “Paradise Trees” and were decorated during Adam and Eve Day on December 24. As immigrants came to America, they brought these practices with them. However, the typical decorated Christmas tree wasn’t popularized in homes until 1840 when Queen Victoria and Price Albert decorated their home with them. Now a days, there are nearly 30 million evergreen trees sold in America every year for Christmas. Mistletoe is another form of décor that has been around since ancient times. Originally a Norse myth of a god named Balder who was killed after being struck with an arrow crafted from mistletoe. They believed that the mistletoe was so valuable that they cut it from trees with a golden sickle and caught it before it hit the ground in a soft blanket. If it hit the ground, it would lose its special powers used in rituals and medicine. Because of these stories, modern churches banned mistletoe due to its’ Pagan origins. According to Druid Celtics, it was associated with fertility and strength. It was seen this way to the mistletoe’s ability to blossom during the cold winter. Over time, the fertility aspect became linked to kissing under the mistletoe. This truly grew into popularity in England around the 1800’s between upper class servants. This spread to those wealthy citizens upon seeing their servants using the mistletoe to kiss under. These wealthy men used the mistletoe to kiss any woman they pleased that was standing underneath it. They created the rumor that if any woman refused this kiss, that they were to be cursed with bad luck. The drinking of eggnog stemmed from a middle-ages drink called posset. This was made from eggs, milk, figs, and sherry. The ingredients were expensive – so only the upper-class could afford this at the time. As the separatists immigrated to America, they managed to create a knock off version created with much cheaper and more easily accessible ingredients by leaving out figs and replacing the sherry for rum. The actual name of nog is an abbreviated term for noggin which was a slang term for a wooden cup. Activities like caroling and sending Christmas cards are more Americanized traditions and don’t date back all that far. Caroling stemmed from neighbors visiting one another during the winter months. The carols themselves are older, but these neighbors never sang to one another. It wasn’t until Christmas became more commercialized in the early 1900’s that neighbors began caroling around neighborhoods. Sending Christmas cards also only became an activity loved ones and family members did for each other in the mid-1800’s. A simple cardboard cut out showing people toasting with drinks and a printed saying of “A Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year to You” was first sold in 1843. Only 1,000 of them were published and cost a penny to mail. Because of the sell rate and simplicity, a new tradition was created from this that has led to about 2 billion cards sent every year in America. Older traditions, though, have died in time. It was once said that decorations should be removed by the 12th night of winter solstice (January 6, oddly enough, one of Jesus’s original birthdays) or else you will have bad luck the following year. However, these decorations (typically greenery) should not simply be thrown out but rather burnt or buried. If this greenery is thrown away, a death is said to occur in the household before the next winter solstice. While making pudding, it should be stirred east to west. The reasoning here was based on two different stories. The first is that of the path that the Sun God, Mithra, takes. The second is that of the direction that the three wise men traveled to visit Jesus upon his birth. If you do not stir it in this direction, it was said that whoever eats the pudding will have bad luck for an entire year until the following season. Legends used to tell of Christmas Eve ghost stories. On the night before Christmas, if one ventures into a graveyard and digs a hole deep enough, they will find gold. However, during the way to that graveyard, cattle (which typically sleep at night) are said to kneel down and chant in tongues. If a believer leaves the Christmas Eve blessing early, they are said to see a slew of spirits wondering the streets aimlessly. Christmas still manages to bring people together, even if the reasoning has changed over generations. Even though some of the original traditions and the meaning of them has changed, what’s important is that they still mean something to us as a people, even if it’s just a nostalgia effect. It’s good to learn the origination of our traditions but what’s more important is that we keep them alive, keep them changing, and being a part of our holiday, no matter which one we celebrate.	<urn:uuid:1357808b-6361-4744-9f60-1e073794899d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://ironcityparanormal.com/2019/12/17/christmas-history/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00312.warc.gz	en	0.981311	3,196	3.734375	4	[ 0.049109965562820435, 0.783886730670929, 0.5256531834602356, -0.23985742032527924, 0.20101669430732727, -0.09283119440078735, -0.09091249108314514, 0.09000103175640106, 0.20072828233242035, -0.055996015667915344, 0.08194049447774887, 0.3553263247013092, -0.019064055755734444, 0.11487676948...	11	Christmas is a time of joy, giving, and a reflection of the year that has passed. The holiday is filled of gift giving, storytelling, and family togetherness. At least, that’s how most of us recall this during our lifetime. For those of us who celebrate the “traditions” of Christmas, it brings back memories of hanging stockings, setting up and decorating Christmas trees, leaving out milk and cookies for Santa, kissing under the mistletoe, sending/receiving cards, drinking eggnog, perhaps caroling, and red and green colors draped over everything throughout the season. But where did all these odds and ends handed down traditions come from? There are so many tales of the season that it’s truly difficult to see how we got to where we are now. Our Christmas falls on December 25 of every year. This is the day that Jesus was said to be born. However, the tradition of celebrating in the middle of winter predates Christianity itself. Throughout Europe, people would celebrate the winter solstice, signifying that the worst parts of the winter season were past them and that they could enjoy longer hours of daylight and less darkness. During these celebrations, they would kill their cattle so they would not have to feed them during the grueling months of winter. Most of the time, this was the only opportunity for these Europeans to feast on fresh meat. Wine and beer would also complete them fermentation cycles at this time of year and be ready to drink. The Norse used December 21 as a date to celebrate the Yule, their form of the winter solstice. Their celebration represented similar traits as in the return of the sun. The men of the families would haul large logs home that evening. They would light them on fire and the family would partake in a feast until the fire burnt out. Sometimes this would take up to two weeks. These Norsemen had a belief that each ember from the fire would tell of how many new cows and pigs would be born in the next year. Romans would celebrate their God of Agriculture, Saturn, during their festival of Saturnalia. This celebration would begin a week before the winter solstice and last an entire calendar month. During this raucous occasion, the Roman social ladder was flipped upside down. Masters would bow to their slaves, common peasants would rule the city, and schools would be closed as the children would run the streets to celebrate. During this time, they would also celebrate Juvenilia which was a large feast to respect their youth. Many upper-class citizens would celebrate the birth of the Sun God Mithra on December 25. Mithra was the infant god and her birthday was seen as the most sacred celebration of the entire year. During early Christianity, Christmas and the birth of Christ wasn’t even recognized or celebrated. They still celebrated their version of winter solstice, but the most important day for these early Christians was Easter. During that time, Jesus’s birthday was actually listed as three separate days as no one truly knew the date. March 29, January 6, and some point during the month of June were all speculated. Historians believe that June is the most likely time frame. After Julius Caesar’s successors, quite a few eras removed anyway, Pope Gregory assigned saint Augustine to ensure the British would convert to Christianity. This would open the door to allow the transition of a more formal Christian celebration. In 340 AD, Pope Julius I altered Jesus’s birth to December 25, giving the Christians a new winter solstice to celebrate. Originally, Christmas was actually named the Feast of the Nativity and was transformed, by Greek and Russian Orthodox into a 13-day celebration called Epiphany of the Three Kings. By the Middle Ages, Christianity’s version of the Winter Solstice pretty much replaced the former Pagan festivals and even the religion. During the early years of Christmas, following their church attendance, Christians would celebrate in a Mardi Gras-like atmosphere drinking and carrying on at Christmas carnivals. During these carnivals, a poor peasant would be dubbed the “Lord of Misrule” and lead his new “subjects” to the upper-class homes to demand high class food and drinks. If those wealthy homeowners refused, they would typically be belittled and threatened. This was the time of year that those high-class citizens could help out the poor by entertaining and feeding the less fortunate – whether they wanted to or not. Upon the settler’s arrival in America, the separatists did not celebrate Christmas in the new colony. In fact, from 1659-1681 Christmas was illegal in Boston. Anyone caught practicing the celebration was fined 5 shillings. On the flip side, the famous John Smith, passed a law in Virginia that Christmas was legal and shall be celebrated by all. Following the American Revolution, many English-based traditions and customs were glanced over and deemed in bad taste. This included the celebration of Christmas. It took until the mid-1800’s that Americans revitalized the holiday of Christmas. However, the celebration was altered from the debauchery of the former carnival-like party into a family friendly celebration of peace. This occurred during a period of upheaval and economic class separation. The unemployment numbers were skyrocketing, and the lower-class number was growing by the day. During Christmas of 1828, New York had to send their police force out to put arrest to a large-scale public riot. This event was the first of many that led the wealthy upper-class citizens to change the way Christmas was viewed. The national holiday of Christmas was finally recognized on June 26, 1870. Through time and different cultures, the traditions we now know and love have been altered and warped from their original meanings and folklore. For example, something as simple as the colors of Christmas – green and red. There’s no definitive reasoning behind them but it has been theorized that the color green stemmed from the evergreen tradition, which in itself dates back to before Christianity, whereas the red is said to be something as simple as the holly berry color or as deep as a religious affiliation of the blood of Christ. Many of our traditions have varying tales, most come with a disturbing moral meaning. The hanging of stockings, for example, has numerous tales of early beginnings. The most commonly accepted reason comes from the tale of children leaving out shoes on December 5, the night before St. Nicholas’s Feast Day. These children would leave out hay with the shoes so St. Nicholas’s donkey could munch on some kind of treat. If they were lucky, the children would find coins left in their shoes as a thank you from St. Nicholas. A differing tale is that of a poor father’s inability to provide dowries for his three daughters. Another spin of this tale is that the three daughters were actually prostitutes, turning tricks to earn money for their family. St. Nicholas found out about this and sent chunks of gold down the family’s chimney. That evening, wet stockings were hung by the fire to dry and it just so happened that the gold fell into the stockings. Varying once more, St. Nicholas tossed the gold chunks through an open window at the fathers’ feet, next to his empty stockings. St. Nicholas, Kris Kringle, Father Christmas, better known as Santa Claus, has his own legendary origin stories. St. Nicholas was in fact a real man, a monk who was born in 280 A.D. in Turkey. Before dubbed a saint, Nicholas came from a wealthy family who inherited his family’s money and property upon their death. He donated all his belongings and money to the poor families in the area and traveled the country. During his travels, he helped the poor and sick. He was known as a protector of children. Upon Dutch families arriving in America, they brought with them the stories of Saint Nicholas and gathered in mourning during the anniversary of his death. In Dutch, Saint Nicholas was called “Sint Nikolaas.” A short-term derivative was “Sinter Klaas.” Unknown to the non-Dutch speaking American people, they would take this as a direct translation – Santa Claus was born. The current icon of Santa Claus is an old man with a long white beard and rosy red cheeks, dawning a red jump suit driving a sled led by reindeer pulling a sack full of toys. The main culprit of this depiction is from the 1822 poem called “An Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas” by Clement Clarke Moore. Today, this poem is more popularly known as “Twas the Night Before Christmas.” The cartoonist, Thomas Nast, drew out this poem in 1881 and really allowed the public to picture this jolly old man. Before these pop culture ideals of Santa Claus, St. Nicholas was more combined with folklores of Kris Kringle and other German traditions to be described as an older man with a cane, long bear, and green robe. This was taken from Pagan beliefs which incorporated Santa’s helper, not elves, but the opposing figure to Santa Claus called Krampus. Krampus was the exact opposite of Santa Claus and followed St. Nicholas around, punishing bad children instead of rewarding the good ones. Krampus was said to whip children with bundles of sticks and fill their stockings with coal instead of coins and treats. Yet again diving into Norse mythology, our participation of leaving cookies and milk for Santa Claus the night before Christmas actually comes from kids leaving treats for Odin’s horse, Sleipnir. Sleipner was no ordinary horse, he had eight-legs and two stomachs, one for the treat, one for the drink (typically alcoholic back then). This became popular again during the Great Depression in America as parents tried to show their children to be gracious and happy with whatever they received for Christmas and to say thank you to Santa Clause and his reindeer. Decorations have their own variety of myths. Evergreen trees, more well known as Christmas trees at this time of year, stem back before the advent of Santa Claus, Christmas, and even Christianity itself. Branches of evergreens would be placed around homes during the winter months as a reminder that the plants would return and make the earth green again. Spreading across Europe and Germany, Christianity took this to the next step and had houses decorated with evergreen trees filled with apples symbolizing the Garden of Eden. These were called “Paradise Trees” and were decorated during Adam and Eve Day on December 24. As immigrants came to America, they brought these practices with them. However, the typical decorated Christmas tree wasn’t popularized in homes until 1840 when Queen Victoria and Price Albert decorated their home with them. Now a days, there are nearly 30 million evergreen trees sold in America every year for Christmas. Mistletoe is another form of décor that has been around since ancient times. Originally a Norse myth of a god named Balder who was killed after being struck with an arrow crafted from mistletoe. They believed that the mistletoe was so valuable that they cut it from trees with a golden sickle and caught it before it hit the ground in a soft blanket. If it hit the ground, it would lose its special powers used in rituals and medicine. Because of these stories, modern churches banned mistletoe due to its’ Pagan origins. According to Druid Celtics, it was associated with fertility and strength. It was seen this way to the mistletoe’s ability to blossom during the cold winter. Over time, the fertility aspect became linked to kissing under the mistletoe. This truly grew into popularity in England around the 1800’s between upper class servants. This spread to those wealthy citizens upon seeing their servants using the mistletoe to kiss under. These wealthy men used the mistletoe to kiss any woman they pleased that was standing underneath it. They created the rumor that if any woman refused this kiss, that they were to be cursed with bad luck. The drinking of eggnog stemmed from a middle-ages drink called posset. This was made from eggs, milk, figs, and sherry. The ingredients were expensive – so only the upper-class could afford this at the time. As the separatists immigrated to America, they managed to create a knock off version created with much cheaper and more easily accessible ingredients by leaving out figs and replacing the sherry for rum. The actual name of nog is an abbreviated term for noggin which was a slang term for a wooden cup. Activities like caroling and sending Christmas cards are more Americanized traditions and don’t date back all that far. Caroling stemmed from neighbors visiting one another during the winter months. The carols themselves are older, but these neighbors never sang to one another. It wasn’t until Christmas became more commercialized in the early 1900’s that neighbors began caroling around neighborhoods. Sending Christmas cards also only became an activity loved ones and family members did for each other in the mid-1800’s. A simple cardboard cut out showing people toasting with drinks and a printed saying of “A Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year to You” was first sold in 1843. Only 1,000 of them were published and cost a penny to mail. Because of the sell rate and simplicity, a new tradition was created from this that has led to about 2 billion cards sent every year in America. Older traditions, though, have died in time. It was once said that decorations should be removed by the 12th night of winter solstice (January 6, oddly enough, one of Jesus’s original birthdays) or else you will have bad luck the following year. However, these decorations (typically greenery) should not simply be thrown out but rather burnt or buried. If this greenery is thrown away, a death is said to occur in the household before the next winter solstice. While making pudding, it should be stirred east to west. The reasoning here was based on two different stories. The first is that of the path that the Sun God, Mithra, takes. The second is that of the direction that the three wise men traveled to visit Jesus upon his birth. If you do not stir it in this direction, it was said that whoever eats the pudding will have bad luck for an entire year until the following season. Legends used to tell of Christmas Eve ghost stories. On the night before Christmas, if one ventures into a graveyard and digs a hole deep enough, they will find gold. However, during the way to that graveyard, cattle (which typically sleep at night) are said to kneel down and chant in tongues. If a believer leaves the Christmas Eve blessing early, they are said to see a slew of spirits wondering the streets aimlessly. Christmas still manages to bring people together, even if the reasoning has changed over generations. Even though some of the original traditions and the meaning of them has changed, what’s important is that they still mean something to us as a people, even if it’s just a nostalgia effect. It’s good to learn the origination of our traditions but what’s more important is that we keep them alive, keep them changing, and being a part of our holiday, no matter which one we celebrate.	3,144	ENGLISH	1
Learn about key events in history and their connections to today. On Feb. 21, 1965, the former Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X was shot and killed by assassins identified as Black Muslims as he was about to address the Organization of Afro-American Unity at the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem. He was 39. Malcolm X, born Malcolm Little in 1925, was the son of a preacher rumored to have been killed by white supremacists when Malcolm was young. When he was 13, his mother was placed in a mental hospital, and he lived in a series of foster homes. A focused student, he finished junior high at the top of his class. But he left school after a favorite teacher told Malcolm that his dream of becoming a lawyer was “no realistic goal” for a black student (the teacher, however, used an ethnic slur while making the comment). Malcolm then moved to Boston to live with his half-sister. In 1946, he went to prison for breaking and entering. He joined the Nation of Islam while in prison and adopted his new name upon his release in 1952. Malcolm X rose quickly in the organization and traveled the country preaching the message of the Black Muslims, including the belief that blacks were superior to whites, that blacks and whites should be segregated and that blacks must protect themselves “by any means necessary.” A charismatic speaker, he won thousands of converts. However, his inflammatory oratory put him in opposition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the mainstream civil rights movement, which sought integration with white America through nonviolent means. Malcolm X often belittled Dr. King, calling him an “Uncle Tom” who was supported by whites and argued that Dr. King’s Christian faith was a religion for whites. In the 1960s, Malcolm X clashed with Elijah Muhammad, the leader of the Nation of Islam, over the direction of the organization among other issues. In 1963, Muhammad suspended Malcolm X from the organization as punishment for his comment that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was an example of “the chickens coming home to roost.” In 1964, Malcolm X broke with the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. He made a pilgrimage to Mecca, where he began to question his beliefs after seeing Muslims of all races coming together in peace. He changed his name to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz and upon his return to the United States began espousing less confrontational and separatist views on race relations. Malcolm X received many death threats from Nation of Islam members. His home in New York, in Queens, was set on fire on Feb. 14, 1965, a week before his death. The Feb. 22 New York Times presented quotations from an interview he gave on Feb. 18: “I’m a marked man. It doesn’t frighten me for myself as long as I felt they would not hurt my family. … No one can get out with out trouble, and this thing with me will be resolved by death and violence.” Connect to Today: Though during his time in the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X took a militant stance toward civil rights and used violent, uncompromising rhetoric, he had reformed his beliefs by the time of his death. In a New York Times review of Manning Marable’s 2011 biography “Malcolm X: Life of Reinvention,” Michiko Kautani wrote that he had an “embrace of a kind of internationalist humanism, separating himself not just from Nation of Islam’s leadership but from its angry, separatist theology too. After Mecca, Malcolm began reaching out to the civil rights establishment and came to recognize, in Mr. Marable’s words, that ‘blacks indeed could achieve representation and even power under America’s constitutional system.’” For many, Malcolm X is a cultural hero and a symbol of black pride and social protest. What does his legacy mean to you? In your opinion, should this complex, self-made civil rights and spiritual leader be remembered for the messages he advocated for a majority of his public life or for the reformed beliefs of his later life?	<urn:uuid:9fb951db-004f-4d4d-8320-e2563ecefa5a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/feb-21-1965-malcolm-x-is-assassinated-by-black-muslims/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00510.warc.gz	en	0.983111	873	3.9375	4	[ -0.30909448862075806, 0.508942723274231, 0.18619045615196228, 0.09854436665773392, -0.06457533687353134, 0.2763770818710327, 0.1633162498474121, -0.10527332127094269, -0.09848082810640335, 0.06786113232374191, -0.05501997470855713, 0.38377314805984497, 0.17172874510288239, 0.11660330742597...	6	Learn about key events in history and their connections to today. On Feb. 21, 1965, the former Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X was shot and killed by assassins identified as Black Muslims as he was about to address the Organization of Afro-American Unity at the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem. He was 39. Malcolm X, born Malcolm Little in 1925, was the son of a preacher rumored to have been killed by white supremacists when Malcolm was young. When he was 13, his mother was placed in a mental hospital, and he lived in a series of foster homes. A focused student, he finished junior high at the top of his class. But he left school after a favorite teacher told Malcolm that his dream of becoming a lawyer was “no realistic goal” for a black student (the teacher, however, used an ethnic slur while making the comment). Malcolm then moved to Boston to live with his half-sister. In 1946, he went to prison for breaking and entering. He joined the Nation of Islam while in prison and adopted his new name upon his release in 1952. Malcolm X rose quickly in the organization and traveled the country preaching the message of the Black Muslims, including the belief that blacks were superior to whites, that blacks and whites should be segregated and that blacks must protect themselves “by any means necessary.” A charismatic speaker, he won thousands of converts. However, his inflammatory oratory put him in opposition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the mainstream civil rights movement, which sought integration with white America through nonviolent means. Malcolm X often belittled Dr. King, calling him an “Uncle Tom” who was supported by whites and argued that Dr. King’s Christian faith was a religion for whites. In the 1960s, Malcolm X clashed with Elijah Muhammad, the leader of the Nation of Islam, over the direction of the organization among other issues. In 1963, Muhammad suspended Malcolm X from the organization as punishment for his comment that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was an example of “the chickens coming home to roost.” In 1964, Malcolm X broke with the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. He made a pilgrimage to Mecca, where he began to question his beliefs after seeing Muslims of all races coming together in peace. He changed his name to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz and upon his return to the United States began espousing less confrontational and separatist views on race relations. Malcolm X received many death threats from Nation of Islam members. His home in New York, in Queens, was set on fire on Feb. 14, 1965, a week before his death. The Feb. 22 New York Times presented quotations from an interview he gave on Feb. 18: “I’m a marked man. It doesn’t frighten me for myself as long as I felt they would not hurt my family. … No one can get out with out trouble, and this thing with me will be resolved by death and violence.” Connect to Today: Though during his time in the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X took a militant stance toward civil rights and used violent, uncompromising rhetoric, he had reformed his beliefs by the time of his death. In a New York Times review of Manning Marable’s 2011 biography “Malcolm X: Life of Reinvention,” Michiko Kautani wrote that he had an “embrace of a kind of internationalist humanism, separating himself not just from Nation of Islam’s leadership but from its angry, separatist theology too. After Mecca, Malcolm began reaching out to the civil rights establishment and came to recognize, in Mr. Marable’s words, that ‘blacks indeed could achieve representation and even power under America’s constitutional system.’” For many, Malcolm X is a cultural hero and a symbol of black pride and social protest. What does his legacy mean to you? In your opinion, should this complex, self-made civil rights and spiritual leader be remembered for the messages he advocated for a majority of his public life or for the reformed beliefs of his later life?	880	ENGLISH	1
Oskar Schindler was born on April 28, 1908 at Zwittau/Moravia (today in the Czech Republic). His middle-class Catholic family belonged to the German-speaking community in the Sudetenland. The young Schindler, who attended German grammar school and studied engineering, was expected to follow in the footsteps of his father and take charge of the family farm-machinery plant. Some of Schindler’s schoolmates and childhood neighbors were Jews, but with none of them did he develop an intimate or lasting friendship. Like most of the German-speaking youths of the Sudetenland, he subscribed to Konrad Henlein’s Sudeten German Party, which strongly supported the Nazi Germany and actively strove for the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and their annexation to Germany . When the Sudetenland was incorporated into Nazi Germany in 1938, Schindler became a formal member of the Nazi party. Shortly after the outbreak of war in September 1939, thirty-one-year-old Schindler showed up in occupied Krakow. The ancient city, home to some 60,000 Jews and seat of the German occupation administration, the Generalgouvernement, proved highly attractive to German entrepreneurs, hoping to capitalize on the misfortunes of the subjugated country and make a fortune. Naturally cunning and none too scrupulous, Schindler appeared at first to thrive in these surroundings. In October 1939, he took over a run-down enamelware factory that had previously belonged to a Jew. He cleverly maneuvered his steps- acting upon the shrewd commercial advice of a Polish-Jewish accountant, Isaak Stern - and began to build himself a fortune. The small concern in Zablocie outside Krakow, which started producing kitchenware for the German army, began to grow by leaps and bounds. After only three months it already had a task-force of some 250 Polish workers, among them seven Jews. By the end of 1942, it had expanded into a mammoth enamel and ammunitions production plant, occupying some 45,000 square meters and employing almost 800 men and women. Of these, 370 were Jews from the Krakow ghetto, which the Germans had established after they entered the city. A hedonist and gambler by nature, Schindler soon adopted a profligate lifestyle, carousing into the small hours of the night, hobnobbing with high ranking SS-officers, and philandering with beautiful Polish women. Schindler seemed to be no different from other Germans who had come to Poland as part of the occupation administration and their associates. The only thing that set him apart from other war-profiteers, was his humane treatment of his workers, especially the Jews. Schindler never developed any ideologically motivated resistance against the Nazi regime. However, his growing revulsion and horror at the senseless brutality of the Nazi persecution of the helpless Jewish population wrought a curious transformation in the unprincipled opportunist. Gradually, the egoistic goal of lining his pockets with money took second place to the all-consuming desire of rescuing as many of his Jews as he could from the clutches of the Nazi executioners. In the long run, in his efforts to bring his Jewish workers safely through the war, he was not only prepared to squander all his money but also to put his own life on line. Schindler’s most effective tool in this privately conceived rescue campaign was the privileged status his plant enjoyed as a “business essential to the war effort” as accorded him by the Military Armaments Inspectorate in occupied Poland. This not only qualified him to obtain lucrative military contracts, but also enabled him to draw on Jewish workers who were under the jurisdiction of the SS. When his Jewish employees were threatened with deportation to Auschwitz by the SS, he could claim exemptions for them, arguing that their removal would seriously hamper his efforts to keep up production essential to the war effort. He did not balk at falsifying the records, listing children, housewives, and lawyers as expert mechanics and metalworkers, and, in general, covering up as much as he could for unqualified or temporarily incapacitated workers. The Gestapo arrested him several times and interrogated him on charges of irregularities and of favoring Jews. However, Schindler would not desist. In 1943, at the invitation of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, he undertook a highly risky journey to Budapest, where he met with two representatives of Hungarian Jewry. He reported to them about the desperate plight of the Jews in Poland and discussed possible ways of relief. In March 1943, the Krakow ghetto was being liquidated, and all the remaining Jews were being moved to the forced-labor camp of Plaszow, outside Krakow. Schindler prevailed upon SS-Haupsturmführer Amon Goeth, the brutal camp commandant and a personal drinking companion, to allow him to set up a special sub-camp for his own Jewish workers at the factory site in Zablocie. There he was better able to keep the Jews under relatively tolerable conditions, augmenting their below-subsistence diet with food bought on the black market with his own money. The factory compound was declared out of bounds for the SS guards who kept watch over the sub-camp. In late 1944, Plaszow and all its sub-camps had to be evacuated in face of the Russian advance. Most of the camp inmates—more than 20,000 men, women, and children—were sent to extermination camps. On receiving the order to evacuate, Schindler, who had approached the appropriate section in the Supreme Command of the Army (OKW), managed to obtain official authorization to continue production in a factory that he and his wife had set up in Brünnlitz, in their native Sudetenland. The entire work force from Zablocie—to which were furtively added many new names from the Plaszow camp—was supposed to move to the new factory site. However, instead of being brought to Brünnlitz, the 800 men—among them 700 Jews—and the 300 women on Schindler’s list were diverted to Gross-Rosen and to Auschwitz, respectively. When he learned what had happened, Schindler at first managed to secure the release of the men from the Gross-Rosen camp. He then proceeded to send his personal German secretary to Auschwitz to negotiate the release of the women. The latter managed to obtain the release of the Jewish women by promising to pay 7 RM daily per worker. This is the only recorded case in the history of the extermination camp that such a large group of people were allowed to leave alive while the gas chambers were still in operation. One of the most remarkable humanitarian acts performed by Oskar and Emilie Schindler involved the case of 120 Jewish male prisoners from Goleszow, a sub-camp of Auschwitz. The men had been working there in a quarry plant that belonged to the SS-operated company “German Earth and Stone Works.” With the approach of the Russian front in January 1945, they were evacuated from Goleszow and transported westward in sealed cattle-wagons, without food or water. At the end of a seven-day grueling journey in the dead of winter, the SS guards finally stationed the two sealed cattle-cars with their human cargo at the gates of Brunnlitz. Emilie Schindler was just in time to stop the SS camp commandant from sending the train back. Schindler, who had rushed back to the camp from some food-procuring errand outside, barely managed to convince the commandant that he desperately needed the people who were locked in the train for work. When the wagons were forced open, a terrible sight was revealed. The Schindlers took charge of the 107 survivors, with terrible frostbite and frightfully emaciated, arranged for medical treatment and gradually nourished them back to life. Schindler also stood up to the Nazi Commandant who wanted to incinerate the corpses that were found frozen in the boxcars, and arranged for their burial with full Jewish religious rites in a plot of land near the Catholic cemetery, which he had especially bought for that purpose. In the final days of the war, just before the entry of the Russian army into Moravia, Schindler managed to smuggle himself back into Germany, into Allied-controlled territory. The wartime industrial tycoon was by now penniless. Jewish relief organizations and groups of survivors supported him modestly over the years, helping finance his (in the long run, unsuccessful) emigration to South America. When Schindler visited Israel in 1961, the first of seventeen visits, he was treated to an overwhelming welcome from 220 enthusiastic survivors. He continued to live partly in Israel and partly in Germany. After his death on 9 October 1974 in Hildesheim, Germany, the mournful survivors brought the remains of their rescuer to Israel to be laid to eternal rest in the Catholic Cemetery of Jerusalem. The inscription on his grave says: 'The unforgettable rescuer of 1,200 persecuted Jews". In 1962 a tree was planted in Schindler's honor in the Avenue of the Righteous at Yad Vashem. On June 24, 1993, Yad Vashem recognized Emilie and Oskar Schindler as Righteous Among the Nations. Supported By: Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany	<urn:uuid:31636b92-f1c7-4683-94ea-3a2110e4641b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.yadvashem.org/righteous/stories/schindler.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250625097.75/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124191133-20200124220133-00090.warc.gz	en	0.981347	1,968	3.265625	3	[ 0.3268328309059143, 0.5114452838897705, -0.12836140394210815, -0.3107192814350128, -0.11712655425071716, 0.27545493841171265, 0.20976892113685608, 0.3443257808685303, -0.4486899673938751, -0.4308598041534424, 0.286899209022522, -0.41628533601760864, 0.21786338090896606, 0.2091972529888153,...	9	Oskar Schindler was born on April 28, 1908 at Zwittau/Moravia (today in the Czech Republic). His middle-class Catholic family belonged to the German-speaking community in the Sudetenland. The young Schindler, who attended German grammar school and studied engineering, was expected to follow in the footsteps of his father and take charge of the family farm-machinery plant. Some of Schindler’s schoolmates and childhood neighbors were Jews, but with none of them did he develop an intimate or lasting friendship. Like most of the German-speaking youths of the Sudetenland, he subscribed to Konrad Henlein’s Sudeten German Party, which strongly supported the Nazi Germany and actively strove for the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and their annexation to Germany . When the Sudetenland was incorporated into Nazi Germany in 1938, Schindler became a formal member of the Nazi party. Shortly after the outbreak of war in September 1939, thirty-one-year-old Schindler showed up in occupied Krakow. The ancient city, home to some 60,000 Jews and seat of the German occupation administration, the Generalgouvernement, proved highly attractive to German entrepreneurs, hoping to capitalize on the misfortunes of the subjugated country and make a fortune. Naturally cunning and none too scrupulous, Schindler appeared at first to thrive in these surroundings. In October 1939, he took over a run-down enamelware factory that had previously belonged to a Jew. He cleverly maneuvered his steps- acting upon the shrewd commercial advice of a Polish-Jewish accountant, Isaak Stern - and began to build himself a fortune. The small concern in Zablocie outside Krakow, which started producing kitchenware for the German army, began to grow by leaps and bounds. After only three months it already had a task-force of some 250 Polish workers, among them seven Jews. By the end of 1942, it had expanded into a mammoth enamel and ammunitions production plant, occupying some 45,000 square meters and employing almost 800 men and women. Of these, 370 were Jews from the Krakow ghetto, which the Germans had established after they entered the city. A hedonist and gambler by nature, Schindler soon adopted a profligate lifestyle, carousing into the small hours of the night, hobnobbing with high ranking SS-officers, and philandering with beautiful Polish women. Schindler seemed to be no different from other Germans who had come to Poland as part of the occupation administration and their associates. The only thing that set him apart from other war-profiteers, was his humane treatment of his workers, especially the Jews. Schindler never developed any ideologically motivated resistance against the Nazi regime. However, his growing revulsion and horror at the senseless brutality of the Nazi persecution of the helpless Jewish population wrought a curious transformation in the unprincipled opportunist. Gradually, the egoistic goal of lining his pockets with money took second place to the all-consuming desire of rescuing as many of his Jews as he could from the clutches of the Nazi executioners. In the long run, in his efforts to bring his Jewish workers safely through the war, he was not only prepared to squander all his money but also to put his own life on line. Schindler’s most effective tool in this privately conceived rescue campaign was the privileged status his plant enjoyed as a “business essential to the war effort” as accorded him by the Military Armaments Inspectorate in occupied Poland. This not only qualified him to obtain lucrative military contracts, but also enabled him to draw on Jewish workers who were under the jurisdiction of the SS. When his Jewish employees were threatened with deportation to Auschwitz by the SS, he could claim exemptions for them, arguing that their removal would seriously hamper his efforts to keep up production essential to the war effort. He did not balk at falsifying the records, listing children, housewives, and lawyers as expert mechanics and metalworkers, and, in general, covering up as much as he could for unqualified or temporarily incapacitated workers. The Gestapo arrested him several times and interrogated him on charges of irregularities and of favoring Jews. However, Schindler would not desist. In 1943, at the invitation of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, he undertook a highly risky journey to Budapest, where he met with two representatives of Hungarian Jewry. He reported to them about the desperate plight of the Jews in Poland and discussed possible ways of relief. In March 1943, the Krakow ghetto was being liquidated, and all the remaining Jews were being moved to the forced-labor camp of Plaszow, outside Krakow. Schindler prevailed upon SS-Haupsturmführer Amon Goeth, the brutal camp commandant and a personal drinking companion, to allow him to set up a special sub-camp for his own Jewish workers at the factory site in Zablocie. There he was better able to keep the Jews under relatively tolerable conditions, augmenting their below-subsistence diet with food bought on the black market with his own money. The factory compound was declared out of bounds for the SS guards who kept watch over the sub-camp. In late 1944, Plaszow and all its sub-camps had to be evacuated in face of the Russian advance. Most of the camp inmates—more than 20,000 men, women, and children—were sent to extermination camps. On receiving the order to evacuate, Schindler, who had approached the appropriate section in the Supreme Command of the Army (OKW), managed to obtain official authorization to continue production in a factory that he and his wife had set up in Brünnlitz, in their native Sudetenland. The entire work force from Zablocie—to which were furtively added many new names from the Plaszow camp—was supposed to move to the new factory site. However, instead of being brought to Brünnlitz, the 800 men—among them 700 Jews—and the 300 women on Schindler’s list were diverted to Gross-Rosen and to Auschwitz, respectively. When he learned what had happened, Schindler at first managed to secure the release of the men from the Gross-Rosen camp. He then proceeded to send his personal German secretary to Auschwitz to negotiate the release of the women. The latter managed to obtain the release of the Jewish women by promising to pay 7 RM daily per worker. This is the only recorded case in the history of the extermination camp that such a large group of people were allowed to leave alive while the gas chambers were still in operation. One of the most remarkable humanitarian acts performed by Oskar and Emilie Schindler involved the case of 120 Jewish male prisoners from Goleszow, a sub-camp of Auschwitz. The men had been working there in a quarry plant that belonged to the SS-operated company “German Earth and Stone Works.” With the approach of the Russian front in January 1945, they were evacuated from Goleszow and transported westward in sealed cattle-wagons, without food or water. At the end of a seven-day grueling journey in the dead of winter, the SS guards finally stationed the two sealed cattle-cars with their human cargo at the gates of Brunnlitz. Emilie Schindler was just in time to stop the SS camp commandant from sending the train back. Schindler, who had rushed back to the camp from some food-procuring errand outside, barely managed to convince the commandant that he desperately needed the people who were locked in the train for work. When the wagons were forced open, a terrible sight was revealed. The Schindlers took charge of the 107 survivors, with terrible frostbite and frightfully emaciated, arranged for medical treatment and gradually nourished them back to life. Schindler also stood up to the Nazi Commandant who wanted to incinerate the corpses that were found frozen in the boxcars, and arranged for their burial with full Jewish religious rites in a plot of land near the Catholic cemetery, which he had especially bought for that purpose. In the final days of the war, just before the entry of the Russian army into Moravia, Schindler managed to smuggle himself back into Germany, into Allied-controlled territory. The wartime industrial tycoon was by now penniless. Jewish relief organizations and groups of survivors supported him modestly over the years, helping finance his (in the long run, unsuccessful) emigration to South America. When Schindler visited Israel in 1961, the first of seventeen visits, he was treated to an overwhelming welcome from 220 enthusiastic survivors. He continued to live partly in Israel and partly in Germany. After his death on 9 October 1974 in Hildesheim, Germany, the mournful survivors brought the remains of their rescuer to Israel to be laid to eternal rest in the Catholic Cemetery of Jerusalem. The inscription on his grave says: 'The unforgettable rescuer of 1,200 persecuted Jews". In 1962 a tree was planted in Schindler's honor in the Avenue of the Righteous at Yad Vashem. On June 24, 1993, Yad Vashem recognized Emilie and Oskar Schindler as Righteous Among the Nations. Supported By: Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany	2,018	ENGLISH	1
The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce by John Milton led to a great stir in society during his time. Milton used his ideas and made many different Biblical names, even Christ, sound like they agreed with him. In his prose, he took words from the Bible and changed the meaning to make the Bible sound as if it preached the same idea he tried to convey. The prose argues that the main purpose of marriage is not to procreate, but to share a deeper, meaningful relationship with your significant other. Milton wanted to propose irreconcilable differences as grounds for divorce. That indisposition, unfitnes, or contrariety of mind, rising from a cause in nature unchangeable, hindring and ever likely to hinder the main benefit of conjugall society, which are solace and peace, is a greater reason of divorce then naturall frigidity, especially if there be no children and that there be mutuall consent. (p937) Milton tries to say that if the nature of two people will not produce harmony then they should not have to stay together. If they both agree that the differences they share cause too much negativity then a divorce would be the best resolution, especially with no children involved because then they have not followed the basis for the marriage. The first passage Milton uses comes from Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Deuteronomy uses the word uncleanness, which Milton puts his own meaning to. The passage follows: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent her... Please join StudyMode to read the full document	<urn:uuid:8f799fb7-632e-48f1-bf2f-82beb42b3600>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.studymode.com/essays/Milton-The-Doctrine-And-Discipline-Of-63609226.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00135.warc.gz	en	0.980483	448	3.296875	3	[ -0.0931495800614357, 0.21660958230495453, 0.027278432622551918, -0.1883886456489563, 0.07944875955581665, 0.021976029500365257, 0.2300373613834381, 0.005579870659857988, 0.24671776592731476, -0.145985409617424, 0.04458183795213699, 0.14475983381271362, 0.3807513415813446, 0.225604638457298...	1	The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce by John Milton led to a great stir in society during his time. Milton used his ideas and made many different Biblical names, even Christ, sound like they agreed with him. In his prose, he took words from the Bible and changed the meaning to make the Bible sound as if it preached the same idea he tried to convey. The prose argues that the main purpose of marriage is not to procreate, but to share a deeper, meaningful relationship with your significant other. Milton wanted to propose irreconcilable differences as grounds for divorce. That indisposition, unfitnes, or contrariety of mind, rising from a cause in nature unchangeable, hindring and ever likely to hinder the main benefit of conjugall society, which are solace and peace, is a greater reason of divorce then naturall frigidity, especially if there be no children and that there be mutuall consent. (p937) Milton tries to say that if the nature of two people will not produce harmony then they should not have to stay together. If they both agree that the differences they share cause too much negativity then a divorce would be the best resolution, especially with no children involved because then they have not followed the basis for the marriage. The first passage Milton uses comes from Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Deuteronomy uses the word uncleanness, which Milton puts his own meaning to. The passage follows: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent her... Please join StudyMode to read the full document	448	ENGLISH	1
It was created in 1491 by the German cartographer Henricus Martellus. The map that we show here is an authentic jewel of the history of cartography. It was created in 1491 by the German Henricus Martellus, and many indications suggest that it served as an inspiration to Christopher Columbus. Now, the map has just been restored by researchers from the University of Rochester, in New York, which has revealed some details that remained hidden. Obviously, the map does not show the American continent, whose existence was still unknown to Europeans. But its importance lies in the fact that it is one of the few from that historical period that does not show sea monsters and because, despite some errors, it is quite true to reality. It is believed that Columbus was inspired by him because he always maintained that Japan was located at the exact latitude shown by this map, which is the only one of its time that places the Asian country in that position.	<urn:uuid:6a7d9854-234c-481d-be1f-dcac4d001c01>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.maritimeherald.com/2018/the-map-that-inspired-christopher-columbus-to-discover-america/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00343.warc.gz	en	0.986241	198	3.921875	4	[ -0.09630167484283447, -0.14017726480960846, 0.25479966402053833, 0.09959586709737778, -0.265824556350708, -0.0019525338429957628, -0.16195634007453918, 0.18995673954486847, -0.2941204905509949, -0.2453305572271347, 0.15594300627708435, -0.6654497981071472, -0.06456457078456879, 0.621272265...	4	It was created in 1491 by the German cartographer Henricus Martellus. The map that we show here is an authentic jewel of the history of cartography. It was created in 1491 by the German Henricus Martellus, and many indications suggest that it served as an inspiration to Christopher Columbus. Now, the map has just been restored by researchers from the University of Rochester, in New York, which has revealed some details that remained hidden. Obviously, the map does not show the American continent, whose existence was still unknown to Europeans. But its importance lies in the fact that it is one of the few from that historical period that does not show sea monsters and because, despite some errors, it is quite true to reality. It is believed that Columbus was inspired by him because he always maintained that Japan was located at the exact latitude shown by this map, which is the only one of its time that places the Asian country in that position.	200	ENGLISH	1
From 1939 to 1945, World War 2 ravaged the world. It was the bloodiest conflict in history, with up to eighty million people in total being killed, which was more than double the total that perished during World War I (which was supposed to be the war that ended all wars). Simply put, casualties and bloodshed have never been seen either before or after World War II. Here are the bloodiest battles of the conflict: The Battle of Stalingrad was both the largest battle in human history in terms of the number of men who fought, in addition to the bloodiest battle in terms of sheer casualties as well. In 1942, the Germans had lost the Battle of Moscow the previous winter. Rather than continue their offensive, they decided to strike south towards Stalingrad in order to gain control of the Caucasus oil reserves. The German Luftwaffe bombed Stalingrad into submission while the 6th Army surged forward, flanked by the Italian, Romanian, and Hungarian armies. Some of the fiercest combat of World War II took place in the rubble of Stalingrad. The Soviet resistance was fierce, but the 6th Army pushed them back to the Volga River. In December, just as the Germans were on the verge of victory, outside Soviet armies launched counteroffensives on the flanking Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian armies. These armies broke apart and the Soviets surrounded the 6th Army in Stalingrad before closing in from all sides. Hitler ordered the 6th Army to hold out and be resupplied by the Luftwaffe while outside forces would attempt to break them out. The Soviets were able to successfully shoot down enough aircraft that the 6th Army could not be resupplied while also stopping the outside German offensive. A month later, the battered 6th Army, out of food, water, ammunition, and trapped in the freezing cold in summer clothing, was forced to surrender. The Soviets sustained nearly 1,200,000 casualties at Stalingrad, of whom nearly 500,000 were killed. The Axis lost over 800,000 men, including the entire German 6th Army, which was a blow they would never fully recover from. The Battle of the Bulge was fought in December of 1944 and January of 1945. In the battle, Germany committed the last of their reserves in an attempt to smash through the American forces in the Ardennes forces in Europe. The goal was to drive all the way to Antwerp and split the British and American forces in two. Armed with their formidable Tiger and Panther tanks, the Germans were initially very successful in the opening days of the offensive and caught the Americans completely off guard. Several American pockets of soldiers became isolated and cut off, and were forced to fight on their own against numerically superior German forces. Eventually, the Germans’ fuel supplies began to run out, and American reinforcements begin to arrive en masse. The Germans were then pushed back to their original starting lines within a month. The battle was a severe blow to Germany, which fell far short of its objectives and had wasted the last of its reserves. The battle was also the bloodiest battle the Americans fought in World War II. Total American casualties were nearly 90,000, while the Germans lost anywhere from 65,000 to 100,000 depending on estimates. The Battle of Berlin was the final battle on the Eastern Front in World War 2. The Soviet forces advanced to only a few miles short of Berlin, where the front lines stabilized. By now, the Germans were in a desperate situation. They had used up the last of their reserves, most of the men in their armies were either very young or old, and they were down to the last of their tanks, artillery, and ammunition. When the battle commenced in mid-April, around 2.5 million Soviet soldiers and 6,000 tanks swarmed forward against 750,000 German soldiers and 1,500 tanks and armored vehicles. The Germans held strong at Seelow Heights, where they held the high ground, for several days but were eventually pushed back into the city. The Soviets then surrounded the city and attacked it from all sides. Some of the most brutal hand-to-hand combat since Stalingrad took place in the ruins, but the Soviet advanced was relentless. Hitler desperately ordered counterattacks in an attempt to save the city, but these never materialized because the units he wanted to attack existed only on paper. Finally, Hitler committed suicide on April 30th, and a few days later the German garrison surrendered. The Germans suffered around 100,000 dead and 220,000 wounded. The Soviets suffered 81,000 dead and 280,000 wounded. The Battle of Iwo Jima was one of the most famous battles in World War II, largely due to the famous photograph of the American soldiers raising the flag that was taken on the island and later became the subject of the film and book “Flags of our Fathers.” The Americans invaded the island with the intention of using it as an airbase to bomb Japan. The Japanese had 21,000 troops to defend against more than 110,000 American attackers. The Japanese deliberately planned the battle to inflict as many American casualties as possible. To this end, they allowed the Americans to land on the beach in masse before opening up with machine gun, mortar, and artillery fire. The beachhead was turned into a bloodbath, but the American forces managed to fight their way up Mt. Suribachi. Once the mountain had been taken, the Americans then swept over the rest of the island. Bitter fighting continued for over a month. In the end, virtually all of the 21,000 Japanese garrison was wiped out, with only 216 taken prisoner. The Americans lost 6,800 killed and 19,200 wounded. This was one of the few battles of the Pacific where the overall American casualties were higher than the overall Japanese losses. The Battle of Okinawa, fought in mid-1945 between the United States and the Japanese, was one of the bloodiest battles in the Pacific theater of war. The Americans needed to take Okinawa for the airfields to aid in the bombing of the Japanese islands and as a base for the upcoming planned invasion of the home isalnds. The Japanese dispatched their largest warship, Yamato, in a desperate attempt to stop the American ships but it was sunk. Over 250,000 American troops landed in the island to engage the 96,000 Japanese defenders. The fighting was fierce and brutal, as the Japanese stubbornly refused to give ground and fought to the death. Only a few survivors surrendered. By the end of the battle, more than 20,000 American soldiers were killed and 55,000 were wounded. Only 7,000 Japanese surrendered, while the rest of the garrison was wiped out. The Battle of Kursk is known for being the largest tank battle in history. In mid-1943, the Soviet forces had decisively defeated the Germans at the Battle of Stalingrad. However, contrary to what most people think, the Battle of Stalingrad was not the real turning point on the Eastern Front. This is because the German forces still held the initiative and were capable of launching major offensives across the front. Furthermore, the Soviet advance had been halted after Kursk, and the Germans counterattacked and retook the city of Kharkov, inflicting heavy Soviet casualties in the process. By the summer of 1943, the front lines had stabilized and the Germans were preparing for a renewed offensive. The Soviet forces had created a salient in the front lines around the town of Kursk, and Hitler hoped to attack this salient from the north and the south and trap and destroy the Soviet armies inside. However, Soviet forces gained knowledge of the attack from British intelligence, and spent months constructing defensive fortifications and pouring forces into the area in anticipation of the assault. The battle began in July and the Germans initially made strong headway, destroying much of the Soviet armor, but they fell short of their objectives. Soviet reserves were then thrown into the battle to blunt the German advance. Thousands of Soviet and German tanks fanned out across the plains and engaged in battle at Prokhorovka, the largest tank battle to date. When the Allied forces landed in Sicily, Hitler decided to call off the offensive to divert men and resources back to the Italian front. All in all, the Soviets lost significantly more men and tanks than the Germans did, but they could replace their losses whereas the Germans could not. The Germans suffered over 110,000 men and 1,200 tanks and assault guns in the entire operation, while the Soviets sustained over 800,000 casualties and 6,000 tanks. The Battle of Moscow was supposed to be the battle that would end the Eastern Front in World War II, but the German army was stopped by the mud and winter. In fall of 1941, the Wehrmacht was closing in on Moscow and the Soviet forces were desperate. They had lost more than half of their initial strength, and the Germans appeared unbeatable. Fortunately, the winter set in and greatly slowed down the Germans, who lacked winter clothing and were unprepared for the freezing temperatures. Then, when it became clear that Japan would not invade from Siberia, Stalin was able to redeploy the vast forces he had reserved there and sent them smashing in against the worn down Germans. The Germans were forced back, despite being so close to Moscow that they could see the Kremlin. Eventually, the Soviet offenses petered out as well and the frontlines stabilized, where they would remain until the Germans would attempt to take Stalingrad in the next year. The Soviets ended up with over 1,000,000 dead and wounded during the battle, while the Germans suffered 171,000 killed.	<urn:uuid:0d131873-7b53-469c-8123-29aaa998d00f>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://goatgun.com/versus/greatest-casualties-world-war2/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00293.warc.gz	en	0.982224	1,996	3.625	4	[ -0.28499841690063477, 0.4297308325767517, 0.09809961915016174, 0.1047341376543045, 0.005930788815021515, -0.02070738561451435, -0.10297653824090958, 0.22084182500839233, -0.11232190579175949, -0.1775268316268921, 0.22752691805362701, -0.3302405774593353, 0.43657708168029785, 0.831541121006...	3	From 1939 to 1945, World War 2 ravaged the world. It was the bloodiest conflict in history, with up to eighty million people in total being killed, which was more than double the total that perished during World War I (which was supposed to be the war that ended all wars). Simply put, casualties and bloodshed have never been seen either before or after World War II. Here are the bloodiest battles of the conflict: The Battle of Stalingrad was both the largest battle in human history in terms of the number of men who fought, in addition to the bloodiest battle in terms of sheer casualties as well. In 1942, the Germans had lost the Battle of Moscow the previous winter. Rather than continue their offensive, they decided to strike south towards Stalingrad in order to gain control of the Caucasus oil reserves. The German Luftwaffe bombed Stalingrad into submission while the 6th Army surged forward, flanked by the Italian, Romanian, and Hungarian armies. Some of the fiercest combat of World War II took place in the rubble of Stalingrad. The Soviet resistance was fierce, but the 6th Army pushed them back to the Volga River. In December, just as the Germans were on the verge of victory, outside Soviet armies launched counteroffensives on the flanking Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian armies. These armies broke apart and the Soviets surrounded the 6th Army in Stalingrad before closing in from all sides. Hitler ordered the 6th Army to hold out and be resupplied by the Luftwaffe while outside forces would attempt to break them out. The Soviets were able to successfully shoot down enough aircraft that the 6th Army could not be resupplied while also stopping the outside German offensive. A month later, the battered 6th Army, out of food, water, ammunition, and trapped in the freezing cold in summer clothing, was forced to surrender. The Soviets sustained nearly 1,200,000 casualties at Stalingrad, of whom nearly 500,000 were killed. The Axis lost over 800,000 men, including the entire German 6th Army, which was a blow they would never fully recover from. The Battle of the Bulge was fought in December of 1944 and January of 1945. In the battle, Germany committed the last of their reserves in an attempt to smash through the American forces in the Ardennes forces in Europe. The goal was to drive all the way to Antwerp and split the British and American forces in two. Armed with their formidable Tiger and Panther tanks, the Germans were initially very successful in the opening days of the offensive and caught the Americans completely off guard. Several American pockets of soldiers became isolated and cut off, and were forced to fight on their own against numerically superior German forces. Eventually, the Germans’ fuel supplies began to run out, and American reinforcements begin to arrive en masse. The Germans were then pushed back to their original starting lines within a month. The battle was a severe blow to Germany, which fell far short of its objectives and had wasted the last of its reserves. The battle was also the bloodiest battle the Americans fought in World War II. Total American casualties were nearly 90,000, while the Germans lost anywhere from 65,000 to 100,000 depending on estimates. The Battle of Berlin was the final battle on the Eastern Front in World War 2. The Soviet forces advanced to only a few miles short of Berlin, where the front lines stabilized. By now, the Germans were in a desperate situation. They had used up the last of their reserves, most of the men in their armies were either very young or old, and they were down to the last of their tanks, artillery, and ammunition. When the battle commenced in mid-April, around 2.5 million Soviet soldiers and 6,000 tanks swarmed forward against 750,000 German soldiers and 1,500 tanks and armored vehicles. The Germans held strong at Seelow Heights, where they held the high ground, for several days but were eventually pushed back into the city. The Soviets then surrounded the city and attacked it from all sides. Some of the most brutal hand-to-hand combat since Stalingrad took place in the ruins, but the Soviet advanced was relentless. Hitler desperately ordered counterattacks in an attempt to save the city, but these never materialized because the units he wanted to attack existed only on paper. Finally, Hitler committed suicide on April 30th, and a few days later the German garrison surrendered. The Germans suffered around 100,000 dead and 220,000 wounded. The Soviets suffered 81,000 dead and 280,000 wounded. The Battle of Iwo Jima was one of the most famous battles in World War II, largely due to the famous photograph of the American soldiers raising the flag that was taken on the island and later became the subject of the film and book “Flags of our Fathers.” The Americans invaded the island with the intention of using it as an airbase to bomb Japan. The Japanese had 21,000 troops to defend against more than 110,000 American attackers. The Japanese deliberately planned the battle to inflict as many American casualties as possible. To this end, they allowed the Americans to land on the beach in masse before opening up with machine gun, mortar, and artillery fire. The beachhead was turned into a bloodbath, but the American forces managed to fight their way up Mt. Suribachi. Once the mountain had been taken, the Americans then swept over the rest of the island. Bitter fighting continued for over a month. In the end, virtually all of the 21,000 Japanese garrison was wiped out, with only 216 taken prisoner. The Americans lost 6,800 killed and 19,200 wounded. This was one of the few battles of the Pacific where the overall American casualties were higher than the overall Japanese losses. The Battle of Okinawa, fought in mid-1945 between the United States and the Japanese, was one of the bloodiest battles in the Pacific theater of war. The Americans needed to take Okinawa for the airfields to aid in the bombing of the Japanese islands and as a base for the upcoming planned invasion of the home isalnds. The Japanese dispatched their largest warship, Yamato, in a desperate attempt to stop the American ships but it was sunk. Over 250,000 American troops landed in the island to engage the 96,000 Japanese defenders. The fighting was fierce and brutal, as the Japanese stubbornly refused to give ground and fought to the death. Only a few survivors surrendered. By the end of the battle, more than 20,000 American soldiers were killed and 55,000 were wounded. Only 7,000 Japanese surrendered, while the rest of the garrison was wiped out. The Battle of Kursk is known for being the largest tank battle in history. In mid-1943, the Soviet forces had decisively defeated the Germans at the Battle of Stalingrad. However, contrary to what most people think, the Battle of Stalingrad was not the real turning point on the Eastern Front. This is because the German forces still held the initiative and were capable of launching major offensives across the front. Furthermore, the Soviet advance had been halted after Kursk, and the Germans counterattacked and retook the city of Kharkov, inflicting heavy Soviet casualties in the process. By the summer of 1943, the front lines had stabilized and the Germans were preparing for a renewed offensive. The Soviet forces had created a salient in the front lines around the town of Kursk, and Hitler hoped to attack this salient from the north and the south and trap and destroy the Soviet armies inside. However, Soviet forces gained knowledge of the attack from British intelligence, and spent months constructing defensive fortifications and pouring forces into the area in anticipation of the assault. The battle began in July and the Germans initially made strong headway, destroying much of the Soviet armor, but they fell short of their objectives. Soviet reserves were then thrown into the battle to blunt the German advance. Thousands of Soviet and German tanks fanned out across the plains and engaged in battle at Prokhorovka, the largest tank battle to date. When the Allied forces landed in Sicily, Hitler decided to call off the offensive to divert men and resources back to the Italian front. All in all, the Soviets lost significantly more men and tanks than the Germans did, but they could replace their losses whereas the Germans could not. The Germans suffered over 110,000 men and 1,200 tanks and assault guns in the entire operation, while the Soviets sustained over 800,000 casualties and 6,000 tanks. The Battle of Moscow was supposed to be the battle that would end the Eastern Front in World War II, but the German army was stopped by the mud and winter. In fall of 1941, the Wehrmacht was closing in on Moscow and the Soviet forces were desperate. They had lost more than half of their initial strength, and the Germans appeared unbeatable. Fortunately, the winter set in and greatly slowed down the Germans, who lacked winter clothing and were unprepared for the freezing temperatures. Then, when it became clear that Japan would not invade from Siberia, Stalin was able to redeploy the vast forces he had reserved there and sent them smashing in against the worn down Germans. The Germans were forced back, despite being so close to Moscow that they could see the Kremlin. Eventually, the Soviet offenses petered out as well and the frontlines stabilized, where they would remain until the Germans would attempt to take Stalingrad in the next year. The Soviets ended up with over 1,000,000 dead and wounded during the battle, while the Germans suffered 171,000 killed.	2,149	ENGLISH	1
Ludwig van Beethoven is considered to be one of the greatest musical composers of all time. Born in Germany in 1770, Beethoven began his musical career early on, serving as an assistant organist at the age of twelve. He would later study music with Franz Josef Haydn. In Vienna, Beethoven earned a living by giving concerts and music lessons and by selling his compositions. He found support for his work among important members of Viennese aristocracy. During his later years, he began to lose his hearing, but he did not let his eventual deafness interfere with his work on musical compositions. Book jacket.January, Brendan is the author of 'Ludwig Van Beethoven Musical Genius', published 2004 under ISBN 9780531119099 and ISBN 0531119092.	<urn:uuid:e54ecad3-3121-4413-86d8-90b482d3a648>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://alibris.valorebooks.com/textbooks/ludwig-van-beethoven-musical-genius/9780531119099	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00242.warc.gz	en	0.98104	168	3.265625	3	[ 0.030644437298178673, 0.20628659427165985, 0.1765131652355194, -0.023008504882454872, -0.7783413529396057, -0.029564887285232544, -0.2030584067106247, 0.06166385859251022, 0.18528641760349274, -0.2487444281578064, 0.12384786456823349, -0.06552606076002121, -0.2359280288219452, -0.044487420...	2	Ludwig van Beethoven is considered to be one of the greatest musical composers of all time. Born in Germany in 1770, Beethoven began his musical career early on, serving as an assistant organist at the age of twelve. He would later study music with Franz Josef Haydn. In Vienna, Beethoven earned a living by giving concerts and music lessons and by selling his compositions. He found support for his work among important members of Viennese aristocracy. During his later years, he began to lose his hearing, but he did not let his eventual deafness interfere with his work on musical compositions. Book jacket.January, Brendan is the author of 'Ludwig Van Beethoven Musical Genius', published 2004 under ISBN 9780531119099 and ISBN 0531119092.	184	ENGLISH	1
Jesus tells a story about being humble Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem to teach the people. When he taught them, he often used stories about things the people would be familiar with. These stories had a special name: parables. Sometimes Jesus used parables to let the people know important information about God and heaven. And other times, he used parables as a way to answer questions or respond to the wrong things people were saying or doing. One day, Jesus decided to tell a parable in response to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. "Two people went up to the Temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector," Jesus began. The Pharisees were members of a very influential religious party. Many times, Jesus chastised them for not practicing what they preached to the people. In turn, the Pharisees did not like Jesus very much and were always trying to find ways to make him look bad in the eyes of the people. Tax collectors were people who worked for the hated Roman Empire. They collected tax money from the people and often cheated them. In turn, tax collectors were considered to be sinners, and the people did not like them and wanted nothing to do with them. Jesus said that the Pharisee took up his position and said a silent prayer. "O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity -- greedy, dishonest, adulterous -- or even like this tax collector," the Pharisee prayed. "I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income." Jesus said that the tax collector prayed to God in a very different way. He stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven. He beat his chest as he began his prayer. "O God, be merciful to me a sinner," the tax collector prayed. Jesus looked at the people as he finished his parable. "I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted," Jesus said. READ MORE ABOUT IT: 1. What parable did Jesus tell? 2. Which man went home justified? TRIVIA: What parable did Jesus tell in response to those who complained that he welcomed and ate with sinners and tax collectors? (Hint: Luke 15) Answer: The parable of the lost sheep. In biblical times, tax collectors were hated by the people. Tax collectors were people who worked for the Roman Empire. Not only did they collect tax money on behalf of Rome, they also told the people to pay more than what they owed and kept the rest for themselves. Even though tax collectors were despised, Jesus spent quite a bit of time with them. Sometimes Jesus ate meals with tax collectors, as he did in Matthew 9:9-13. The Pharisees did not approve and questioned why Jesus would associate with such sinners. "I did not come to call the righteous but sinners," Jesus said. Also in that same Scripture passage, we learn that Jesus called the tax collector Matthew to be one of his apostles. And in Luke 19:1-10, we read that Jesus was in Jericho, where a rich chief tax collector named Zacchaeus lived. Zacchaeus wanted to see Jesus. Since Zacchaeus was short and wanted a good view, he climbed a tree and waited for Jesus to pass by. When Jesus reached the tree, he looked up and said, "Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house." Zacchaeus was overjoyed, but the people grumbled that Jesus was going to stay at the home of a sinner. But Jesus' love and mercy gave Zacchaeus a change of heart. He promised to give half of his possessions to the poor and repay what he had stolen from the people. St. Engelbert was born in Berg, Germany, in 1186. He became the archbishop of Cologne, Germany, in 1217. Engelbert was known for being generous to the poor and being fair when settling disputes. He was martyred in 1225 by his own cousin and other nobles after demanding that his cousin make restitution to nuns in Essen for stealing their property. We remember him on Nov. 7. Unscramble each word and arrange them to form a quotation from the children's story. entw, raea, wot, het, ot, epploe, ot, pu, plemte, yarp Answers: went, area, two, the, to, people, to, up, Temple, pray Two people went up to the Temple area to pray.	<urn:uuid:c605f631-a715-4430-8307-76b574524d5b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://catholiccourier.com/articles/jesus-tells-a-story-about-being-humble	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00153.warc.gz	en	0.989534	1,012	3.421875	3	[ -0.05082341283559799, 0.5575110912322998, -0.07333925366401672, -0.13144582509994507, 0.26929551362991333, 0.16414949297904968, 0.62188720703125, 0.11758006364107132, 0.13932766020298004, 0.052609533071517944, -0.019112804904580116, 0.31996139883995056, 0.15269947052001953, 0.2313077449798...	3	Jesus tells a story about being humble Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem to teach the people. When he taught them, he often used stories about things the people would be familiar with. These stories had a special name: parables. Sometimes Jesus used parables to let the people know important information about God and heaven. And other times, he used parables as a way to answer questions or respond to the wrong things people were saying or doing. One day, Jesus decided to tell a parable in response to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. "Two people went up to the Temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector," Jesus began. The Pharisees were members of a very influential religious party. Many times, Jesus chastised them for not practicing what they preached to the people. In turn, the Pharisees did not like Jesus very much and were always trying to find ways to make him look bad in the eyes of the people. Tax collectors were people who worked for the hated Roman Empire. They collected tax money from the people and often cheated them. In turn, tax collectors were considered to be sinners, and the people did not like them and wanted nothing to do with them. Jesus said that the Pharisee took up his position and said a silent prayer. "O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity -- greedy, dishonest, adulterous -- or even like this tax collector," the Pharisee prayed. "I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income." Jesus said that the tax collector prayed to God in a very different way. He stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven. He beat his chest as he began his prayer. "O God, be merciful to me a sinner," the tax collector prayed. Jesus looked at the people as he finished his parable. "I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted," Jesus said. READ MORE ABOUT IT: 1. What parable did Jesus tell? 2. Which man went home justified? TRIVIA: What parable did Jesus tell in response to those who complained that he welcomed and ate with sinners and tax collectors? (Hint: Luke 15) Answer: The parable of the lost sheep. In biblical times, tax collectors were hated by the people. Tax collectors were people who worked for the Roman Empire. Not only did they collect tax money on behalf of Rome, they also told the people to pay more than what they owed and kept the rest for themselves. Even though tax collectors were despised, Jesus spent quite a bit of time with them. Sometimes Jesus ate meals with tax collectors, as he did in Matthew 9:9-13. The Pharisees did not approve and questioned why Jesus would associate with such sinners. "I did not come to call the righteous but sinners," Jesus said. Also in that same Scripture passage, we learn that Jesus called the tax collector Matthew to be one of his apostles. And in Luke 19:1-10, we read that Jesus was in Jericho, where a rich chief tax collector named Zacchaeus lived. Zacchaeus wanted to see Jesus. Since Zacchaeus was short and wanted a good view, he climbed a tree and waited for Jesus to pass by. When Jesus reached the tree, he looked up and said, "Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house." Zacchaeus was overjoyed, but the people grumbled that Jesus was going to stay at the home of a sinner. But Jesus' love and mercy gave Zacchaeus a change of heart. He promised to give half of his possessions to the poor and repay what he had stolen from the people. St. Engelbert was born in Berg, Germany, in 1186. He became the archbishop of Cologne, Germany, in 1217. Engelbert was known for being generous to the poor and being fair when settling disputes. He was martyred in 1225 by his own cousin and other nobles after demanding that his cousin make restitution to nuns in Essen for stealing their property. We remember him on Nov. 7. Unscramble each word and arrange them to form a quotation from the children's story. entw, raea, wot, het, ot, epploe, ot, pu, plemte, yarp Answers: went, area, two, the, to, people, to, up, Temple, pray Two people went up to the Temple area to pray.	1,007	ENGLISH	1
Today’s performances of DRACULA (Sat, January 18) at 2pm and 7pm are CANCELLED due to a heating issue in the theater. Please contact your point of purchase for refund and exchange info. The Box Office (212-677-4210 x10) will be open at 12pm. For Students: Notes on JULIUS CAESAR O, mighty Caesar! by Alice Renier (CSC Education Associate) When someone rules a country with total power, they are called a dictator. The first Roman dictator, Julius Caesar, was killed on the Ides of March (March 15) more than 1600 years before Shakespeare wrote his play. His assassination is one of the most famous events in Western history outside of the Bible. Today, we still debate whether or not he deserved it. Before Julius Caesar came to power, the Roman government was a republic, a government where representatives were elected to rule on behalf of the citizens who elected them. As he was growing up, the Roman republic had destabilized: the rich had become more and more wealthy, while the less fortunate were more and more often forced into slavery. When Caesar became a general in the Roman army, he gained the support of his soldiers and the people through his many military successes. Julius Caesar only ruled for one year, and during that time he transformed what would become the Roman Empire. He relieved debt, reformed the Senate, reorganized local government, invited some of his defeated rivals to join him, and even reformed the Roman calendar. As he did this, he also worked hard to solidify his rule, demanding that the Senate name him dictator for life. This angered his former rivals, Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus who lead an attack on Caesar in the senate, assassinating him and calling themselves “the liberators.” This event plunged Rome into civil war, and resulted in Octavius, Caesar’s great-grandnephew and adopted heir, becoming the first Roman emperor. Julius Caesar’s rule effectively transformed the Roman government for all time. He was the first Roman ruler to be seen as a god, the “Divine Caesar.”	<urn:uuid:91e6de16-5b00-45a7-bd5d-4e83a294418d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.classicstage.org/2018/02/12/notes-on-julius-caesar-by-education-associate-alice-renier/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00194.warc.gz	en	0.984429	459	4.03125	4	[ -0.32792234420776367, 0.34554097056388855, 0.5100463032722473, 0.07857230305671692, -0.2255292385816574, 0.17116937041282654, 0.12379369884729385, 0.07273083180189133, 0.23503762483596802, -0.028523355722427368, 0.27761614322662354, 0.06719788908958435, -0.13606217503547668, 0.430201739072...	1	Today’s performances of DRACULA (Sat, January 18) at 2pm and 7pm are CANCELLED due to a heating issue in the theater. Please contact your point of purchase for refund and exchange info. The Box Office (212-677-4210 x10) will be open at 12pm. For Students: Notes on JULIUS CAESAR O, mighty Caesar! by Alice Renier (CSC Education Associate) When someone rules a country with total power, they are called a dictator. The first Roman dictator, Julius Caesar, was killed on the Ides of March (March 15) more than 1600 years before Shakespeare wrote his play. His assassination is one of the most famous events in Western history outside of the Bible. Today, we still debate whether or not he deserved it. Before Julius Caesar came to power, the Roman government was a republic, a government where representatives were elected to rule on behalf of the citizens who elected them. As he was growing up, the Roman republic had destabilized: the rich had become more and more wealthy, while the less fortunate were more and more often forced into slavery. When Caesar became a general in the Roman army, he gained the support of his soldiers and the people through his many military successes. Julius Caesar only ruled for one year, and during that time he transformed what would become the Roman Empire. He relieved debt, reformed the Senate, reorganized local government, invited some of his defeated rivals to join him, and even reformed the Roman calendar. As he did this, he also worked hard to solidify his rule, demanding that the Senate name him dictator for life. This angered his former rivals, Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus who lead an attack on Caesar in the senate, assassinating him and calling themselves “the liberators.” This event plunged Rome into civil war, and resulted in Octavius, Caesar’s great-grandnephew and adopted heir, becoming the first Roman emperor. Julius Caesar’s rule effectively transformed the Roman government for all time. He was the first Roman ruler to be seen as a god, the “Divine Caesar.”	460	ENGLISH	1
They are scenes filled with emptiness and born of the Holocaust: Streets with no people, houses with no one home, roads that stretch endlessly to no place. A small collection in the Library’s Manuscript Division preserves drawings created by children who survived Nazi concentration camps during World War II — artworks that reveal the emotional state of young people who had endured unimaginable horror and lost everything but their lives. In the months following the war, hundreds of those children — homeless and alone — were taken to facilities in London and the English countryside to be cared for. One of those helping the new arrivals was Marie Paneth, an artist and art therapist who had worked with children in a London air raid shelter a few years earlier and viewed art as good therapy for children who had suffered traumatic experiences. The drawings held by the Library were made by 11 young Polish and Hungarian women, aged 16 to 19, who studied with Paneth at a London hostel beginning in March 1946. Paneth saved their work and documented their experiences in an unpublished book manuscript also held at the Library. “The most vivid feeling they have,” she wrote, “is that of loss, of having lost and of being lost.” The girls shared similar stories: Their families had been torn apart, parents separated from children, brother from sister, never to be seen again. They’d witnessed unthinkable cruelty and suffering in the concentration camps and somehow survived — lost and alone, but alive. Maria — in the manuscript, Paneth used pseudonyms for her charges — was one. Her mother died before the war, and Maria later witnessed the execution of her father and sister by the Nazis. She was sent to the notorious Auschwitz extermination camp, where she narrowly escaped the gas chamber. She later was detailed to a German ammunition factory desperate for workers, saving her life. In London, Maria and the others grappled with what they’d seen and experienced, with the strangeness and loneliness of their new lives, with losing everything and everyone they’d ever known. They struggled, too, with the guilt of surviving while millions like them had perished. “I live. Those who could not take a piece of bread out of the hands of somebody who was too weak to hold it did starve and could not keep alive,” Ellen told Paneth. “[Those] who could not walk over the bodies of dead people died. The worst ones survived.” Their new life at the hostel didn’t come easily: They fought, stayed aloof from others, refused to do their chores — enough so that the hostel warden wanted them removed. Paneth came to work with them as a last resort. She taught the girls science and math, helping make up for the years of schooling they missed while trapped in Jewish ghettos and in concentration camps. She also met with them once a week to draw and paint. Their pieces in the Library’s collections convey their emotional state — despair, the feeling of emptiness, of being left alone without guide and support. “I wanted to paint a girl there,” Lena said of one of her drawings, “but I could not.” Instead, they show endless and empty plains, roads leading nowhere, streets with no living beings, towns with no soul in sight. Only slowly did people begin to appear. Lena eventually drew one image with a person: a knight riding toward a house with a lit window. A photograph in the Prints and Photographs Division shows Paneth with her pupils, their real names inscribed on the front and notes of thanks on the back. Art, Paneth wrote, allowed these children to express through a medium other than words things that cannot be said in words — in images that, seven decades later, still haunt.	<urn:uuid:38092569-8f24-4ff9-863c-e98ce70e6e45>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/category/womens-history/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00109.warc.gz	en	0.980458	786	3.390625	3	[ 0.05521820858120918, 0.559389591217041, 0.10390754044055939, 0.28348028659820557, -0.11466290801763535, 0.723525881767273, -0.25090843439102173, 0.04271251708269119, -0.04691963642835617, -0.22077088057994843, 0.2499045878648758, 0.15255524218082428, 0.11483149230480194, 0.5682669281959534...	18	They are scenes filled with emptiness and born of the Holocaust: Streets with no people, houses with no one home, roads that stretch endlessly to no place. A small collection in the Library’s Manuscript Division preserves drawings created by children who survived Nazi concentration camps during World War II — artworks that reveal the emotional state of young people who had endured unimaginable horror and lost everything but their lives. In the months following the war, hundreds of those children — homeless and alone — were taken to facilities in London and the English countryside to be cared for. One of those helping the new arrivals was Marie Paneth, an artist and art therapist who had worked with children in a London air raid shelter a few years earlier and viewed art as good therapy for children who had suffered traumatic experiences. The drawings held by the Library were made by 11 young Polish and Hungarian women, aged 16 to 19, who studied with Paneth at a London hostel beginning in March 1946. Paneth saved their work and documented their experiences in an unpublished book manuscript also held at the Library. “The most vivid feeling they have,” she wrote, “is that of loss, of having lost and of being lost.” The girls shared similar stories: Their families had been torn apart, parents separated from children, brother from sister, never to be seen again. They’d witnessed unthinkable cruelty and suffering in the concentration camps and somehow survived — lost and alone, but alive. Maria — in the manuscript, Paneth used pseudonyms for her charges — was one. Her mother died before the war, and Maria later witnessed the execution of her father and sister by the Nazis. She was sent to the notorious Auschwitz extermination camp, where she narrowly escaped the gas chamber. She later was detailed to a German ammunition factory desperate for workers, saving her life. In London, Maria and the others grappled with what they’d seen and experienced, with the strangeness and loneliness of their new lives, with losing everything and everyone they’d ever known. They struggled, too, with the guilt of surviving while millions like them had perished. “I live. Those who could not take a piece of bread out of the hands of somebody who was too weak to hold it did starve and could not keep alive,” Ellen told Paneth. “[Those] who could not walk over the bodies of dead people died. The worst ones survived.” Their new life at the hostel didn’t come easily: They fought, stayed aloof from others, refused to do their chores — enough so that the hostel warden wanted them removed. Paneth came to work with them as a last resort. She taught the girls science and math, helping make up for the years of schooling they missed while trapped in Jewish ghettos and in concentration camps. She also met with them once a week to draw and paint. Their pieces in the Library’s collections convey their emotional state — despair, the feeling of emptiness, of being left alone without guide and support. “I wanted to paint a girl there,” Lena said of one of her drawings, “but I could not.” Instead, they show endless and empty plains, roads leading nowhere, streets with no living beings, towns with no soul in sight. Only slowly did people begin to appear. Lena eventually drew one image with a person: a knight riding toward a house with a lit window. A photograph in the Prints and Photographs Division shows Paneth with her pupils, their real names inscribed on the front and notes of thanks on the back. Art, Paneth wrote, allowed these children to express through a medium other than words things that cannot be said in words — in images that, seven decades later, still haunt.	753	ENGLISH	1
John Kay and his Flying Shuttle was an innovation of the eighteenth century that sped up the process of weaving fabrics significantly. The flying shuttle would also prove to be a significant influence on the social development of the world in the time during the Industrial Revolution. It inspired a whole era of innovations that then drove the Industrial Revolution. The beauty of Kay’s flying shuttle was that it massively improved the machinery that was already available at the time and made it more productive. But who was the man behind this revolutionary invention? John Kay did not get the appreciation that he deserved in his lifetime, but we can certainly admire him as an inventor now. He lived a troubled life, especially after his invention of the flying shuttle. It has been rumored that his simple yet important invention was made using only a piece of scrap wood and a carving knife. While we can’t verify this story, it certainly gives us a great image of a man hard at work on a product that changed the textile industry forever. This Englishman was often under severe pressure from competitors and businesses as they sought to obtain Kay’s concept without permission. Kay was a determined man, however, and he would not crumble under this enormous strain of his success that others sought to expoit. About John Kay Who was John Kay, and what was his thinking when he invented the Flying Shuttle? We should first examine his life and how he became an inventor. Hopefully, his story can inspire many aspiring inventors out there – there are many lessons to be learned from John Kay and the Flying Shuttle. Son of a Woolen Manufacturer Born on the 16th of July in 1704 near Bury, England, John Kay was the fifth son of a large family of 10 children. John Kay grew up without the influence of his father, who passed away before he was born. Fortunately for John, he inherited the business acumen of his father. Robert Kay owned a woolen manufactory mill, which was quite successful even before John was born. Robert was an influential man; he was a yeoman and also owned the Park estate where John was born. When he was a child, he was homeschooled by his mother until he was 14 years of age. John was bequeathed 40 British pounds from his father and received a decent but short education until he was only 14. John proved to be an avid learner, and he was particularly interested in engineering. This tendency to learn new things would be a key factor for Kay, and it enabled him to invent the flying shuttle. John took on a lot of responsibility at a very young age; when he was 14, he to charge of his father’s wool manufacturing mill. Even at such a young age, John showed plenty of promise as an engineer – while he was running this mill, he made many improvements. He updated the machinery and many other enhancements to speed up production. This time in his life was essential for him as he learned how to take responsibility. Kay also learned about engineering within this very important industry. Apprenticeship, Further Education and Marriage John Kay knew at a very young age what he wanted to be; he wanted to be an engineer, he wanted to change and improve machines and make them operate better. He was very interested in the weaving industry and wool manufactory. A significant influence in his life and on his development was certainly his involvement in his father’s company. Kay was determined to be an inventor in the weaving industry. To learn more about his craft, John started an apprenticeship with a master in handloom reed making. However, this apprenticeship lasted only a month as John claimed that he learned enough about it and knew everything there was to know. The next few years included traveling around England, meeting new people in the industry, and learning many vital concepts that would later prove to be critical for his success. In 1725 at the age of 21, John decided that he had enough with travel and also learned enough about the trade, so he returned to Bury and began to settle down. In the same year, he met a local girl from Bury, Anne Holte, whom he married. John Kay had twelve children: his first-born child was born in 1726. He named her Lettice. In 1728, Anne Holte gave birth to a boy named Robert Kay, who later turned out to be a successful inventor himself. Like his father, he dealt with improving weaving looms. John Kay settled back in Bury, where he worked on improvements to weaving machinery. During this time, John managed his business as well as developing some interesting patterns that turned out quite successful. His first important breakthrough came in 1730 when he patented a cording and twisting machine. The years from 1718 to 1733 proved to be vital for John Kay – during this time; he learned a lot about the weaving industry and the machinery. He underwent an apprenticeship and traveled to the United Kingdom. During this journey, he met many interesting people and gained even more skills. After 1733, his life continued to improve dramatically. John Kay and the Flying Shuttle John Kay understood the machinery used in the weaving industry thoroughly. With this knowledge, he was able to establish that the current mechanisms and equipment were not designed well and could be massively improved. Kay thought that existing looms, especially the larger ones, were operating very inefficiently. With this revelation, Kay started working on a new patent and thinking about ways to improve the machinery. It all started in 1733 when John Kay obtained a patent for the new machine that incorporated his flying shuttle invention. The patent was called “New Engine or Machine for Opening and Dressing Wool.” The patent proved to have a big impact on the industry. This innovation massively improved the existing looms by speeding up the production process and halving the number of workers required to work a large loom. While the large looms required two operators for effective production beforehand, they only needed a single worker with the invention of the flying shuttle. How did the Flying Shuttle work? To understand the flying shuttle better, we must first inspect how the looms operated before the flying shuttle was invented. The original looms used a bobbin to which weft yarn was attached. From there, the worker had to manually move the weaving shuttle to the other side, where an additional worker was placed to do the same and move the shuttle back. As we can see, the whole operation was quite inefficient and slow as it required two workers to operate it. If the fabric was wider, it required even more operators at the same time. Another deficiency of this system was that the operators had to be very coordinated to make a complex weave pattern, which was sometimes very hard to achieve. Kay recognized these problems very early on and strived to change this entirely. John Kay started thinking about how he could improve the entire process of weaving. With his patent for a wheeled shuttle but was later renamed to the flying shuttle, he managed to do just that. It was named the flying shuttle due to high and unusual speeds that it enabled the workers to produce complex patterns on looms. That is if the machine was operated by a person that knew how to work fast. The flying shuttle used a board that could be moved from side to side by a lever mechanism. On both sides of the loom were boxes that caught the shuttle and launched the shuttle back to the initial state. The new shuttle had some significant advances, which enabled the whole mechanism to work efficiently. The design of the shuttle featured bullet-shaped edges, which allowed it to gain more momentum and travel faster. The effects of the revolutionary invention John Kay and the Flying Shuttle proved to be one of the most important inventions that brought on the Industrial Revolution and massively improved the weaving industry. Many people are not aware of John Kay, but he was a significant contributor to the progress made during the Industrial Revolution. The invention helped with speeding up the production process as well as decreasing the number of employees needed to produce more fabrics. Shortly after the invention, the flying shuttle was quickly used and incorporated by many businesses around England and soon around the world. Initially, it was trendy in Yorkshire, but the word rapidly spread of a revolutionary design that massively improves the production process. It considerably sped up the production process within the weaving industry. The numbers went up quickly, and enormous profits were soon made by any businesses that incorporated this new invention. Another effect of this invention is that it lowered the number of workers that needed to operate a single shuttle – not only did it improve the effectiveness of the system, but it also automatized the weaving process as a whole. It provided a good foundation for further improvements to the patent that occurred many times in the years to come. The flying shuttle was revolutionary. John Kay was treading unexplored ground as he was one of the first inventors of the 18th century that inspired even more inventions. The flying shuttle and other subsequent inventions would become driving forces of the Industrial Revolution. The Shuttle Club The patent was so productive and intriguing that many people tried to copy it. To counteract this, John Kay sued them for patent infringement if they tried to use his designs in any way. This approach still left John Kay unprotected as the manufacturers established “The Shuttle Club.” to stop him. This club sought to protect the manufacturers, which would enable them to use the pattern without Kay’s approval. Anyone who tried to bring these copycats to the court was fined a hefty penalty. John Kay was fined often, and his legal fees mounted, which is why he almost went bankrupt at the time. John Kay After the Flying Shuttle The life of John Kay undoubtedly improved after this invention as he amassed quite a lot of wealth, but his life was not without challenges. As we have already established, many people tried to use Kay’s invention without copyright. John Kay brought these people to court, which caused him to lose a lot of money. But John Kay remained creative. He continued to create new and innovative designs along with new patents. John had many ideas that were used in the weaving industry. In 1745, he co-operated with Joseph Stell to design another innovative concept – they patented a machine for cloth ribbon weaving. Unfortunately, the patent did not come to life due to John’s financial instability and general harassment from various offenders. In 1746, he continued with creating and trying new things and ideas. He worked on developing an efficient method of salt production, as well as making further improvements to the spinning technology. The push back from manufacturers, however, did not cease, and John left England. His decision to leave England was further reinforced by his inability to protect his patent and make a profit from it. In 1747, John Kay successfully negotiated the sale of his patent and claims. He gave permission to the French authorities for its use, along with a hefty sum of money and a good pension. He relocated to Paris and took three of his sons with him to help in his business. On occasion, Kay returned to England but was not welcome there. He managed to bring changes to the weaving industry in France. John Kay died in France in 1779. Interestingly enough, John Kay, born in England, was often nicknamed “the Frenchman” due to his involvement in the French manufacturing in his late life. What Can We Learn From John Kay and the Flying Shuttle? So, what can aspiring inventors take away from John Kay and the flying shuttle? Firstly, John Kay possessed a great deal of knowledge about the weaving industry and the market, which he achieved through years of learning. Secondly, he knew exactly where the existing products were missing and sought changes to improve them. Another lesson we can learn from John Kay and the flying shuttle comes from his later days – always protect your patterns and intellectual properties to prevent others from stealing your ideas. Hopefully, you can learn some lessons from John Kay and the flying shuttle Try to incorporate these ideas into your invention process. - Study your area of invention thoroughly and learn about competitive products and where they are lacking. - Know precisely when things can be improved. - Always seek knowledge. - Protect your intellectual property. - Improvements in your inventions are the best protection. - Don’t rest on your laurels. Always come up with new ideas.	<urn:uuid:ab054279-398c-4a8e-b672-bc1427faf9df>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.inventiontherapy.com/john-kay-and-the-flying-shuttle/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00336.warc.gz	en	0.987936	2,530	3.375	3	[ -0.18954086303710938, 0.3683792054653168, 0.6412254571914673, 0.02519628033041954, -0.4484793543815613, 0.1571820080280304, 0.5704912543296814, 0.46897241473197937, -0.4435410499572754, -0.4296919107437134, -0.18996712565422058, 0.026900803670287132, 0.1333519071340561, 0.0794171541929245,...	6	John Kay and his Flying Shuttle was an innovation of the eighteenth century that sped up the process of weaving fabrics significantly. The flying shuttle would also prove to be a significant influence on the social development of the world in the time during the Industrial Revolution. It inspired a whole era of innovations that then drove the Industrial Revolution. The beauty of Kay’s flying shuttle was that it massively improved the machinery that was already available at the time and made it more productive. But who was the man behind this revolutionary invention? John Kay did not get the appreciation that he deserved in his lifetime, but we can certainly admire him as an inventor now. He lived a troubled life, especially after his invention of the flying shuttle. It has been rumored that his simple yet important invention was made using only a piece of scrap wood and a carving knife. While we can’t verify this story, it certainly gives us a great image of a man hard at work on a product that changed the textile industry forever. This Englishman was often under severe pressure from competitors and businesses as they sought to obtain Kay’s concept without permission. Kay was a determined man, however, and he would not crumble under this enormous strain of his success that others sought to expoit. About John Kay Who was John Kay, and what was his thinking when he invented the Flying Shuttle? We should first examine his life and how he became an inventor. Hopefully, his story can inspire many aspiring inventors out there – there are many lessons to be learned from John Kay and the Flying Shuttle. Son of a Woolen Manufacturer Born on the 16th of July in 1704 near Bury, England, John Kay was the fifth son of a large family of 10 children. John Kay grew up without the influence of his father, who passed away before he was born. Fortunately for John, he inherited the business acumen of his father. Robert Kay owned a woolen manufactory mill, which was quite successful even before John was born. Robert was an influential man; he was a yeoman and also owned the Park estate where John was born. When he was a child, he was homeschooled by his mother until he was 14 years of age. John was bequeathed 40 British pounds from his father and received a decent but short education until he was only 14. John proved to be an avid learner, and he was particularly interested in engineering. This tendency to learn new things would be a key factor for Kay, and it enabled him to invent the flying shuttle. John took on a lot of responsibility at a very young age; when he was 14, he to charge of his father’s wool manufacturing mill. Even at such a young age, John showed plenty of promise as an engineer – while he was running this mill, he made many improvements. He updated the machinery and many other enhancements to speed up production. This time in his life was essential for him as he learned how to take responsibility. Kay also learned about engineering within this very important industry. Apprenticeship, Further Education and Marriage John Kay knew at a very young age what he wanted to be; he wanted to be an engineer, he wanted to change and improve machines and make them operate better. He was very interested in the weaving industry and wool manufactory. A significant influence in his life and on his development was certainly his involvement in his father’s company. Kay was determined to be an inventor in the weaving industry. To learn more about his craft, John started an apprenticeship with a master in handloom reed making. However, this apprenticeship lasted only a month as John claimed that he learned enough about it and knew everything there was to know. The next few years included traveling around England, meeting new people in the industry, and learning many vital concepts that would later prove to be critical for his success. In 1725 at the age of 21, John decided that he had enough with travel and also learned enough about the trade, so he returned to Bury and began to settle down. In the same year, he met a local girl from Bury, Anne Holte, whom he married. John Kay had twelve children: his first-born child was born in 1726. He named her Lettice. In 1728, Anne Holte gave birth to a boy named Robert Kay, who later turned out to be a successful inventor himself. Like his father, he dealt with improving weaving looms. John Kay settled back in Bury, where he worked on improvements to weaving machinery. During this time, John managed his business as well as developing some interesting patterns that turned out quite successful. His first important breakthrough came in 1730 when he patented a cording and twisting machine. The years from 1718 to 1733 proved to be vital for John Kay – during this time; he learned a lot about the weaving industry and the machinery. He underwent an apprenticeship and traveled to the United Kingdom. During this journey, he met many interesting people and gained even more skills. After 1733, his life continued to improve dramatically. John Kay and the Flying Shuttle John Kay understood the machinery used in the weaving industry thoroughly. With this knowledge, he was able to establish that the current mechanisms and equipment were not designed well and could be massively improved. Kay thought that existing looms, especially the larger ones, were operating very inefficiently. With this revelation, Kay started working on a new patent and thinking about ways to improve the machinery. It all started in 1733 when John Kay obtained a patent for the new machine that incorporated his flying shuttle invention. The patent was called “New Engine or Machine for Opening and Dressing Wool.” The patent proved to have a big impact on the industry. This innovation massively improved the existing looms by speeding up the production process and halving the number of workers required to work a large loom. While the large looms required two operators for effective production beforehand, they only needed a single worker with the invention of the flying shuttle. How did the Flying Shuttle work? To understand the flying shuttle better, we must first inspect how the looms operated before the flying shuttle was invented. The original looms used a bobbin to which weft yarn was attached. From there, the worker had to manually move the weaving shuttle to the other side, where an additional worker was placed to do the same and move the shuttle back. As we can see, the whole operation was quite inefficient and slow as it required two workers to operate it. If the fabric was wider, it required even more operators at the same time. Another deficiency of this system was that the operators had to be very coordinated to make a complex weave pattern, which was sometimes very hard to achieve. Kay recognized these problems very early on and strived to change this entirely. John Kay started thinking about how he could improve the entire process of weaving. With his patent for a wheeled shuttle but was later renamed to the flying shuttle, he managed to do just that. It was named the flying shuttle due to high and unusual speeds that it enabled the workers to produce complex patterns on looms. That is if the machine was operated by a person that knew how to work fast. The flying shuttle used a board that could be moved from side to side by a lever mechanism. On both sides of the loom were boxes that caught the shuttle and launched the shuttle back to the initial state. The new shuttle had some significant advances, which enabled the whole mechanism to work efficiently. The design of the shuttle featured bullet-shaped edges, which allowed it to gain more momentum and travel faster. The effects of the revolutionary invention John Kay and the Flying Shuttle proved to be one of the most important inventions that brought on the Industrial Revolution and massively improved the weaving industry. Many people are not aware of John Kay, but he was a significant contributor to the progress made during the Industrial Revolution. The invention helped with speeding up the production process as well as decreasing the number of employees needed to produce more fabrics. Shortly after the invention, the flying shuttle was quickly used and incorporated by many businesses around England and soon around the world. Initially, it was trendy in Yorkshire, but the word rapidly spread of a revolutionary design that massively improves the production process. It considerably sped up the production process within the weaving industry. The numbers went up quickly, and enormous profits were soon made by any businesses that incorporated this new invention. Another effect of this invention is that it lowered the number of workers that needed to operate a single shuttle – not only did it improve the effectiveness of the system, but it also automatized the weaving process as a whole. It provided a good foundation for further improvements to the patent that occurred many times in the years to come. The flying shuttle was revolutionary. John Kay was treading unexplored ground as he was one of the first inventors of the 18th century that inspired even more inventions. The flying shuttle and other subsequent inventions would become driving forces of the Industrial Revolution. The Shuttle Club The patent was so productive and intriguing that many people tried to copy it. To counteract this, John Kay sued them for patent infringement if they tried to use his designs in any way. This approach still left John Kay unprotected as the manufacturers established “The Shuttle Club.” to stop him. This club sought to protect the manufacturers, which would enable them to use the pattern without Kay’s approval. Anyone who tried to bring these copycats to the court was fined a hefty penalty. John Kay was fined often, and his legal fees mounted, which is why he almost went bankrupt at the time. John Kay After the Flying Shuttle The life of John Kay undoubtedly improved after this invention as he amassed quite a lot of wealth, but his life was not without challenges. As we have already established, many people tried to use Kay’s invention without copyright. John Kay brought these people to court, which caused him to lose a lot of money. But John Kay remained creative. He continued to create new and innovative designs along with new patents. John had many ideas that were used in the weaving industry. In 1745, he co-operated with Joseph Stell to design another innovative concept – they patented a machine for cloth ribbon weaving. Unfortunately, the patent did not come to life due to John’s financial instability and general harassment from various offenders. In 1746, he continued with creating and trying new things and ideas. He worked on developing an efficient method of salt production, as well as making further improvements to the spinning technology. The push back from manufacturers, however, did not cease, and John left England. His decision to leave England was further reinforced by his inability to protect his patent and make a profit from it. In 1747, John Kay successfully negotiated the sale of his patent and claims. He gave permission to the French authorities for its use, along with a hefty sum of money and a good pension. He relocated to Paris and took three of his sons with him to help in his business. On occasion, Kay returned to England but was not welcome there. He managed to bring changes to the weaving industry in France. John Kay died in France in 1779. Interestingly enough, John Kay, born in England, was often nicknamed “the Frenchman” due to his involvement in the French manufacturing in his late life. What Can We Learn From John Kay and the Flying Shuttle? So, what can aspiring inventors take away from John Kay and the flying shuttle? Firstly, John Kay possessed a great deal of knowledge about the weaving industry and the market, which he achieved through years of learning. Secondly, he knew exactly where the existing products were missing and sought changes to improve them. Another lesson we can learn from John Kay and the flying shuttle comes from his later days – always protect your patterns and intellectual properties to prevent others from stealing your ideas. Hopefully, you can learn some lessons from John Kay and the flying shuttle Try to incorporate these ideas into your invention process. - Study your area of invention thoroughly and learn about competitive products and where they are lacking. - Know precisely when things can be improved. - Always seek knowledge. - Protect your intellectual property. - Improvements in your inventions are the best protection. - Don’t rest on your laurels. Always come up with new ideas.	2,533	ENGLISH	1
1537 (12th October) King Edward VI was born to Henry VIII and Jane Seymour at Hampton Court Palace. He was created Duke of Cornwall. 1537 (15th October) Edward was christened at midnight at Hampton Court Palace. Edward’s godfathers were the Duke of Norfolk and Thomas Cranmer. His half sister, Mary , was godmother. 1537 (16th October) Edward’s mother, Jane, was taken ill, possibly with puerperal fever. 1537 (17th October) The Bishop of Carlisle administered last rites to Edward’s mother, Jane Seymour.. 1537 (18th October) Edward’s mother, Jane, seemed better and it was hoped that she would begin to improve. 1537 (23rd October) Jane Seymour was taken ill again. 1537 (24th October) Jane Seymour died of puerperal fever. 1537 (12th November) Edward’s mother, Jane, was buried in St George’s Chapel, Windsor. Margaret Bryan was given overall charge of Prince Edward while Sybil Penne became Edward’s chief nursemaid. 1540 (6th January) Edward’s father, Henry VIII, married Anne of Cleves in the Chapel Royal at Greenwich Palace. The ceremony was performed by Archbishop Cranmer. 1540 (9th July) Edward’s father, Henry VIII, divorced Anne of Cleves. 1540 (28th July) Edward’s father, Henry VIII, married Kathryn Howard at the Palace of Oatlands. The ceremony was performed by the Bishop of London. 1541 (26th October) Edward was taken ill with quartan fever but recovered. 1542 (13th February) Kathryn Howard was executed for treason. 1543 (1st January) Edward performed his first public duty when he entertained a group of Scottish noblemen that were in London. 1543 (1st July) Treaty of Greenwich King Henry VIII signed this peace treaty with Scotland. The treaty was sealed with the betrothal of Edward to the infant Mary Queen of Scots . Henry asked that the infant Queen be brought up in England to prepare her for her future role as Queen of England. 1543 (12th July) Edward’s father, Henry, married Katherine Parr in the Queen’s Privy Chamber at Hampton Court Palace. 1543 (after July) Edward’s stepmother, Katherine Parr, oversaw Edward’s education. 1543 (12th October) Edward began his formal education. He was taught classics, theology, languages, mathematics, geography, grammar and science as well as gentlemanly pursuits and sport. His tutors were Richard Cox, John Cheke, Roger Ascham and Jean Belmain. The Scots repudiated the peace treaty with England and renewed their alliance with France instead. 1543 (25th December) Edward and his half sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, were at court to celebrate Christmas. 1544 (7th February) Act of Succession A new Act of Succession stipulated that Edward should succeed Henry to the throne with any children from his present marriage being next in line. Lady Mary and Lady Mary were next. Henry VIII sent Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, to invade Scotland and burn Edinburgh to the ground in a bid to make the Scots honour the Treaty of Greenwich and send Mary to England. The Earl of Hertford’s harsh treatment of the Scots was coined ‘The Rough Wooing’. 1544 (13th July) Edward, along with his half-sisters, Elizabeth and Mary, attended a supper party in Hyde Park on the eve of Henry’s departure for France. 1544 (14th July) Henry VIII invaded France at the head of an army of 40,000 men. 1544 (early August) Edward, his two sisters and Katherine Parr left London to avoid an outbreak of the plague . They stayed with the Countess of Rutland at Oakham. 1544 (30th September) Henry VIII returned to England triumphant. King Henry was taken ill with a fever and severe pain in his legs. 1547 (23rd January) Henry VIII declared that Edward Seymour should be head of a regency council to govern until Prince Edward reached his majority. 1547 (28th January) KIng Henry VIII died at Whitehall Palace in the early hours of the morning. He was succeeded by his son as King Edward VI. 1547 (28th January) Edward Seymour declared himself ‘Protector of all the Realm and Dominions of the King’s Majesty’. 1547 (30th January) Edward Seymour rode to Hertford where he collected the young King Edward and took him to his half-sister Elizabeth’s residence at Hatfield. There he told the two children of their father’s death. 1547 (31st January) Chancellor Thomas Wriothesley announced the death of Henry VIII in parliament and ordered proclamations that Edward was now King Edward VI. He was placed under the control of Edward Seymour and was prevented from seeing his stepmother or step-sisters. Barnaby Fitzpatrick was appointed to be Edward’s whipping boy. Because courtiers could not punish their King, if young Edward was naughty Barnaby would be punished instead. 1547 (1st February) The leading nobles swore allegiance to Edward at the Tower of London. 1547 (16th February) Henry VIII was buried in St George’s Chapel, Windsor next to Jane Seymour. 1547 (20th February) Edward was crowned King Edward VI of England at Westminster Abbey. After the ceremony a banquet was held in Westminster Hall. 1547 (16th February) Edward Seymour became the Duke of Somerset. His brother, Thomas Seymour became Baron Seymour of Sudeley Castle and was created Lord High Admiral. Edward signed a document giving Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, the power to appoint members of the Privy Council and to consult with them at his own choosing. This effectively gave him full control of the country. This move was only opposed by Thomas Seymour and Thomas Wriothesley. Edward’s stepmother, Katherine Parr, secretly married Edward’s uncle, Thomas Seymour. Although Katherine was in love with Seymour it is likely that he married for power rather than love. 1547 (10th September) English forces led by the Duke of Somerset defeated the Scots at the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh. Somerset hoped to persuade the Scots to make alliance with England and allow the marriage of Edward to Mary Queen of Scots to go ahead. Katherine Parr discovered her husband, Thomas Seymour, with Edward’s half-sister, Lady Elizabeth. Elizabeth was sent to live with Sir Anthony Denny. Mary Queen of Scots had been smuggled out of Scotland to France where she married the Dauphin, Francis. 1548 (7th September) Katherine Parr died of puerperal fever after giving birth to a daughter, Katherine. Thomas Seymour began writing letters to Lady Elizabeth. It is likely that he hoped to marry her. Thomas Seymour was arrested and charged with embezzlement of crown funds. He was found guilty. 1549 (21st January) Act of Uniformity With Edward’s full approval, Edward Seymour introduced the Protestant Book of Common Prayer and outlawed many Roman Catholic practices. The clergy were given permission to marry. 1549 (20th March) Thomas Seymour was executed by beheading. A number of revolts against the Book of Common Prayer broke out. The most serious rebellions were in Devon and Cornwall. There were revolts against changes that were made to common grazing ground. Members of the Privy Council began to complain to Somerset about his government of the country, blaming the rioting on his proclamations. Henry II of France realised that England was weak and lay siege to Boulogne. 1549 (early October) Edward Seymour realised his position was in danger and took himself and King Edward to Windsor Castle. 1549 (11th October) Edward Seymour, Lord Somerset, was arrested by the Council. John Dudley realised that England could not afford to continue war with France and sent a delegation to negotiate peace. John Dudley, Earl of Warwick became leader of the Council. 1550 (28th March) Treaty of Boulogne This Treaty, signed by John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, provided for the return of Boulogne to France for a ransom of 400,000 crowns. The French also agreed to remove troops from Scotland. Although Dudley believed that financially he had had no choice but to agree peace with France, many in the Council felt that he had sold England short. Edward was betrothed to Princess Elisabeth, daughter of Henry II of France. John Dudley became Duke of Northumberland. 1552 (22nd January) Edward Seymour was executed by beheading on Tower Hill. The Book of Common Prayer was re-written by Thomas Cranmer to make matters of doctrine clearer. Edward was taken ill with smallpox. He survived but was weakened by the disease. Edward was taken ill and it became clear that he was dying. 1553 (25th May) John Dudley married his son, Guildford Dudley to Lady Jane Grey , granddaughter of Henry VIII’s younger sister, Mary. Devise for the Succession Edward opposed the succession of either of his half-sisters due to their illegitimacy and Mary’s Catholicism. This document passed the succession to Lady Jane Grey, granddaughter of Henry VIII’s younger sister, Mary in the event of of there being no legitimate male heir on his death. 1553 (15th June) Edward summoned his leading councillors and made them sign a declaration to uphold the Devise for the Succession on his death. 1553 (6th July) 1553 (8th August) Edward was buried in the Henry VII Lady Chapel at Westminster Abbey.	<urn:uuid:9de743af-835b-4287-a3d4-809cb6f6d735>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.totallytimelines.com/king-edward-vi-of-england-1537-1553/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00520.warc.gz	en	0.981034	2,168	3.4375	3	[ -0.17261941730976105, 0.3123233914375305, 0.10134744644165039, -0.09747061133384705, -0.17331919074058533, -0.2768617868423462, 0.37203890085220337, -0.1513422727584839, 0.24012881517410278, -0.015298688784241676, -0.04503083974123001, -0.5781137943267822, -0.2147752046585083, 0.3815301656...	1	1537 (12th October) King Edward VI was born to Henry VIII and Jane Seymour at Hampton Court Palace. He was created Duke of Cornwall. 1537 (15th October) Edward was christened at midnight at Hampton Court Palace. Edward’s godfathers were the Duke of Norfolk and Thomas Cranmer. His half sister, Mary , was godmother. 1537 (16th October) Edward’s mother, Jane, was taken ill, possibly with puerperal fever. 1537 (17th October) The Bishop of Carlisle administered last rites to Edward’s mother, Jane Seymour.. 1537 (18th October) Edward’s mother, Jane, seemed better and it was hoped that she would begin to improve. 1537 (23rd October) Jane Seymour was taken ill again. 1537 (24th October) Jane Seymour died of puerperal fever. 1537 (12th November) Edward’s mother, Jane, was buried in St George’s Chapel, Windsor. Margaret Bryan was given overall charge of Prince Edward while Sybil Penne became Edward’s chief nursemaid. 1540 (6th January) Edward’s father, Henry VIII, married Anne of Cleves in the Chapel Royal at Greenwich Palace. The ceremony was performed by Archbishop Cranmer. 1540 (9th July) Edward’s father, Henry VIII, divorced Anne of Cleves. 1540 (28th July) Edward’s father, Henry VIII, married Kathryn Howard at the Palace of Oatlands. The ceremony was performed by the Bishop of London. 1541 (26th October) Edward was taken ill with quartan fever but recovered. 1542 (13th February) Kathryn Howard was executed for treason. 1543 (1st January) Edward performed his first public duty when he entertained a group of Scottish noblemen that were in London. 1543 (1st July) Treaty of Greenwich King Henry VIII signed this peace treaty with Scotland. The treaty was sealed with the betrothal of Edward to the infant Mary Queen of Scots . Henry asked that the infant Queen be brought up in England to prepare her for her future role as Queen of England. 1543 (12th July) Edward’s father, Henry, married Katherine Parr in the Queen’s Privy Chamber at Hampton Court Palace. 1543 (after July) Edward’s stepmother, Katherine Parr, oversaw Edward’s education. 1543 (12th October) Edward began his formal education. He was taught classics, theology, languages, mathematics, geography, grammar and science as well as gentlemanly pursuits and sport. His tutors were Richard Cox, John Cheke, Roger Ascham and Jean Belmain. The Scots repudiated the peace treaty with England and renewed their alliance with France instead. 1543 (25th December) Edward and his half sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, were at court to celebrate Christmas. 1544 (7th February) Act of Succession A new Act of Succession stipulated that Edward should succeed Henry to the throne with any children from his present marriage being next in line. Lady Mary and Lady Mary were next. Henry VIII sent Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, to invade Scotland and burn Edinburgh to the ground in a bid to make the Scots honour the Treaty of Greenwich and send Mary to England. The Earl of Hertford’s harsh treatment of the Scots was coined ‘The Rough Wooing’. 1544 (13th July) Edward, along with his half-sisters, Elizabeth and Mary, attended a supper party in Hyde Park on the eve of Henry’s departure for France. 1544 (14th July) Henry VIII invaded France at the head of an army of 40,000 men. 1544 (early August) Edward, his two sisters and Katherine Parr left London to avoid an outbreak of the plague . They stayed with the Countess of Rutland at Oakham. 1544 (30th September) Henry VIII returned to England triumphant. King Henry was taken ill with a fever and severe pain in his legs. 1547 (23rd January) Henry VIII declared that Edward Seymour should be head of a regency council to govern until Prince Edward reached his majority. 1547 (28th January) KIng Henry VIII died at Whitehall Palace in the early hours of the morning. He was succeeded by his son as King Edward VI. 1547 (28th January) Edward Seymour declared himself ‘Protector of all the Realm and Dominions of the King’s Majesty’. 1547 (30th January) Edward Seymour rode to Hertford where he collected the young King Edward and took him to his half-sister Elizabeth’s residence at Hatfield. There he told the two children of their father’s death. 1547 (31st January) Chancellor Thomas Wriothesley announced the death of Henry VIII in parliament and ordered proclamations that Edward was now King Edward VI. He was placed under the control of Edward Seymour and was prevented from seeing his stepmother or step-sisters. Barnaby Fitzpatrick was appointed to be Edward’s whipping boy. Because courtiers could not punish their King, if young Edward was naughty Barnaby would be punished instead. 1547 (1st February) The leading nobles swore allegiance to Edward at the Tower of London. 1547 (16th February) Henry VIII was buried in St George’s Chapel, Windsor next to Jane Seymour. 1547 (20th February) Edward was crowned King Edward VI of England at Westminster Abbey. After the ceremony a banquet was held in Westminster Hall. 1547 (16th February) Edward Seymour became the Duke of Somerset. His brother, Thomas Seymour became Baron Seymour of Sudeley Castle and was created Lord High Admiral. Edward signed a document giving Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, the power to appoint members of the Privy Council and to consult with them at his own choosing. This effectively gave him full control of the country. This move was only opposed by Thomas Seymour and Thomas Wriothesley. Edward’s stepmother, Katherine Parr, secretly married Edward’s uncle, Thomas Seymour. Although Katherine was in love with Seymour it is likely that he married for power rather than love. 1547 (10th September) English forces led by the Duke of Somerset defeated the Scots at the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh. Somerset hoped to persuade the Scots to make alliance with England and allow the marriage of Edward to Mary Queen of Scots to go ahead. Katherine Parr discovered her husband, Thomas Seymour, with Edward’s half-sister, Lady Elizabeth. Elizabeth was sent to live with Sir Anthony Denny. Mary Queen of Scots had been smuggled out of Scotland to France where she married the Dauphin, Francis. 1548 (7th September) Katherine Parr died of puerperal fever after giving birth to a daughter, Katherine. Thomas Seymour began writing letters to Lady Elizabeth. It is likely that he hoped to marry her. Thomas Seymour was arrested and charged with embezzlement of crown funds. He was found guilty. 1549 (21st January) Act of Uniformity With Edward’s full approval, Edward Seymour introduced the Protestant Book of Common Prayer and outlawed many Roman Catholic practices. The clergy were given permission to marry. 1549 (20th March) Thomas Seymour was executed by beheading. A number of revolts against the Book of Common Prayer broke out. The most serious rebellions were in Devon and Cornwall. There were revolts against changes that were made to common grazing ground. Members of the Privy Council began to complain to Somerset about his government of the country, blaming the rioting on his proclamations. Henry II of France realised that England was weak and lay siege to Boulogne. 1549 (early October) Edward Seymour realised his position was in danger and took himself and King Edward to Windsor Castle. 1549 (11th October) Edward Seymour, Lord Somerset, was arrested by the Council. John Dudley realised that England could not afford to continue war with France and sent a delegation to negotiate peace. John Dudley, Earl of Warwick became leader of the Council. 1550 (28th March) Treaty of Boulogne This Treaty, signed by John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, provided for the return of Boulogne to France for a ransom of 400,000 crowns. The French also agreed to remove troops from Scotland. Although Dudley believed that financially he had had no choice but to agree peace with France, many in the Council felt that he had sold England short. Edward was betrothed to Princess Elisabeth, daughter of Henry II of France. John Dudley became Duke of Northumberland. 1552 (22nd January) Edward Seymour was executed by beheading on Tower Hill. The Book of Common Prayer was re-written by Thomas Cranmer to make matters of doctrine clearer. Edward was taken ill with smallpox. He survived but was weakened by the disease. Edward was taken ill and it became clear that he was dying. 1553 (25th May) John Dudley married his son, Guildford Dudley to Lady Jane Grey , granddaughter of Henry VIII’s younger sister, Mary. Devise for the Succession Edward opposed the succession of either of his half-sisters due to their illegitimacy and Mary’s Catholicism. This document passed the succession to Lady Jane Grey, granddaughter of Henry VIII’s younger sister, Mary in the event of of there being no legitimate male heir on his death. 1553 (15th June) Edward summoned his leading councillors and made them sign a declaration to uphold the Devise for the Succession on his death. 1553 (6th July) 1553 (8th August) Edward was buried in the Henry VII Lady Chapel at Westminster Abbey.	2,124	ENGLISH	1
From 1923 onwards, the Mediterranean fleet was the major naval force under British control. In the North Sea the elimination of the German navy in 1918–1919, by the surrender and scuttling of its ships, had cleared the sea of the most serious enemy; in the Far East there was apprehension at the growth of both Japan's and the United States’ naval power, though these two tended to cancel each other out, being mutually hostile; the naval base at Singapore formed the basis for British power in the Indian Ocean and the China Seas. These two regions, therefore, were not held, in naval terms, very strongly, and their reserve strength was the Mediterranean fleet. Positioned as it was, its ships could sail quickly into the Atlantic and British waters, or reinforce the Indian Ocean and the Far East. The Rock of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal were therefore seen even more than before as essential imperial maritime links, and Malta was the main naval base. In order for the Mediterranean fleet to be of use in a crisis, it had to be large, well-trained, and fully equipped. It was put through constant exercises, in many parts of the sea, and kept up-to-date in equipment so far as possible. It received the reinforcement of aircraft carriers from the beginning; the original carrier, Argus, was already being used in the Russian and Turkish troubles in 1921–1923, and the fleet received as its commanders the most capable admirals. But as the political situation developed, especially after 1930, its clear maritime advantage of the 1920s gradually eroded. This was the classic age of the Mediterranean fleet. Sailors and officers were professionals, the disciplinary regime was benign, sailors received regular leave, and were rotated into different ships and through regular educational and retraining programmes. There were annual visits by parts of the fleet to places all around the sea – Greece and Turkey were favourites, though France and Yugoslavia and Italy were included; the visits were social occasions as much as exercises, promoting good international relations, at least supposedly (but they were also exercises in intelligence gathering). The ships were polished and painted to impress, but exercised in evolutions, firing practice, and navigation as well. Plans were developed to cope with possible naval operations. For ten years or so after 1923 the fleet rode the Mediterranean unchallenged and with vast confidence.	<urn:uuid:eb2d4387-8325-49c9-aa28-e16830a52d53>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://core-cms.prod.aop.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=John%20D.%20Grainger&eventCode=SE-AU	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251669967.70/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125041318-20200125070318-00290.warc.gz	en	0.98868	477	3.453125	3	[ 0.26568475365638733, 0.3277951776981354, 0.22152593731880188, -0.4412040412425995, -0.34590911865234375, -0.3071187436580658, -0.22631557285785675, 0.35086849331855774, 0.21239587664604187, -0.14670433104038239, 0.3416866958141327, -0.49009206891059875, 0.19962456822395325, 0.3514285683631...	1	From 1923 onwards, the Mediterranean fleet was the major naval force under British control. In the North Sea the elimination of the German navy in 1918–1919, by the surrender and scuttling of its ships, had cleared the sea of the most serious enemy; in the Far East there was apprehension at the growth of both Japan's and the United States’ naval power, though these two tended to cancel each other out, being mutually hostile; the naval base at Singapore formed the basis for British power in the Indian Ocean and the China Seas. These two regions, therefore, were not held, in naval terms, very strongly, and their reserve strength was the Mediterranean fleet. Positioned as it was, its ships could sail quickly into the Atlantic and British waters, or reinforce the Indian Ocean and the Far East. The Rock of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal were therefore seen even more than before as essential imperial maritime links, and Malta was the main naval base. In order for the Mediterranean fleet to be of use in a crisis, it had to be large, well-trained, and fully equipped. It was put through constant exercises, in many parts of the sea, and kept up-to-date in equipment so far as possible. It received the reinforcement of aircraft carriers from the beginning; the original carrier, Argus, was already being used in the Russian and Turkish troubles in 1921–1923, and the fleet received as its commanders the most capable admirals. But as the political situation developed, especially after 1930, its clear maritime advantage of the 1920s gradually eroded. This was the classic age of the Mediterranean fleet. Sailors and officers were professionals, the disciplinary regime was benign, sailors received regular leave, and were rotated into different ships and through regular educational and retraining programmes. There were annual visits by parts of the fleet to places all around the sea – Greece and Turkey were favourites, though France and Yugoslavia and Italy were included; the visits were social occasions as much as exercises, promoting good international relations, at least supposedly (but they were also exercises in intelligence gathering). The ships were polished and painted to impress, but exercised in evolutions, firing practice, and navigation as well. Plans were developed to cope with possible naval operations. For ten years or so after 1923 the fleet rode the Mediterranean unchallenged and with vast confidence.	500	ENGLISH	1
Skerryvore lighthouse marks a very extensive and treacherous reef of rocks lying off the Hebrides approximately 11 miles south west of Tiree. It is Scotland’s tallest lighthouse. The name, Skerryvore, is derived from the Gaelic words “Sgeir” meaning the rock and “mhor” (“mh” is pronounced “v”) meaning big. The lighthouse marks a very extensive and treacherous reef of rocks lying in the sea off the Hebrides some 10 or 11 miles south west of Tiree. It was built of granite quarried on the Island of Mull during the six years from 1838 to 1844, to the design of Alan Stevenson, Engineer and constitutes an outstanding example of lighthouse engineering. The beautiful symmetry of the outline of the tower, the proportions of which are a height of 156ft with diameter of 42ft at the base tapering to 16ft at the top, ranks it amongst the most graceful of all lighthouse towers; it is even asserted by some that Skerryvore is the worlds most graceful lighthouse. Alan Stevenson and his workmen eventually landed on the rock in June 1838 to undertake the first task which was to erect a wooden barrack for housing the men during their stay throughout the coming summers which were to be regarded as the working seasons. When possible, Stevenson and his men landed on the rock at 4am each morning and worked until 8pm each night with two half-hour breaks, a 17 hour day. Landing on the rock was often impossible and it was soon obvious that the barrack would not be completed the first season. On 11 September the season finished until the following Spring and the uncompleted barrack stood for two months before it was totally destroyed during a severe gale on 3 November. Although this represented a severe setback to plans, in that four months toil had been devastated, Alan Stevenson refused to be moved from his belief that it was still possible to erect a Lighthouse on the Skerryvore reef. Work started again on 6 May 1839 on the erection of a new barrack and also on the excavation of the foundations. It was little surprise nevertheless that progress was at the time minimal as on several occasions cranes, tools and materials were swept into the sea. Despite these frustrations however the barrack was finally completed on 3 September and that year’s season came to an end. It should perhaps be mentioned that while two or three dozen men were employed on the rock, much larger groups of men were employed on the Ross of Mull quarrying the granite for the tower. The massive blocks of stone were then dispatched by tender to Hynish on the island of Tiree where a further workforce dressed and shaped the stones so that when they were landed on the rock each would fit perfectly onto and into the adjoining sets. On 30 April 1840 the workmen landed on the rock for the start of the season’s operations and found to their relief that the barrack had withstood the winter’s gales. After the disappointment of the previous year they now seemed to be making headway and on 4 July work on the actual tower was embarked upon. Three days later the Duke of Argyll, accompanied by the Duchess, were landed on the rock and with due ceremony, laid the foundation stone of the tower. Work pressed on now and the precise work done at Hynish by the masons bore fruit and enabled the rock workmen to set as many as 85 blocks in a day. By the end of the season the tower had risen to a height of 8 feet 2 inches. The new season began again on 20 May 1841 and by 8 July, the solid base of the tower was completed. Work ended for that year on 17 August when 37 of the 97 courses of stone had been laid. The 19th May saw the start of operations in 1842 and on 25 July the last stone of the top was laid. The masonry of the tower was now 137 feet 11 inches in height and it contained 58,580 cubic feet of material of about 4,308 tons. The lantern arrived in sections and was assembled during August and September of that year. In January 1843 Alan Stevenson was appointed Engineer to the Lighthouse Commissioners and the final stages of the tower were left to his younger brother Thomas, who succeeded him as resident engineer and was later to become Engineer to the Board. Thomas Stevenson visited the rock on 29 March 1843 and found the whole structure watertight. The rest of that season was spent in repointing the tower and fitting the interior which comprised 11 rooms in all. The tower was now ready for manning and on 1 February 1844, Skerryvore beamed out for the first time. Two large fog bells were sounded 1 stroke every ½ minute. The larger of these bells in now in St Connan’s Kirk, Loch Awe. From February 1844, when it was first exhibited, the white light flashed out each night without fail until the night of 16 March 1954 when a disastrous fire broke out and badly damaged the structure. As a temporary measure an unmanned lightvessel (ex Otter Rock) was laid in position 4 miles 235° from Skerryvore on 24 March 1954 (Notice to Mariners No 3 of 1954 refers) exhibiting a flashing light which gave one flash of 0.5 seconds duration every 6 seconds. In July 1955 these two lights were discontinued (Notice to Mariners No 13 of 1955 refers) and the Dalen revolving light, giving one flash of 0.5 seconds duration every 10 seconds, was re-exhibited until further notice. In October 1958 the Dalen light was replaced by a temporary watched light (Notice to Mariners No 22 of 1958 refers) which exhibited one flash of 3 seconds duration every 10 seconds which remained in operation until 6 August 1959 on which date the present light (Notice to Mariners No 11 of 1959 refers), which exhibits one flash every 10 seconds, was re-established. Reconstruction work on the lighthouse commenced in 1956 and was completed in 1959 when the light was made electric. It is now a self-generating station, power being produced by 3 diesel generators, any one of which is able to carry the full station load. In mid July 1940 a stick of bombs dropped at Skerryvore, exploded on the rock near the tower, cracking 2 lantern panes and shattering an incandescent mantle. Communication between personnel on the Rock and those ashore was initially by visual means. The Signal Tower at Hynish, South Western Tiree, was built during the period 1840 – 1843 under the supervision of the Board’s Engineer, Alan Stevenson LLB, FRSE, MICE. The purpose of the Signal Tower was to transmit and receive semaphore signals to or from Skerryvore Lighthouse (visibility permitting) at pre-arranged times or otherwise in the case of an emergency. At this time, which was before the introduction of wireless telephone, this was the only means of communication with the lightkeepers of Skerryvore, some 14 miles distant from Hynish. The Hynish Shore Station offered few advantages and its remote situation, destitute of any shelter for shipping, decided the Commissioners to transfer the Station to Earraid on the Island of Mull. On the accomplishment of this transfer in 1892, the land owned on Tiree was sold to the Duke of Argyll, but with the exception of the Signal Tower which is now the Skerryvore museum. With the advent of radio and its ability to remit communication over greater distances, the Shore Station, for this and other social reasons, was re-located at Oban. In 1972 a concrete helicopter pad with additional fuel storage tanks contained therein was constructed on the rocks at the base of the tower. This allowed the reliefs to be carried out by a helicopter which is not so likely to be affected by adverse weather conditions. Skerryvore Lighthouse was automated in 1994. Skerryvore Lighthouse – Alan Stevensons Account Courtesy of the Northern Lighthouse Heritage Trust and the National Library of Scotland, Alan Stevenson’s Account of the Skerryvore Lighthouse is now available in digital format giving the opportunity to read this fascinating account of the building of the light also contains Notes of the Illumination of Lighthouses.	<urn:uuid:f76cb5b1-c721-415c-b12a-070e07c0ad49>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.nlb.org.uk/lighthouses/skerryvore/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00387.warc.gz	en	0.982317	1,722	3.46875	3	[ 0.09390155971050262, 0.06019511818885803, -0.19300411641597748, -0.0034830309450626373, 0.056962139904499054, -0.3562941551208496, -0.14756718277931213, -0.08142116665840149, -0.4306553602218628, -0.037884216755628586, 0.11464957892894745, -0.32567036151885986, 0.20099028944969177, 0.03415...	7	Skerryvore lighthouse marks a very extensive and treacherous reef of rocks lying off the Hebrides approximately 11 miles south west of Tiree. It is Scotland’s tallest lighthouse. The name, Skerryvore, is derived from the Gaelic words “Sgeir” meaning the rock and “mhor” (“mh” is pronounced “v”) meaning big. The lighthouse marks a very extensive and treacherous reef of rocks lying in the sea off the Hebrides some 10 or 11 miles south west of Tiree. It was built of granite quarried on the Island of Mull during the six years from 1838 to 1844, to the design of Alan Stevenson, Engineer and constitutes an outstanding example of lighthouse engineering. The beautiful symmetry of the outline of the tower, the proportions of which are a height of 156ft with diameter of 42ft at the base tapering to 16ft at the top, ranks it amongst the most graceful of all lighthouse towers; it is even asserted by some that Skerryvore is the worlds most graceful lighthouse. Alan Stevenson and his workmen eventually landed on the rock in June 1838 to undertake the first task which was to erect a wooden barrack for housing the men during their stay throughout the coming summers which were to be regarded as the working seasons. When possible, Stevenson and his men landed on the rock at 4am each morning and worked until 8pm each night with two half-hour breaks, a 17 hour day. Landing on the rock was often impossible and it was soon obvious that the barrack would not be completed the first season. On 11 September the season finished until the following Spring and the uncompleted barrack stood for two months before it was totally destroyed during a severe gale on 3 November. Although this represented a severe setback to plans, in that four months toil had been devastated, Alan Stevenson refused to be moved from his belief that it was still possible to erect a Lighthouse on the Skerryvore reef. Work started again on 6 May 1839 on the erection of a new barrack and also on the excavation of the foundations. It was little surprise nevertheless that progress was at the time minimal as on several occasions cranes, tools and materials were swept into the sea. Despite these frustrations however the barrack was finally completed on 3 September and that year’s season came to an end. It should perhaps be mentioned that while two or three dozen men were employed on the rock, much larger groups of men were employed on the Ross of Mull quarrying the granite for the tower. The massive blocks of stone were then dispatched by tender to Hynish on the island of Tiree where a further workforce dressed and shaped the stones so that when they were landed on the rock each would fit perfectly onto and into the adjoining sets. On 30 April 1840 the workmen landed on the rock for the start of the season’s operations and found to their relief that the barrack had withstood the winter’s gales. After the disappointment of the previous year they now seemed to be making headway and on 4 July work on the actual tower was embarked upon. Three days later the Duke of Argyll, accompanied by the Duchess, were landed on the rock and with due ceremony, laid the foundation stone of the tower. Work pressed on now and the precise work done at Hynish by the masons bore fruit and enabled the rock workmen to set as many as 85 blocks in a day. By the end of the season the tower had risen to a height of 8 feet 2 inches. The new season began again on 20 May 1841 and by 8 July, the solid base of the tower was completed. Work ended for that year on 17 August when 37 of the 97 courses of stone had been laid. The 19th May saw the start of operations in 1842 and on 25 July the last stone of the top was laid. The masonry of the tower was now 137 feet 11 inches in height and it contained 58,580 cubic feet of material of about 4,308 tons. The lantern arrived in sections and was assembled during August and September of that year. In January 1843 Alan Stevenson was appointed Engineer to the Lighthouse Commissioners and the final stages of the tower were left to his younger brother Thomas, who succeeded him as resident engineer and was later to become Engineer to the Board. Thomas Stevenson visited the rock on 29 March 1843 and found the whole structure watertight. The rest of that season was spent in repointing the tower and fitting the interior which comprised 11 rooms in all. The tower was now ready for manning and on 1 February 1844, Skerryvore beamed out for the first time. Two large fog bells were sounded 1 stroke every ½ minute. The larger of these bells in now in St Connan’s Kirk, Loch Awe. From February 1844, when it was first exhibited, the white light flashed out each night without fail until the night of 16 March 1954 when a disastrous fire broke out and badly damaged the structure. As a temporary measure an unmanned lightvessel (ex Otter Rock) was laid in position 4 miles 235° from Skerryvore on 24 March 1954 (Notice to Mariners No 3 of 1954 refers) exhibiting a flashing light which gave one flash of 0.5 seconds duration every 6 seconds. In July 1955 these two lights were discontinued (Notice to Mariners No 13 of 1955 refers) and the Dalen revolving light, giving one flash of 0.5 seconds duration every 10 seconds, was re-exhibited until further notice. In October 1958 the Dalen light was replaced by a temporary watched light (Notice to Mariners No 22 of 1958 refers) which exhibited one flash of 3 seconds duration every 10 seconds which remained in operation until 6 August 1959 on which date the present light (Notice to Mariners No 11 of 1959 refers), which exhibits one flash every 10 seconds, was re-established. Reconstruction work on the lighthouse commenced in 1956 and was completed in 1959 when the light was made electric. It is now a self-generating station, power being produced by 3 diesel generators, any one of which is able to carry the full station load. In mid July 1940 a stick of bombs dropped at Skerryvore, exploded on the rock near the tower, cracking 2 lantern panes and shattering an incandescent mantle. Communication between personnel on the Rock and those ashore was initially by visual means. The Signal Tower at Hynish, South Western Tiree, was built during the period 1840 – 1843 under the supervision of the Board’s Engineer, Alan Stevenson LLB, FRSE, MICE. The purpose of the Signal Tower was to transmit and receive semaphore signals to or from Skerryvore Lighthouse (visibility permitting) at pre-arranged times or otherwise in the case of an emergency. At this time, which was before the introduction of wireless telephone, this was the only means of communication with the lightkeepers of Skerryvore, some 14 miles distant from Hynish. The Hynish Shore Station offered few advantages and its remote situation, destitute of any shelter for shipping, decided the Commissioners to transfer the Station to Earraid on the Island of Mull. On the accomplishment of this transfer in 1892, the land owned on Tiree was sold to the Duke of Argyll, but with the exception of the Signal Tower which is now the Skerryvore museum. With the advent of radio and its ability to remit communication over greater distances, the Shore Station, for this and other social reasons, was re-located at Oban. In 1972 a concrete helicopter pad with additional fuel storage tanks contained therein was constructed on the rocks at the base of the tower. This allowed the reliefs to be carried out by a helicopter which is not so likely to be affected by adverse weather conditions. Skerryvore Lighthouse was automated in 1994. Skerryvore Lighthouse – Alan Stevensons Account Courtesy of the Northern Lighthouse Heritage Trust and the National Library of Scotland, Alan Stevenson’s Account of the Skerryvore Lighthouse is now available in digital format giving the opportunity to read this fascinating account of the building of the light also contains Notes of the Illumination of Lighthouses.	1,857	ENGLISH	1
General Andrew Jackson emerged as a military hero to most Americans after the Wars of Independence and the War of 1812. He waged several campaigns against the Native Americans in the War of 1812, expelling a great amount of energy in putting down rebellions and uprisings. He won national acclaim after his defeat of the British at the Battle of New Orleans. Jackson was a Tennessee man who held both land and property. After his resignation of his commission from the military, he began to make frequent forays into the political arena, and it is there that Jackson has left an indelible mark. The period of his leadership is justly known as the Age of Jackson, not only because he dominated its politics, but also because he dominated the thinking of both his friends and his enemies for most of the period between the end of the War of 1812 and the Mexican War in 1848. However, the height of Andrew Jackson's prominence in American politics took place between the era of his first nomination for the presidency in 1824 and the defeat of the Democrats in 1840. Jackson's rise to popularity was aided by the Panic of 1819. In this era, the U.S. was experiencing a financial boom. The Napoleonic Wars in Europe had laid waste to much of the agricultural land. As a result, the Atlantic trade with the U.S. began to flourish. European nations traded eagerly in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, while cheap land, easy credit, and high prices for farm products stimulated an American land boom that state banks happily fuelled with generous issue of notes. Most state banks began lending indiscriminately without the specie to back it up. Specie was the value of the bank's paper money, held in gold and silver in its vaults. Nonetheless, this period of financial excess could not have been expected to last forever, and the first sign of trouble emerged as European agriculture began to recover. As economic recovery began to take place in Europe, the American market was flooded with imports.	<urn:uuid:3a7eb14a-ce89-4018-82ec-a410be27e663>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/27457.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592636.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118135205-20200118163205-00067.warc.gz	en	0.984756	409	4.15625	4	[ -0.12053974717855453, 0.21584786474704742, 0.7466001510620117, -0.21277464926242828, 0.050986602902412415, -0.05271077901124954, -0.23616690933704376, 0.3060753643512726, -0.15179072320461273, -0.04036998003721237, 0.028449106961488724, 0.05226602777838707, -0.11568304896354675, 0.11294929...	4	General Andrew Jackson emerged as a military hero to most Americans after the Wars of Independence and the War of 1812. He waged several campaigns against the Native Americans in the War of 1812, expelling a great amount of energy in putting down rebellions and uprisings. He won national acclaim after his defeat of the British at the Battle of New Orleans. Jackson was a Tennessee man who held both land and property. After his resignation of his commission from the military, he began to make frequent forays into the political arena, and it is there that Jackson has left an indelible mark. The period of his leadership is justly known as the Age of Jackson, not only because he dominated its politics, but also because he dominated the thinking of both his friends and his enemies for most of the period between the end of the War of 1812 and the Mexican War in 1848. However, the height of Andrew Jackson's prominence in American politics took place between the era of his first nomination for the presidency in 1824 and the defeat of the Democrats in 1840. Jackson's rise to popularity was aided by the Panic of 1819. In this era, the U.S. was experiencing a financial boom. The Napoleonic Wars in Europe had laid waste to much of the agricultural land. As a result, the Atlantic trade with the U.S. began to flourish. European nations traded eagerly in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, while cheap land, easy credit, and high prices for farm products stimulated an American land boom that state banks happily fuelled with generous issue of notes. Most state banks began lending indiscriminately without the specie to back it up. Specie was the value of the bank's paper money, held in gold and silver in its vaults. Nonetheless, this period of financial excess could not have been expected to last forever, and the first sign of trouble emerged as European agriculture began to recover. As economic recovery began to take place in Europe, the American market was flooded with imports.	429	ENGLISH	1
As the settlement of Jamestown became more successful, the strict rules and harsh consequences doled out by governors such as Thomas Dale quickly became outdated and unnecessary. In 1619, George Yeardley was elected the new governor of Virginia. Yeardley's primary goal as governor was to ensure that Virginians would have the same rights as those living in England. Yeardley quickly established the first representative government (officials to represent the people) in the New World and scheduled annual meetings in which laws and rules based on popular will were formulated. The first meeting of the House of Burgesses (representative government) occurred on July 30, 1619. The House of Burgesses was made up of 22 men, two men representing each of Virginia's 11 "plantations" or counties. The major goal of the House of Burgesses was to change the law as imposed by Thomas Dale. Yeardley signed off on the changes which effectively ended martial law in Jamestown and resulted in new found freedoms among the settlers. The House of Burgesses effectively represented the first form of democracy to ever reign in the New World. It resulted in the formation of new social and economic institutions such as Virginia's undemocratic slave-labor workforce.	<urn:uuid:cbc64a59-08c3-44bd-86aa-d8d2c32f24d4>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://mrnussbaum.com/the-establishment-of-the-house-of-burgesses-article	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00194.warc.gz	en	0.98531	251	4.46875	4	[ -0.3922683894634247, 0.16223512589931488, 0.6518345475196838, -0.3515528738498688, 0.08579346537590027, 0.01433394756168127, -0.020995749160647392, -0.3231641352176666, -0.18529966473579407, 0.21622708439826965, -0.05071806535124779, 0.004862593021243811, -0.15426789224147797, 0.1672753244...	2	As the settlement of Jamestown became more successful, the strict rules and harsh consequences doled out by governors such as Thomas Dale quickly became outdated and unnecessary. In 1619, George Yeardley was elected the new governor of Virginia. Yeardley's primary goal as governor was to ensure that Virginians would have the same rights as those living in England. Yeardley quickly established the first representative government (officials to represent the people) in the New World and scheduled annual meetings in which laws and rules based on popular will were formulated. The first meeting of the House of Burgesses (representative government) occurred on July 30, 1619. The House of Burgesses was made up of 22 men, two men representing each of Virginia's 11 "plantations" or counties. The major goal of the House of Burgesses was to change the law as imposed by Thomas Dale. Yeardley signed off on the changes which effectively ended martial law in Jamestown and resulted in new found freedoms among the settlers. The House of Burgesses effectively represented the first form of democracy to ever reign in the New World. It resulted in the formation of new social and economic institutions such as Virginia's undemocratic slave-labor workforce.	259	ENGLISH	1
Emperor Wu of Han (156 BC–March 29, 87 BC), personal name Liu Che, was the sixth emperor of the Chinese Han Dynasty, ruling from 141 BC to 87 BC. A military compaigner, Han China reached its greatest expansion under his reign, spanning from Kyrgyzstan in the west, Northern Korea in the Northeast, to Northern Vietnam in the south. He was best known for his role in expelling the nomadic Xiongnu from the boundary of China. The Han people named themselves after him. Emperor Wu adopted the principles of Confucianism as the state philosophy and code of ethics for his empire. He started a school to teach future administrators the Confucian classics. Emperor Wu dispatched his envoy Zhang Qian in 139 BC to seek an alliance with the Yuezhi of modern Uzbekistan. Zhang returned in 123 BC and Emperor Wu then sent many missions per year to Central Asia. During the end of his reign, his power was severely weakened. Open war broke out between rival families of the Empress Wei and the Li clan. The Li family killed most of Empress Wei's family and forced Empress Wei to commit suicide; during this time, Wu was forced to flee. In the end, Wu was too weak to even name his own successor, who was chosen two days before Wu's death. According to some sources, was born on August 27, 156 BC, but most sources do not provide a month and day. All agree on the year.	<urn:uuid:76f1aa69-6ca5-4e86-b808-2f33fc24180b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Wudi-of-Han-China	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00165.warc.gz	en	0.983896	306	3.828125	4	[ -0.5850607752799988, 0.30392467975616455, 0.4128793179988861, -0.22830088436603546, -0.054191704839468, 0.2019967883825302, 0.4519649147987366, 0.018765071406960487, 0.0151834012940526, -0.14559559524059296, 0.4768561124801636, -0.7228690385818481, 0.16338250041007996, 0.10402112454175949,...	1	Emperor Wu of Han (156 BC–March 29, 87 BC), personal name Liu Che, was the sixth emperor of the Chinese Han Dynasty, ruling from 141 BC to 87 BC. A military compaigner, Han China reached its greatest expansion under his reign, spanning from Kyrgyzstan in the west, Northern Korea in the Northeast, to Northern Vietnam in the south. He was best known for his role in expelling the nomadic Xiongnu from the boundary of China. The Han people named themselves after him. Emperor Wu adopted the principles of Confucianism as the state philosophy and code of ethics for his empire. He started a school to teach future administrators the Confucian classics. Emperor Wu dispatched his envoy Zhang Qian in 139 BC to seek an alliance with the Yuezhi of modern Uzbekistan. Zhang returned in 123 BC and Emperor Wu then sent many missions per year to Central Asia. During the end of his reign, his power was severely weakened. Open war broke out between rival families of the Empress Wei and the Li clan. The Li family killed most of Empress Wei's family and forced Empress Wei to commit suicide; during this time, Wu was forced to flee. In the end, Wu was too weak to even name his own successor, who was chosen two days before Wu's death. According to some sources, was born on August 27, 156 BC, but most sources do not provide a month and day. All agree on the year.	327	ENGLISH	1
When And Why Was The Weimar Government Set Up In Germany? Setting up of the Weimar Republic in Germany happened in the year 1919. Military autocracy prevailed in Germany’ government before 1914 but parliamentary democracy prevailed after the year 1919. The navy in Germany mutinied in 1918 during the end of October. All throughout Germany, rebellion spread out and it decided to drop out of the First World War in November. In November 1918, the German Revolution took place and the republic emerged following the war. In Weimar, convention of a national assembly took place in 1919. For the German Reich, a new constitution was written in 1919 and the same year, it was adopted. Kaiser Wilhelm II was thrown out of Germany after the World War I ended. After abdicating, Kaiser Wilhelm II fled Germany leading to a declaration of a new republic. For a new Reichstag, elections were held in January 1919 and a new government was agreed upon in Weimar town. The federal republic was given the name ‘Weimar Republic’ by the historians. An imperial form of government was replaced in Germany. Assembly of the constitution took place at Weimar, after which the republic was named. The new republic’s elected President was Freidrich Ebert. Not only was a new government formed in Germany, it was assured, by the Allies that it had got a government of a different kind. Military autocracy was lost and parliamentary democracy came into existence after 1919. By 1930 the liberal democracy period lapsed. Emergency powers of the dictatorial type were assumed by Hindenburg leading to the ascent of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Party in 1933. In February and March, the Nazi government took legal measures known as power seizure. It indicated that the government was able to legislate as opposed to the constitution. Since the constitution was not repealed formally, the Weimar Republic continued till 1945. However during the early period of rule, Nazis took up measures thus rendering the constitution irrelevent. The Weimar Republic ended by 1933, resulting in the beginning of the Third Reich by Adolf Hitler. The government was a coalition, theoretically comprising a number of political parties. However it found it difficult to assert authority as it was beset from different sides. It was in deep trouble from the very beginning. Many problems were faced by the Weimar Republic during its 14 years like troubled relationships with the nations which won the World War I, political extremists and hyperinflation. The period from 1919 to 1933 was termed as the Weimar Republic by the people. Germany was divided into nineteen states under the constitution of the Weimar Republic. People of Germany had the right to vote and elect the President, and members of the Parliament and of the Reichstag in Germany. Cabinet members in a wide assortment and a chancellor were appointed by the President. The Weimar Constitution was considered a brilliant document as noted by a number of historians. True democracy prevailed under the Weimar Republic in Germany. Who Were The Freikorps And The Sparticists When Germany had experienced its Revolution, after the Armistice in November, a particular radical socialist group attained fame. The group got its name after the Spartacus who was responsible for leading a revolt by the slaves in 73 BC against the Romans. This group called the Sparticists was led by Karl Liebnecht and Rosa Luxemburg and formed during the summer of the year 1915. Liebnecht and Luxemburg both had left the SDP due to support given by the party in the First World War to Germany. Rosa Luxemburg determined the Sparticists political philosophy. While Rosa Luxemburg was serving a sentence in Germany in a prison, she wrote the ‘Junius Pamphlet’. The German Communist Party was founded by Liebnecht and Luxemburg and some of the Sparticists in December 1918. On Lenin also, he had also written many pamphlets about how he led the Russian Revolution which was valuable to Russia. Many of the Sparticists were the civilians while the Freikorps were armed and organized in a better way. The Freikorps had military background too. It was doubtful who would win. In the political party the Sparticists gradually grew into a bonafide minority by the year 1928. After the World War I ended, certain nationalists in the right wing in Weimar, Germany adopted the name called Freikorps. This name has also been previously associated with political and social dislocation which had existed in Weimar Germany during the first few years. It was a group sharing similar objectives and beliefs. The Freikorps members were anti socialist, nationalistic and conservative. They had a lot of experience in the military and of fighting during the World War I. They were not of the belief that in the World War I, military defeat was suffered by Germany. The Nazi Party had taken up the legend - ‘stab-in-the-back’ about which the supporters of Freikorps were very vocal. In 1918-1919 the German Revolution was put down by them thus crushing down the Bavarian Soviet Republic in the month of May 1919. To overthrow the government of Ebert, an effort was made by its unit called Ehrhardt Brigade at Berlin. The Ebert government then fled to Stuttgart and Wolfgang Kapp was put into governmental charge by Ehrdardt. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnicht the leading communists were also murdered by the Freikorps members. The Spartacists were also attacked by the Friekorps. Token sentences were given to the men who had had been responsible for killing Luxemburg. For attempting manslaughter and hitting Luxemburg with the butt of his rifle, two years of imprisonment were given to Otto Runge. Lieutenant Kurt Vogel was given imprisonment of four year as he failed to report about a corpse. In 1920 the Freikorps was disbanded officially. However, many of its members joined the Nazi Party and became original enforcers of the party. The Kapp Putsch In March 1920, the Kapp Putsch took place in Weimar Germany. A journalist from the right wing, Wolfgang Kapp opposed everyone with the belief that Friedrich Ebert had stood for the nation after the humiliation experienced at the Treaty of Versailles. The new government of Weimar was directly threatened by the Kapp Putsch. General Luttwitz assisted Kapp. General Luttwitz received assistance from a group of Freikorps members. Berlin was seized by Luttwitz on March 13, 1920 with a proclamation that the centre nationalist government’s new right was being established. The chancellor of the nationalist government was Kapp. Ebert was not able to impose his will on this and hence did not have any immediate response. Ebert left the capital the second time. This undermined his status and a lot of people emphasized that his position in Germany was not too strong. In Dresden, the reconvention of the government took place and Ebert called for a general strike. This was the only card he could play. The movement called by all those who supported Luttwitz and Kapp, got paralyzed due to the strike. General Erich Luderndorff was the foremost military officer who supported Kapp. However Luderndorff’s lead was not followed by the German Army’s main officer corps. It was thought that the main officer corps had the feeling of support for the president as he had allowed them a free hand in the year 1919 to deal with the Sparticists / Communists. Hence it was not possible to consider Ebert as anti-military. No effort was taken by the military to prevent the Kapp Putsch and provide Ebert with active support. Ebert called for a general strike making it impossible for the Kapp supporters to move around. The Putsch failed due to the paralysis caused by the general strike. On March 17th, both Luttwitz and Kapp fled from Berlin. The Kapp Putsch prevailed for 5 days and has been considered as very important. It was difficult for the government to enforce any kind of authority on its own capital even. It was not able to put down any challenge to the concerned authority too. Ebert’s authority could be re-established only by the huge power of a general strike. The general strike was a success indicating that the citizens of Berlin were not in agreement to support the Ebert led government, instead of the right wing government which Kapp led. The people of Berlin fully supported Ebert. As far as this is concerned, it is counter argued that for the Berliners, Ebert was not at all relevant. All that the people wanted was peace to prevail in the capital after they had experienced the rebellion by the Communists/Sparticists in the year 1919. In comparison to political beliefs, it was more important for them to maintain order and peace. All those who had fought against Luttwitz and Kapp became supporters of the fledgling Nazi Party in the future. The swastika sign was also a sign put on the helmets of the supporters for the purpose of identification by one of Luttwitz’s main fighting force, the Erhardt Brigade. This sign helped in identifying who the supporters were. Who Were The November Criminals And Why Were They Called So Mutiny of the High Seas Fleet followed Germany’s final offensive that had failed. An armistice was agreed upon by the General Staff and on November 11, 1918, the fighting ended. This was after the General Staff was forced to seek peace by increasing desertions, rebellion from the navy, shortages of food and ammunition and the increasing supplies and American troops. The Social Democratic, Catholic Centre and Democratic Party leaders were the negotiators of the armistice. These parties were bestowed with the label of November Criminals by the Germans. The Germans had the feeling that these men had betrayed Germany and were also responsible for stopping the war which they felt could be still won by Germany. Matthias Erzberger, Walter Rathenau and Phillip Scheidemann were the men who did the negotiations since the German Generals kept on pleading with them for gaining an armistice. There was a fear that the German Army was falling short of food and ammunitions and the fear of falling apart existed. Matthias Erzberger, Walter Rathenau and Phillip Scheidemann would be considered as November Criminals always by the Weimar Republic enemies. They would be termed as criminals, even if they helped in creating and leading the Weimar Republic during its early years. These negotiators were not too willing to do the negotiations but they felt that they had to do it since acceding to the request of the Generals was their patriotic duty. Despite following requests of the Generals, their enemies marked them for murder as November criminals. The very Generals who had pressured them in carrying out the negotiations would be repudiating them. Reporting about the actual progress made during the World War I was censored, besides which all the combats that took place happened outside Germany. Due to this the people of Germany were not at all prepared for defeat or surrender. With the defeat of Germany, the war had ended. In November 1918, the German Generals, faced with starvation at the home front, blockade by the British and fierce resistance from the French and British armies, political unrest and entrance of the US army, naval mutiny, defeat in the battlefields and a ruined economy finally requested for armistice negotiations with the Allies. As per the armistice terms, the army in Germany was allowed to remain intact and not admit surrendering. There were misgivings from John J Pershing the US General that it would have been better off if defeat was accepted by the German Generals to clear out any doubts. However the British and French were convinced that there would be no threat from Germany again. Germany’ future would be hugely impacted with the failure of forcing the General Staff of Germany to admit defeat. Later on the army was reduced in size but its impact would be sensed as a political force, as it was not dedicated to democracy but to German nationalism, after the war. It was expected that the theory called ‘Stab in the Back’ would gain popularity amongst the Germans who were finding it difficult to swallow defeat. This idea became an obsession with Hitler especially about blaming the Marxists and Jews in Germany for undermining effort during the war. For many others and Adolf Hitler, the politicians in Germany who had signed the November 11, 1918, Armistice, would be termed as ‘November Criminals’. Hyperinflation In Germany Germany had been a flourishing country before the World War I. It was a world leader in machinery, chemicals and optics, industries were expanding. The currency was gold-backed. In 1914, the Italian Iira, the German Mark, the French Frank and the British Shilling were all of equal value with an exchange value of 4 to 5 per dollar. However during hyperinflation in Germany the rate of exchange between the German Mark and the dollar was one trillion Marks to one dollar. It was difficult to purchase a newspaper even with a wheelbarrow filled with money. This financial tornado took the Germans by surprise. In 1914, the German Mark’s gold backing was abandoned by the country. The expectations were that the war would be short. Between the year 1914 and 1919 the prices in Germany almost doubled. The country lost the war after 4 disastrous years. Reparation payments had to be made in gold-backed Mark under the Treaty of Versailles. Besides this it was also to lose a part of Ruhr production and Upper Silesia. In other words, political fragility existed in Germany. Habits of the bourgeois were quite strong. The ordinary people expected that things would get better again, however in 1922 during the five months the prices doubled again after the doubling from 1914 to 1919. Everyone complained about the high living costs. Factory workers asked for higher wages while civil servants and professors too complained of being squeezed with hyperinflation. The able, moderate foreign minister, Walter Rathenau was assassinated by fanatics of the right wing on June 24, 1922. Faith of the German people got shattered when a glamorous, wealthy, popular and charismatic figure like Walter was shot in a society that followed the law. They wanted to believe that things would be fine in future. Walter‘s assassination was a trauma to the whole nation. The Mark was getting worth less and less everyday due to which the sellers were holding back. The amount of currency demanded was greater as the prices had gone up. Demands were responded well to by the German Central Bank. However, authorities that were ruling failed to see if anything had gone wrong. It was also reported by a leading financial newspaper that the money in circulation was not very high. Even the Reichsbank President, Dr. Rudolf Havenstein mentioned to an economics professor that he would purchase the new suit he needed, only when the prices would come down. After the assassination of the foreign minister, the government had become fragile and shaky. For enforcing demands for the reparations, an army was sent into Ruhr by the revengeful French. The Germans were not able to resist this. Unemployment was the most feared thing for the German people as compared to inflation. Communists put in efforts to take over, in 1919 so that they would get another chance due to the prevailing unemployment. Inflation was condoned well by top industrial combines in Germany like Stinnes, Krupp, Farben and Thyssen. The inflation ensured that everyone continued to work. Who Was Gustav Stresemann And What Made Him A Successful Leader Gustav Stresemann, the foreign minister of Germany was born in a middle class family in the year 1878 and died on October 3, 1929. He was described as a strong advocate of peace by a noted newspaper, The New York Times. Stresemann had strived hard to remove the bitterness of the World War I. Over a period of time, a lot of praises were showered on him. He had bided his time till Germany would get stronger to challenge powers on the western side. At school he was moderately successful, then developed liberal view and got himself enrolled at the University of Berlin. Via a membership in the National Liberal party, he pursued interests in politics and business from 1901 to 1914. Between nationalism and liberalism he saw no conflict at all. In 1907 for the first time he was elected to Reichstag and displayed organizational skills, energy and ability to speak as a successful politician. He advocated a domestic reform and expansionist foreign policy during the World War I. According to him, Germany’s greatest enemy was Britain which wanted to rob it of its proper role the globe over. To secure the interests of advancing sea power in Germany, he wanted to secure Belgium. He also had an eye on Russia’s Baltic provinces and had no restrictions for submarine warfare. During the last few days of the World War I, he reluctantly and painfully realized that it was unlikely that Germany would win. He found that his very own National Liberal party failed to stand together. The dictated Treaty of Versailles was rejected by him just like the other Germans as he felt it was not morally binding. For Germany the period from 1919 to 1923 was quite traumatic. It was a period when Stresemann’s outlook developed to the European statesman of 1925 – 29 from a wartime annexationist. The fear of revolution and Bolshevism was coupled with the shock of getting defeated. A huge sum had to be paid as reparations to the allies over a period of 42 years. Ruhr was occupied by France in January 1923 for enforcing the payments for reparations due to which the vital coal fields were cut off from the Germans. They refused to work for the French after which followed, rampant inflation. During this time Stresemann formed the German People’s party with those with interests in business, a collection of old National Liberal party members and the DVP. He embraced the republic during the 4 years and possessed a strong tendency of a monarchist and with a parliamentary democracy promise saw it as the only alternative to the prevailing chaos, dictatorship, revolution and the civil war. The political negotiations he indulged in helped him in becoming the Chancellor and foreign minister in August 1923 at the age of 45. He was chancellor for just three months and foreign minister till his death. Preventing Germany’s breakup was his main concern from the period 1923 to 1924. He wanted a revision in the peace treaty in the East which he worked on till the end as he felt this was the only option Germany had. Stresemann was a master in parliamentary games. Strength And Weaknesses Of The Stresemann Years In Weimar Germany The Weimar Republic was able to survive the crisis of 1919 to 1923 by using the Freikorps units and the right wing army. These were used for crushing the Communists. For crushing the Kapp Putsch, help was sought from the left wing unions. Cultural flowering was experienced in Germany due the period of prosperity which was led by the Dawes Plan – American money and Gustav Stresemann. Strengths Of The Weimar Republic It seemed that the Weimar Republic would collapse, however it managed to survive or recover during the period 1919 to 1929. The republic tried to use various methods to ensure survival. Bands of Freikorps were used by Gustav Noske the SPD Defense Minister, against the Communists. The bands of Freikorps were right winged and took great joy in putting down the 1919 – 1920 revolts of the Communists. The von Seeckt led army was right winged which also enjoyed putting down the revolts of 1923 by the Communists. Since the Kapp Putsch was also right winged, the Army and Freikorps did not agree to assist the government. An appeal was given by Ebert to the left winged Berlin workers who had gone on strike. The Kapp Putsch collapsed when Berlin came to a standstill. The Ruhr strike of 1923 was called off by Streseman and payment of reparations began. However due to the Dawes Plan of 1924, Germany no longer had to make the reparations as the payments were reduced by the Young Plan of 1929. Gustav Stresemann, the politician who led the government after 1924 also became the Chancellor in the month of August 1923. Stresemann opposed the Weimar Republic initially, however when it was realized that the alternative was anarchy, he changed. The worthless and old Marks were called and burned by Streseman. The new Rentenmark which was worth three thousand million old marks were used to replace them. The Locarno Treaty was signed by Stresemann in 1925 in which he agreed to the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Germany was allowed joining the League of Nations in 1926 after which it became a world power once again. In April 1924, the French left Ruhr after Stresemann’s persuasion. From America, Germany had borrowed twenty five thousand million gold marks for building factories, railways and roads which led to the booming of the economy and cultural life and prosperity. To make life better for the people of the working class, reforms were introduced by Stresemann. Three million new houses were constructed. A great coalition having moderate pro-democracy parties was arranged by Stresemann and by uniting together the criticism from extremist parties was resisted. The proportional representation effect was thus overcome by Stresemann. To pass the required laws, the government had adequate Reichstag members for support. Weaknesses Of The Weimar Republic When economic prosperity was regained, there was a collapse of the Stresemann organized Great Coalition. Arguments between the moderate democracy parties began again. To resist any kind of challenge from the extremist parties, they wouldn’t be very strong enough, in case there was one. The Weimar Republic depended on prosperity and success in the economy which was based purely on loans from America. If in case the American economy would get undermined then there would be great danger for the Weimar Republic. For the Weimar Republic, the 1929 Wall Street collapse proved to be a great disaster. The good times did not help in winning over the extremist politicians. The Republic was hated still by nationalists of the right wing as the ‘November Criminals’. The right wing nationalists waited for a situation to come where they could attach the Weimar Republic. The Munich Putsch The Munich Putsch is better known as the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. The Putsch was an attempt made by Hitler to overthrow the Ebert run Weimar government. In place of that government he wanted to establish a nationalist right wing. President Ebert and Gustav Stresemann the Chancellor made a decision that Germany would work with the French after the hyperinflation. A passive resistance was called for by both in the Ruhr Valley. According to Stresemann, Germany had to pay the reparations according to the demands of the Treaty of Versailles. The German nationalists felt that this was kind of admitting guilt to initiate the First World War which brought along with it the reparation punishment. Stresemann and Ebert were of the opinion that the war started due to the guilt of Germany and they could not tolerate this. When Hitler tried attempting to exploit the 1923 crisis, the Munich Putsch, grew. In the initial stages Hitler got his storm-troopers prepared so that they would be helpful in the Bavarian rebellion. Seisser, Lossow and Kahrl, the Bavarian leaders threatened that they would call off the action. To keep the storm-troopers waiting was difficult, which Hitler soon realized. Accordingly he took over the Beer Hall on the 8th November 1923 night and took a promise from Seisser, Lossow and Kahr that they would provide him with support. On 9th November 1923 planning of the triumphal march was done. However, the Nazis were dispersed by the police. The Munich Putsch had failed after which followed a trial. Hitler became a hero of the nation after the trial which in turn laid the foundation of his success in the future. The Beer Hall meeting was interrupted by Hitler on 8th November 1923. Seisser, Lossow and Kahr were forced by Hitler at gunpoint to agree that they would support him. The army headquarters were taken over by the SA excluding the telegraph office. The Jews got a lot of beating and offices of the anti Nazi Munich Post newspaper were trashed. Hitler released Kahr and called in the army reinforcements and the police. On 9th November the Nazis took a march to Munich. In Residenzstrasse, the police stopped them as a result of which killing of 16 Nazis took place. Ludendorff the Nazi leader was arrested. Hitler tried to hide and then flee but two days later he was arrested and for treason he was put on a trial. He was in prison for nine months and not allowed to speak in public. Hitler took the opportunity of his trial as a means for publicity and gave long speeches. Hitler was not known as a Bavarian politician, before the Beer Hall Putsch, but became a hero of the national right wing. The judge too was in agreement with Hitler and accordingly was give a short sentence in prison. The Mein Kampf was written by Hitler when he was in prison. He wrote about his beliefs and the story of his life. More than a million copies of the book were sold which made him Weimar’s right wing opponent leader. Hitler used a strategy to gain power. He did not want to adopt rebellion to gain power. Instead, he initiated a new strategy. Hitler got elected so that he could gain power.	<urn:uuid:ad9f130b-39f6-41e3-b496-e52f974238d0>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.academicdestressor.com/germany-after-world-war-i/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00423.warc.gz	en	0.988048	5,314	4.15625	4	[ -0.1662619411945343, 0.30857571959495544, 0.09119205176830292, -0.1910225749015808, 0.08989638090133667, 0.584555983543396, -0.19559818506240845, 0.10452305525541306, -0.25943249464035034, -0.20411399006843567, 0.32540619373321533, -0.03595280274748802, 0.05559118092060089, 0.3856644034385...	5	When And Why Was The Weimar Government Set Up In Germany? Setting up of the Weimar Republic in Germany happened in the year 1919. Military autocracy prevailed in Germany’ government before 1914 but parliamentary democracy prevailed after the year 1919. The navy in Germany mutinied in 1918 during the end of October. All throughout Germany, rebellion spread out and it decided to drop out of the First World War in November. In November 1918, the German Revolution took place and the republic emerged following the war. In Weimar, convention of a national assembly took place in 1919. For the German Reich, a new constitution was written in 1919 and the same year, it was adopted. Kaiser Wilhelm II was thrown out of Germany after the World War I ended. After abdicating, Kaiser Wilhelm II fled Germany leading to a declaration of a new republic. For a new Reichstag, elections were held in January 1919 and a new government was agreed upon in Weimar town. The federal republic was given the name ‘Weimar Republic’ by the historians. An imperial form of government was replaced in Germany. Assembly of the constitution took place at Weimar, after which the republic was named. The new republic’s elected President was Freidrich Ebert. Not only was a new government formed in Germany, it was assured, by the Allies that it had got a government of a different kind. Military autocracy was lost and parliamentary democracy came into existence after 1919. By 1930 the liberal democracy period lapsed. Emergency powers of the dictatorial type were assumed by Hindenburg leading to the ascent of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Party in 1933. In February and March, the Nazi government took legal measures known as power seizure. It indicated that the government was able to legislate as opposed to the constitution. Since the constitution was not repealed formally, the Weimar Republic continued till 1945. However during the early period of rule, Nazis took up measures thus rendering the constitution irrelevent. The Weimar Republic ended by 1933, resulting in the beginning of the Third Reich by Adolf Hitler. The government was a coalition, theoretically comprising a number of political parties. However it found it difficult to assert authority as it was beset from different sides. It was in deep trouble from the very beginning. Many problems were faced by the Weimar Republic during its 14 years like troubled relationships with the nations which won the World War I, political extremists and hyperinflation. The period from 1919 to 1933 was termed as the Weimar Republic by the people. Germany was divided into nineteen states under the constitution of the Weimar Republic. People of Germany had the right to vote and elect the President, and members of the Parliament and of the Reichstag in Germany. Cabinet members in a wide assortment and a chancellor were appointed by the President. The Weimar Constitution was considered a brilliant document as noted by a number of historians. True democracy prevailed under the Weimar Republic in Germany. Who Were The Freikorps And The Sparticists When Germany had experienced its Revolution, after the Armistice in November, a particular radical socialist group attained fame. The group got its name after the Spartacus who was responsible for leading a revolt by the slaves in 73 BC against the Romans. This group called the Sparticists was led by Karl Liebnecht and Rosa Luxemburg and formed during the summer of the year 1915. Liebnecht and Luxemburg both had left the SDP due to support given by the party in the First World War to Germany. Rosa Luxemburg determined the Sparticists political philosophy. While Rosa Luxemburg was serving a sentence in Germany in a prison, she wrote the ‘Junius Pamphlet’. The German Communist Party was founded by Liebnecht and Luxemburg and some of the Sparticists in December 1918. On Lenin also, he had also written many pamphlets about how he led the Russian Revolution which was valuable to Russia. Many of the Sparticists were the civilians while the Freikorps were armed and organized in a better way. The Freikorps had military background too. It was doubtful who would win. In the political party the Sparticists gradually grew into a bonafide minority by the year 1928. After the World War I ended, certain nationalists in the right wing in Weimar, Germany adopted the name called Freikorps. This name has also been previously associated with political and social dislocation which had existed in Weimar Germany during the first few years. It was a group sharing similar objectives and beliefs. The Freikorps members were anti socialist, nationalistic and conservative. They had a lot of experience in the military and of fighting during the World War I. They were not of the belief that in the World War I, military defeat was suffered by Germany. The Nazi Party had taken up the legend - ‘stab-in-the-back’ about which the supporters of Freikorps were very vocal. In 1918-1919 the German Revolution was put down by them thus crushing down the Bavarian Soviet Republic in the month of May 1919. To overthrow the government of Ebert, an effort was made by its unit called Ehrhardt Brigade at Berlin. The Ebert government then fled to Stuttgart and Wolfgang Kapp was put into governmental charge by Ehrdardt. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnicht the leading communists were also murdered by the Freikorps members. The Spartacists were also attacked by the Friekorps. Token sentences were given to the men who had had been responsible for killing Luxemburg. For attempting manslaughter and hitting Luxemburg with the butt of his rifle, two years of imprisonment were given to Otto Runge. Lieutenant Kurt Vogel was given imprisonment of four year as he failed to report about a corpse. In 1920 the Freikorps was disbanded officially. However, many of its members joined the Nazi Party and became original enforcers of the party. The Kapp Putsch In March 1920, the Kapp Putsch took place in Weimar Germany. A journalist from the right wing, Wolfgang Kapp opposed everyone with the belief that Friedrich Ebert had stood for the nation after the humiliation experienced at the Treaty of Versailles. The new government of Weimar was directly threatened by the Kapp Putsch. General Luttwitz assisted Kapp. General Luttwitz received assistance from a group of Freikorps members. Berlin was seized by Luttwitz on March 13, 1920 with a proclamation that the centre nationalist government’s new right was being established. The chancellor of the nationalist government was Kapp. Ebert was not able to impose his will on this and hence did not have any immediate response. Ebert left the capital the second time. This undermined his status and a lot of people emphasized that his position in Germany was not too strong. In Dresden, the reconvention of the government took place and Ebert called for a general strike. This was the only card he could play. The movement called by all those who supported Luttwitz and Kapp, got paralyzed due to the strike. General Erich Luderndorff was the foremost military officer who supported Kapp. However Luderndorff’s lead was not followed by the German Army’s main officer corps. It was thought that the main officer corps had the feeling of support for the president as he had allowed them a free hand in the year 1919 to deal with the Sparticists / Communists. Hence it was not possible to consider Ebert as anti-military. No effort was taken by the military to prevent the Kapp Putsch and provide Ebert with active support. Ebert called for a general strike making it impossible for the Kapp supporters to move around. The Putsch failed due to the paralysis caused by the general strike. On March 17th, both Luttwitz and Kapp fled from Berlin. The Kapp Putsch prevailed for 5 days and has been considered as very important. It was difficult for the government to enforce any kind of authority on its own capital even. It was not able to put down any challenge to the concerned authority too. Ebert’s authority could be re-established only by the huge power of a general strike. The general strike was a success indicating that the citizens of Berlin were not in agreement to support the Ebert led government, instead of the right wing government which Kapp led. The people of Berlin fully supported Ebert. As far as this is concerned, it is counter argued that for the Berliners, Ebert was not at all relevant. All that the people wanted was peace to prevail in the capital after they had experienced the rebellion by the Communists/Sparticists in the year 1919. In comparison to political beliefs, it was more important for them to maintain order and peace. All those who had fought against Luttwitz and Kapp became supporters of the fledgling Nazi Party in the future. The swastika sign was also a sign put on the helmets of the supporters for the purpose of identification by one of Luttwitz’s main fighting force, the Erhardt Brigade. This sign helped in identifying who the supporters were. Who Were The November Criminals And Why Were They Called So Mutiny of the High Seas Fleet followed Germany’s final offensive that had failed. An armistice was agreed upon by the General Staff and on November 11, 1918, the fighting ended. This was after the General Staff was forced to seek peace by increasing desertions, rebellion from the navy, shortages of food and ammunition and the increasing supplies and American troops. The Social Democratic, Catholic Centre and Democratic Party leaders were the negotiators of the armistice. These parties were bestowed with the label of November Criminals by the Germans. The Germans had the feeling that these men had betrayed Germany and were also responsible for stopping the war which they felt could be still won by Germany. Matthias Erzberger, Walter Rathenau and Phillip Scheidemann were the men who did the negotiations since the German Generals kept on pleading with them for gaining an armistice. There was a fear that the German Army was falling short of food and ammunitions and the fear of falling apart existed. Matthias Erzberger, Walter Rathenau and Phillip Scheidemann would be considered as November Criminals always by the Weimar Republic enemies. They would be termed as criminals, even if they helped in creating and leading the Weimar Republic during its early years. These negotiators were not too willing to do the negotiations but they felt that they had to do it since acceding to the request of the Generals was their patriotic duty. Despite following requests of the Generals, their enemies marked them for murder as November criminals. The very Generals who had pressured them in carrying out the negotiations would be repudiating them. Reporting about the actual progress made during the World War I was censored, besides which all the combats that took place happened outside Germany. Due to this the people of Germany were not at all prepared for defeat or surrender. With the defeat of Germany, the war had ended. In November 1918, the German Generals, faced with starvation at the home front, blockade by the British and fierce resistance from the French and British armies, political unrest and entrance of the US army, naval mutiny, defeat in the battlefields and a ruined economy finally requested for armistice negotiations with the Allies. As per the armistice terms, the army in Germany was allowed to remain intact and not admit surrendering. There were misgivings from John J Pershing the US General that it would have been better off if defeat was accepted by the German Generals to clear out any doubts. However the British and French were convinced that there would be no threat from Germany again. Germany’ future would be hugely impacted with the failure of forcing the General Staff of Germany to admit defeat. Later on the army was reduced in size but its impact would be sensed as a political force, as it was not dedicated to democracy but to German nationalism, after the war. It was expected that the theory called ‘Stab in the Back’ would gain popularity amongst the Germans who were finding it difficult to swallow defeat. This idea became an obsession with Hitler especially about blaming the Marxists and Jews in Germany for undermining effort during the war. For many others and Adolf Hitler, the politicians in Germany who had signed the November 11, 1918, Armistice, would be termed as ‘November Criminals’. Hyperinflation In Germany Germany had been a flourishing country before the World War I. It was a world leader in machinery, chemicals and optics, industries were expanding. The currency was gold-backed. In 1914, the Italian Iira, the German Mark, the French Frank and the British Shilling were all of equal value with an exchange value of 4 to 5 per dollar. However during hyperinflation in Germany the rate of exchange between the German Mark and the dollar was one trillion Marks to one dollar. It was difficult to purchase a newspaper even with a wheelbarrow filled with money. This financial tornado took the Germans by surprise. In 1914, the German Mark’s gold backing was abandoned by the country. The expectations were that the war would be short. Between the year 1914 and 1919 the prices in Germany almost doubled. The country lost the war after 4 disastrous years. Reparation payments had to be made in gold-backed Mark under the Treaty of Versailles. Besides this it was also to lose a part of Ruhr production and Upper Silesia. In other words, political fragility existed in Germany. Habits of the bourgeois were quite strong. The ordinary people expected that things would get better again, however in 1922 during the five months the prices doubled again after the doubling from 1914 to 1919. Everyone complained about the high living costs. Factory workers asked for higher wages while civil servants and professors too complained of being squeezed with hyperinflation. The able, moderate foreign minister, Walter Rathenau was assassinated by fanatics of the right wing on June 24, 1922. Faith of the German people got shattered when a glamorous, wealthy, popular and charismatic figure like Walter was shot in a society that followed the law. They wanted to believe that things would be fine in future. Walter‘s assassination was a trauma to the whole nation. The Mark was getting worth less and less everyday due to which the sellers were holding back. The amount of currency demanded was greater as the prices had gone up. Demands were responded well to by the German Central Bank. However, authorities that were ruling failed to see if anything had gone wrong. It was also reported by a leading financial newspaper that the money in circulation was not very high. Even the Reichsbank President, Dr. Rudolf Havenstein mentioned to an economics professor that he would purchase the new suit he needed, only when the prices would come down. After the assassination of the foreign minister, the government had become fragile and shaky. For enforcing demands for the reparations, an army was sent into Ruhr by the revengeful French. The Germans were not able to resist this. Unemployment was the most feared thing for the German people as compared to inflation. Communists put in efforts to take over, in 1919 so that they would get another chance due to the prevailing unemployment. Inflation was condoned well by top industrial combines in Germany like Stinnes, Krupp, Farben and Thyssen. The inflation ensured that everyone continued to work. Who Was Gustav Stresemann And What Made Him A Successful Leader Gustav Stresemann, the foreign minister of Germany was born in a middle class family in the year 1878 and died on October 3, 1929. He was described as a strong advocate of peace by a noted newspaper, The New York Times. Stresemann had strived hard to remove the bitterness of the World War I. Over a period of time, a lot of praises were showered on him. He had bided his time till Germany would get stronger to challenge powers on the western side. At school he was moderately successful, then developed liberal view and got himself enrolled at the University of Berlin. Via a membership in the National Liberal party, he pursued interests in politics and business from 1901 to 1914. Between nationalism and liberalism he saw no conflict at all. In 1907 for the first time he was elected to Reichstag and displayed organizational skills, energy and ability to speak as a successful politician. He advocated a domestic reform and expansionist foreign policy during the World War I. According to him, Germany’s greatest enemy was Britain which wanted to rob it of its proper role the globe over. To secure the interests of advancing sea power in Germany, he wanted to secure Belgium. He also had an eye on Russia’s Baltic provinces and had no restrictions for submarine warfare. During the last few days of the World War I, he reluctantly and painfully realized that it was unlikely that Germany would win. He found that his very own National Liberal party failed to stand together. The dictated Treaty of Versailles was rejected by him just like the other Germans as he felt it was not morally binding. For Germany the period from 1919 to 1923 was quite traumatic. It was a period when Stresemann’s outlook developed to the European statesman of 1925 – 29 from a wartime annexationist. The fear of revolution and Bolshevism was coupled with the shock of getting defeated. A huge sum had to be paid as reparations to the allies over a period of 42 years. Ruhr was occupied by France in January 1923 for enforcing the payments for reparations due to which the vital coal fields were cut off from the Germans. They refused to work for the French after which followed, rampant inflation. During this time Stresemann formed the German People’s party with those with interests in business, a collection of old National Liberal party members and the DVP. He embraced the republic during the 4 years and possessed a strong tendency of a monarchist and with a parliamentary democracy promise saw it as the only alternative to the prevailing chaos, dictatorship, revolution and the civil war. The political negotiations he indulged in helped him in becoming the Chancellor and foreign minister in August 1923 at the age of 45. He was chancellor for just three months and foreign minister till his death. Preventing Germany’s breakup was his main concern from the period 1923 to 1924. He wanted a revision in the peace treaty in the East which he worked on till the end as he felt this was the only option Germany had. Stresemann was a master in parliamentary games. Strength And Weaknesses Of The Stresemann Years In Weimar Germany The Weimar Republic was able to survive the crisis of 1919 to 1923 by using the Freikorps units and the right wing army. These were used for crushing the Communists. For crushing the Kapp Putsch, help was sought from the left wing unions. Cultural flowering was experienced in Germany due the period of prosperity which was led by the Dawes Plan – American money and Gustav Stresemann. Strengths Of The Weimar Republic It seemed that the Weimar Republic would collapse, however it managed to survive or recover during the period 1919 to 1929. The republic tried to use various methods to ensure survival. Bands of Freikorps were used by Gustav Noske the SPD Defense Minister, against the Communists. The bands of Freikorps were right winged and took great joy in putting down the 1919 – 1920 revolts of the Communists. The von Seeckt led army was right winged which also enjoyed putting down the revolts of 1923 by the Communists. Since the Kapp Putsch was also right winged, the Army and Freikorps did not agree to assist the government. An appeal was given by Ebert to the left winged Berlin workers who had gone on strike. The Kapp Putsch collapsed when Berlin came to a standstill. The Ruhr strike of 1923 was called off by Streseman and payment of reparations began. However due to the Dawes Plan of 1924, Germany no longer had to make the reparations as the payments were reduced by the Young Plan of 1929. Gustav Stresemann, the politician who led the government after 1924 also became the Chancellor in the month of August 1923. Stresemann opposed the Weimar Republic initially, however when it was realized that the alternative was anarchy, he changed. The worthless and old Marks were called and burned by Streseman. The new Rentenmark which was worth three thousand million old marks were used to replace them. The Locarno Treaty was signed by Stresemann in 1925 in which he agreed to the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Germany was allowed joining the League of Nations in 1926 after which it became a world power once again. In April 1924, the French left Ruhr after Stresemann’s persuasion. From America, Germany had borrowed twenty five thousand million gold marks for building factories, railways and roads which led to the booming of the economy and cultural life and prosperity. To make life better for the people of the working class, reforms were introduced by Stresemann. Three million new houses were constructed. A great coalition having moderate pro-democracy parties was arranged by Stresemann and by uniting together the criticism from extremist parties was resisted. The proportional representation effect was thus overcome by Stresemann. To pass the required laws, the government had adequate Reichstag members for support. Weaknesses Of The Weimar Republic When economic prosperity was regained, there was a collapse of the Stresemann organized Great Coalition. Arguments between the moderate democracy parties began again. To resist any kind of challenge from the extremist parties, they wouldn’t be very strong enough, in case there was one. The Weimar Republic depended on prosperity and success in the economy which was based purely on loans from America. If in case the American economy would get undermined then there would be great danger for the Weimar Republic. For the Weimar Republic, the 1929 Wall Street collapse proved to be a great disaster. The good times did not help in winning over the extremist politicians. The Republic was hated still by nationalists of the right wing as the ‘November Criminals’. The right wing nationalists waited for a situation to come where they could attach the Weimar Republic. The Munich Putsch The Munich Putsch is better known as the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. The Putsch was an attempt made by Hitler to overthrow the Ebert run Weimar government. In place of that government he wanted to establish a nationalist right wing. President Ebert and Gustav Stresemann the Chancellor made a decision that Germany would work with the French after the hyperinflation. A passive resistance was called for by both in the Ruhr Valley. According to Stresemann, Germany had to pay the reparations according to the demands of the Treaty of Versailles. The German nationalists felt that this was kind of admitting guilt to initiate the First World War which brought along with it the reparation punishment. Stresemann and Ebert were of the opinion that the war started due to the guilt of Germany and they could not tolerate this. When Hitler tried attempting to exploit the 1923 crisis, the Munich Putsch, grew. In the initial stages Hitler got his storm-troopers prepared so that they would be helpful in the Bavarian rebellion. Seisser, Lossow and Kahrl, the Bavarian leaders threatened that they would call off the action. To keep the storm-troopers waiting was difficult, which Hitler soon realized. Accordingly he took over the Beer Hall on the 8th November 1923 night and took a promise from Seisser, Lossow and Kahr that they would provide him with support. On 9th November 1923 planning of the triumphal march was done. However, the Nazis were dispersed by the police. The Munich Putsch had failed after which followed a trial. Hitler became a hero of the nation after the trial which in turn laid the foundation of his success in the future. The Beer Hall meeting was interrupted by Hitler on 8th November 1923. Seisser, Lossow and Kahr were forced by Hitler at gunpoint to agree that they would support him. The army headquarters were taken over by the SA excluding the telegraph office. The Jews got a lot of beating and offices of the anti Nazi Munich Post newspaper were trashed. Hitler released Kahr and called in the army reinforcements and the police. On 9th November the Nazis took a march to Munich. In Residenzstrasse, the police stopped them as a result of which killing of 16 Nazis took place. Ludendorff the Nazi leader was arrested. Hitler tried to hide and then flee but two days later he was arrested and for treason he was put on a trial. He was in prison for nine months and not allowed to speak in public. Hitler took the opportunity of his trial as a means for publicity and gave long speeches. Hitler was not known as a Bavarian politician, before the Beer Hall Putsch, but became a hero of the national right wing. The judge too was in agreement with Hitler and accordingly was give a short sentence in prison. The Mein Kampf was written by Hitler when he was in prison. He wrote about his beliefs and the story of his life. More than a million copies of the book were sold which made him Weimar’s right wing opponent leader. Hitler used a strategy to gain power. He did not want to adopt rebellion to gain power. Instead, he initiated a new strategy. Hitler got elected so that he could gain power.	5,527	ENGLISH	1
As World War I was wrapping up, and the Ottoman Empire was collapsing, the question of what to do with all that soon-to-be-former Ottoman land loomed large. Most Ottoman territory outside of Anatolia was predominantly Arab, and the 1916-1918 Arab Revolt had done much to advance British war aims in the Middle East, so the Arabs–or, rather, one particular Arab, Sharif-turned-King Hussein of Mecca (d. 1931)–naturally expected that those lands would become independent under his control. After all, Hussein’s negotiations with Britain’s High Commissioner for Egypt, Henry McMahon, over whether or not to lead an Arab revolt in the first place had made it very clear that he expected all Arab lands to become independent after the war. But while those negotiations concluded with Hussein agreeing to lead the revolt, there were a few loose ends that wound up becoming big problems once the Ottomans had been defeated. For one thing, Hussein and the Brits seem to have held different interpretations as to which lands, precisely, could be called “Arab.” For another, France had something to say about the disposition of the former Ottoman Empire too. Read the rest at my new home, Foreign Exchanges!	<urn:uuid:4ea445ba-9f44-4b10-ae7d-549f5b8cd9d0>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://attwiw.com/2016/01/03/today-in-middle-east-history-the-faysal-weizmann-agreement-1919/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594705.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119180644-20200119204644-00008.warc.gz	en	0.983421	257	3.3125	3	[ -0.4501672685146332, 0.23072533309459686, 0.4013272523880005, -0.10373897105455399, -0.173799067735672, -0.24008895456790924, -0.12513776123523712, 0.16782505810260773, 0.2132844626903534, 0.23794005811214447, 0.06656518578529358, -0.5382262468338013, -0.09505593031644821, 0.18688195943832...	6	As World War I was wrapping up, and the Ottoman Empire was collapsing, the question of what to do with all that soon-to-be-former Ottoman land loomed large. Most Ottoman territory outside of Anatolia was predominantly Arab, and the 1916-1918 Arab Revolt had done much to advance British war aims in the Middle East, so the Arabs–or, rather, one particular Arab, Sharif-turned-King Hussein of Mecca (d. 1931)–naturally expected that those lands would become independent under his control. After all, Hussein’s negotiations with Britain’s High Commissioner for Egypt, Henry McMahon, over whether or not to lead an Arab revolt in the first place had made it very clear that he expected all Arab lands to become independent after the war. But while those negotiations concluded with Hussein agreeing to lead the revolt, there were a few loose ends that wound up becoming big problems once the Ottomans had been defeated. For one thing, Hussein and the Brits seem to have held different interpretations as to which lands, precisely, could be called “Arab.” For another, France had something to say about the disposition of the former Ottoman Empire too. Read the rest at my new home, Foreign Exchanges!	259	ENGLISH	1

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.